I appreciate your effort: Asymmetric effects of actors' exertion on observers' consequentialist versus deontological judgments

Robinson, Jeffrey S.; Page‐Gould, Elizabeth; Plaks, Jason E.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.005

Cited by 25 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some participants may have interpreted his indecisiveness as signalling a lack of moral conviction; whereas, some participants may have interpreted his indecisiveness as a marker of reflection and lack of impulsivity. Previous research has provided evidence of participants rewarding an actor for taking his time before deciding on a course of action (e.g., Robinson et al, 2017). It is possible that in the vignette, the individual may have been perceived to be thoughtfully deliberating when possibly Christian, lacking moral conviction when possibly atheist, and indecisive when possibly agnostic.…”

Section: Immoralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

To believe or not to believe: Stereotypes about agnostics.

Bergstrom¹,

Plaks²,

Chasteen³

2022

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated which stereotypes agnostics share with atheists, and which stereotypes are unique to each group. In Study 1, participants reported stereotypes that they believed society held about agnostics, atheists, Christians, and Muslims. Common stereotypes for agnostics were indecisive and questioning, but for atheists were immoral and intolerant. In Study 2, participants rated how representative 10 key traits from Study 1 were of agnostics, atheists, and four religious groups. Results revealed that agnostics were stereotyped less negatively than atheists. In Study 3, participants had to judge whether a target's actions, such as being immoral, morally indecisive, or indecisive in general were representative of an agnostic/atheist/Christian/Muslim. Inconsistent with Studies 1 and 2, no significant differences were found for perceptions of agnostics versus atheists. Findings from Studies 1-2 suggest that nonreligious individuals are sometimes viewed as a heterogeneous group, but future research must determine when stereotypes converge and diverge.

show abstract

Section: Immoralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

To believe or not to believe: Stereotypes about agnostics.

Bergstrom¹,

Plaks²,

Chasteen³

2022

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The theoretical starting point of this paper is the person-centered approach to moral judgment [13][14][15][16][17], which argues that people, when making moral judgments, are intuitive virtue ethicists and care more about the character of individuals (e.g. is Jimmy a good or bad person?…”

Section: Person-centered Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Type and amount of help as predictors for impression of helpers

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impression of helpers can vary as a function of the magnitude of helping (amount of help) and of situational and motivational aspects (type of help). Over three studies conducted in Sweden and the US, we manipulated both the amount and the type of help in ten diverse vignettes and measured participants’ impressions of the described helpers. Impressions were almost unaffected when increasing the amount of help by 500%, but clearly affected by several type of help-manipulations. Particularly, helpers were less positively evaluated if they had mixed motives for helping, did not experience intense emotions or empathy, or if helping involved no personal sacrifice. In line with the person-centered theory of moral judgment, people seem to form impressions of helpers primarily based on the presumed underlying processes and motives of prosociality rather than its consequences.

show abstract

“…In recent years, however, researchers have reported data that do not comport with the dual process model. For example, some researchers have found nonemotional pathways to the deontological option (e.g., Gamez-Djokic & Molden, 2016; Körner & Volk, 2014; see also Robinson, Page-Gould, & Plaks, 2017), while others have found emotional pathways to the consequentialist option (e.g., Baron, 2011; Moore, Stevens, & Conway, 2011; Robinson, Joel, & Plaks, 2015). Recent evidence suggest that associations between emotion and consequentialism emerge when the diffuse concept of “emotion” is subdivided into discrete emotional states such as sadness (Robinson, Forbes, & Plaks, 2017) and social anxiety (Robinson et al, 2015).…”

Section: Beyond “Emotion Versus Reason”mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disgust and Deontology: Trait Sensitivity to Contamination Promotes a Preference for Order, Hierarchy, and Rule-Based Moral Judgment

Robinson

Plaks

2017

Social Psychological and Personality Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of moral judgment have linked generalized emotionality with deontological moral judgment. The evidence, however, is mixed. Other research has linked the specific emotion of disgust with generalized moral condemnation. Here too, the evidence is mixed. We suggest that a synthesis of these two literatures points to one specific emotion (disgust) that reliably predicts one specific type of moral judgment (deontological). In all three studies, we found that trait disgust sensitivity predicted more extreme deontological judgment. In Study 3, with deontological endorsement and consequentialist endorsement operationalized as independent constructs, we found that disgust was positively associated with deontological endorsement but was unrelated to consequentialist endorsement. Across studies, the disgust–deontology link was mediated by individual difference variables related to preference for order (right-wing authoritarianism and intolerance for ambiguity). These data suggest a more precise model of emotion and moral judgment that identifies specific emotions, specific types of moral judgment, and specific motivational pathways.

show abstract

I appreciate your effort: Asymmetric effects of actors' exertion on observers' consequentialist versus deontological judgments

Cited by 25 publications

References 35 publications

To believe or not to believe: Stereotypes about agnostics.

To believe or not to believe: Stereotypes about agnostics.

Type and amount of help as predictors for impression of helpers

Disgust and Deontology: Trait Sensitivity to Contamination Promotes a Preference for Order, Hierarchy, and Rule-Based Moral Judgment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About