Consenting to counter-normative sexual acts: Differential effects of consent on anger and disgust as a function of transgressor or consenter

From impure to harmful: Asymmetric expectations about immoral agents

“…For brevity, wrongness measures for all studies are reported in Table S1, and internal vs. external attribution measures for Studies 1-2 are reported in Table S2. Three separate within-subjects ANOVAs of likelihood judgments are reported for each agent type: harmful, impure-sexual, 1 In all studies, we tested ancillary hypotheses building on earlier work of the authors (e.g., Russell & Piazza, 2015), regarding the emotional reactions elicited by harmful versus impure agents, and inferences about the motives and character of these agents. These measures were not the focus of the present paper and will be summarized only briefly here.…”

“…Another possibility is that differences in people's causal attributions for impure versus harmful acts may contribute to the expectancy asymmetry. As mentioned in the Introduction, past research has shown that harmful acts are generally thought to stem from both internal and external causes, while impure acts are thought to be largely internally generated Russell & Piazza, 2015). Indeed, in Studies 1-2 (see Table S2 in Supplemental materials), we found that the impure acts (especially sexually impure acts) were largely attributed to internal causes, whereas harmful acts were attributed either more to external than internal causes, or equally to each.…”

“…By contrast, judgments of impure acts tend to be less affected by contextual factors, including the intentions of the agent (Chakroff, Dungan, & Young, 2013;Russell & Giner-Sorolla, 2011a;Young & Saxe, 2011) and the reasons and external circumstances leading to the act (Piazza, Russell, & Sousa, 2013;Russell & Giner-Sorolla, 2011b, 2011c. While harmful acts are often thought to be motivated by a combination of internal and external forces, impure acts are more likely to be attributed to causes internal to the agent rather than situational forces Russell & Piazza, 2015).…”

“…Second, we did not explicitly specify whether recipients of sexual-impure acts gave his or her consent. Since consensual sexual acts are often seen as permissible (Russell & Piazza, 2015), future work should examine whether agents who commit impure acts with the consent of the recipient are just as likely to be judged as harmful as those who act without consent.…”

Emotional Categorization of the International Affective Picture System in a Colombian Sample

“…However, studies in evolutionary psychology suggest that, despite these similarities, different emotions, such as anger, disgust, and fear, have specific evolutionary functions, entail specific behavioural consequences, exclusive appraisals, and unique facial expressions (Darwin, 1872;Ekman, 2003). Similarly, research in judgment and decision making reflects the specificities of qualitatively distinct emotions, suggesting that different emotions have different consequences in moral judgment (Cameron, Payne, & Doris, 2013;Landy & Goodwin, 2015;Russell & Giner-Sorolla, 2011;Russell & Piazza, 2015;Russell, Piazza, & Giner-Sorolla, 2013;Ugazio, Lamm, & Singer, 2012) and financial decision making (DeSteno, Li, Dickens, & Lerner, 2014;Han, Lerner, & Zeckhauser, 2012;Lerner et al, 2004;Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, & Fischhoff, 2003). Taken as a whole, these studies strengthen the importance of a discrete emotion model in research in judgment and decision making.…”