Testing the prosocial effectiveness of the prototypical moral emotions: Elevation increases benevolent behaviors and outrage increases justice behaviors

Vyver, Julie Van de; Abrams, Dominic

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.12.005

Cited by 103 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In such cases, it was found that participants were willing to both compensate the victim and punish the perpetrator, but most participants seemed to prefer compensatory responses to injustice (e.g. Chavez & Bicchieri, 2013;Lotz et al, 2011;Van de Vyver & Abrams, 2015).…”

Section: Methodological and Situational Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, many of these studies were not meant to only examine people's preference for compensation or punishment in the case of injustice. Rather, the researchers were mostly interested in people's response to injustice as a consequence of their emotional state, such as anger/moral outrage (Lotz et al, 2011;Van de Vyver & Abrams, 2015;Van Doorn et al, 2018b), or characteristics, such as empathic concern (Leliveld et al, 2012). Below, some of the most important studies that compared compensatory and punitive responses to injustice are explained.…”

Section: Experimental Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multiple studies show that observers are just as (or even more) likely to choose compensatory as punitive responses to injustice when given both options (e.g. Leliveld, Van Dijk, & Van Beest, 2012;Lotz, Okimoto, Schlösser, & Fetchenhauer, 2011;Van de Vyver & Abrams, 2015;Van Doorn et al, 2014;Van Doorn, Breugelmans, Zeelenberg, Berger, & Okimoto, 2018b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Third-party responses to injustice: a review on the preference for compensation

Doorn

Brouwers

2017

Crime Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People are often confronted with injustice that is done to others. In such cases, observers (i.e. third-parties) of injustice can restore justice by punishing the perpetrator, as shown by a vast amount of research. However, this focus on punishment has led to the neglect of another behavioural option: compensation of the victim. The current review focuses on this latter behavioural option. More specifically, it is argued that third-parties are more compensation-oriented than previous literature appears to demonstrate. To support this argument, previous research is discussed and the factors that might explain observers' preference for compensation are outlined. To conclude, suggestions for future research are presented.

show abstract

Section: Methodological and Situational Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Third-party responses to injustice: a review on the preference for compensation

Doorn

Brouwers

2017

Crime Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This perceived unfairness with respect to how others are treated is termed moral outrage and is linked to prosocial engagement [37]. Moral outrage motivates people to want to effect prosocial change to maintain their self-image as a good person and/or change the social group or society for the better [38][39][40]. It has been argued that such moral outrage may motivate some people to donate blood as they perceive an inequality/unfairness in a system wherein the entire population is able to receive blood from the donations of a small minority [1, 5].…”

Section: Moral Outragementioning

confidence: 99%

Blood donor behaviour, motivations and the need for a systematic cross‐cultural perspective: the example of moral outrage and health‐ and non‐health‐based philanthropy across seven countries

Ferguson

Dorner

Masser

et al. 2018

ISBT Science Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Blood donation is a prosocial altruistic act that is motived by the mechanisms that underlie altruism (e.g. warm-glow, reciprocity, fairness/trust). Because there is consistent evidence that altruism and its mechanisms show cross-cultural variability, in the present paper we make the case for a cross-cultural perspective in blood donor research. MethodsWe analyse a subset of variables from a larger study, with samples drawn from seven countries (England, Malta, the Netherlands, Australia, the USA, Hungary, Italy: average N per country = 282). This subset of variables focuses on health (organ donor registration) and non-health (volunteering, donating money) philanthropy, family traditions of helping and moral outrage as predictors of blood donor status.Results We show two cross-cultural universals: (1) organ donor registration in opt-in countries is positively associated with blood donor status and (2) nonhealth philanthropy is generally unrelated to blood donor status. We also show two country-specific effects: (1) a family tradition for helping is associated with blood donor status in Italy only and (2) moral outrage is a predictor only in the USA. ConclusionsWe contend that these findings provide proof of principle why a cross-cultural perspective on blood donor behaviour is needed.

show abstract

“…Moral outrage, arising when a person perceives that a moral standard of fairness or justice has been violated, uniquely leads to such joint action [45] through political action and actual justice-restoring behavior [46].…”

Section: Collective Emotions and Intergroup Helpingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intergroup helping relations

Nadler

2016

Current Opinion in Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing the prosocial effectiveness of the prototypical moral emotions: Elevation increases benevolent behaviors and outrage increases justice behaviors

Cited by 103 publications

References 46 publications

Third-party responses to injustice: a review on the preference for compensation

Third-party responses to injustice: a review on the preference for compensation

Blood donor behaviour, motivations and the need for a systematic cross‐cultural perspective: the example of moral outrage and health‐ and non‐health‐based philanthropy across seven countries

Intergroup helping relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About