Moral rigidity as a proximate facilitator of group cohesion and combativeness

Marie, Antoine

doi:10.1017/s0140525x1900092x

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But the finding that the positive influence of commitment on policy support was not affected by efficiency is worrisome. It indicates that those who care the most about solving a societal issue may also be the ones most likely to relate deontologically to it-the ones least concerned to proportion efforts and resources to the targeted benefit (Skitka et al 2005;Skitka 2010;Marie 2019Marie , 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentions vs. efficiency in policy evaluations

Marie¹,

Trad²,

Strickland³

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By consequentialist standards, the only thing that should matter is how successful policies are at reaching their objective, relative to their cost. Yet, across 5 online studies (N = 1515), we found that French participants regarded a policy driven by an altruistic intention but that turned out to reach its objective very poorly at a huge cost, as being more commendable than (Experiment 1-4), and as deserving equal support as (Experiment 5), a policy motivated by selfishness but that dramatically helped the issue while saving lots of money. This preference was observed whether the decision was made by a CEO or minister, and across four issues. Independent manipulation of intent and efficiency (Experiment 5) suggested that folk judgments of policies are characterized both by low sensitivity to huge differences in efficiency expressed in numerical format, and high sensitivity to actors’ intentions. Participants’ moral commitment to the issue predicted greater support for any policy that somehow contributed to help the issue, whatever its level of efficiency and the intention driving it (Experiment 5), suggesting that moralization makes people more deontological in their judgments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentions vs. efficiency in policy evaluations

Marie¹,

Trad²,

Strickland³

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Owing to a printer's error, the first paragraph of Marie's (2019) commentary on the target article by De Dreu and Gross (2019) in Behavioral and Brain Sciences was set as part of the abstract. This has been corrected online in the commentary.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%