In the right
Alexander Haslam et al.
British Journal of Social Psychology, March 2015, Pages 55–83
Abstract:
This study examines the reactions of participants in Milgram's ‘Obedience to Authority’ studies to reorient both theoretical and ethical debate. Previous discussion of these reactions has focused on whether or not participants were distressed. We provide evidence that the most salient feature of participants’ responses – and the feature most needing explanation – is not their lack of distress but their happiness at having participated. Drawing on material in Box 44 of Yale's Milgram archive we argue that this was a product of the experimenter's ability to convince participants that they were contributing to a progressive enterprise. Such evidence accords with an engaged followership model in which (1) willingness to perform unpleasant tasks is contingent upon identification with collective goals and (2) leaders cultivate identification with those goals by making them seem virtuous rather than vicious and thereby ameliorating the stress that achieving them entails. This analysis is inconsistent with Milgram's own agentic state model. Moreover, it suggests that the major ethical problem with his studies lies less in the stress that they generated for participants than in the ideologies that were promoted to ameliorate stress and justify harming others.
---------------------
Emotional Disclosure and Victim Blaming
Kent Harber, Peter Podolski & Christian Williams
Emotion, forthcoming
Abstract:
Victim blaming occurs when people are unfairly held responsible for their misfortunes. According to just world theory, witnessing another’s victimization threatens just world beliefs, which arouses distress. Victim blaming redeems just world beliefs, thereby reducing distress. However, negative emotions can also be resolved through emotional disclosure, suggesting that disclosure can prevent victim blaming. Two experiments confirmed this prediction. In Study 1 participants viewed a woman being victimized or a woman in a nonvictimizing conflict. Participants then disclosed or suppressed the emotions aroused by these scenes and 1 week later evaluated the woman they had viewed. Disclosure reduced blaming of the victim but did not affect blaming of the nonvictim. Further, the more distress participants disclosed, the less they blamed the victim. Study 2 replicated the primary results of Study 1 and also showed that (a) disclosure exclusively reduces blaming of victims; it does not moderate judgments of victimizers, and (b) the effects of disclosure on blaming applies across genders. These 2 studies confirm that victim blaming is a form of emotion management (per just world theory), and that emotional disclosure prevents blaming by supplying an alternative mode of emotion management. This research also suggests that emotional disclosure moderates social perception, in general.
---------------------
Aurelia Mok & David De Cremer
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
We propose that a focus on new money increases forgiveness of others. Three studies provided consistent support for our hypothesis. Working adults recalled an interpersonal offense by a colleague and were subsequently induced to think of either new or used banknotes. Thinking of new (vs. used) banknotes led to weaker destructive tendencies toward the offender (Study 1), more pro-relationship thinking (Study 2), and higher forgiveness (Study 3). This effect was mediated by feelings of vitality (Study 3), indicating a strength-based mechanism. We discuss implications for research on money, forgiveness, self-regulation, and organizational behavior.
---------------------
Brutality Under Cover of Ambiguity: Activating, Perpetuating, and Deactivating Covert Retributivism
Katrina Fincher & Philip Tetlock
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, May 2015, Pages 629-642
Abstract:
Five studies tested four hypotheses on the drivers of punitive judgments. Study 1 showed that people imposed covertly retributivist physical punishments on extreme norm violators when they could plausibly deny that is what they were doing (attributional ambiguity). Studies 2 and 3 showed that covert retributivism could be suppressed by subtle accountability manipulations that cue people to the possibility that they might be under scrutiny. Studies 4 and 5 showed how covert retributivism can become self-sustaining by biasing the lessons people learn from experience. Covert retributivists did not scale back punitiveness in response to feedback that the justice system makes false-conviction errors but they did ramp up punitiveness in response to feedback that the system makes false-acquittal errors. Taken together, the results underscore the paradoxical nature of covert retributivism: It is easily activated by plausible deniability and persistent in the face of false-conviction feedback but also easily deactivated by minimalist forms of accountability.
---------------------
Excluded and behaving unethically: Social exclusion, physiological responses, and unethical behavior
Maryam Kouchaki & Justin Wareham
Journal of Applied Psychology, March 2015, Pages 547-556
Abstract:
Across 2 studies, we investigated the ethical consequences of physiological responses to social exclusion. In Study 1, participants who were socially excluded were more likely to engage in unethical behavior to make money and the level of physiological arousal experienced during exclusion — measured using galvanic skin response — mediated the effects of exclusion on unethical behavior. Likewise, in Study 2, results from a sample of supervisor–subordinate dyads revealed a positive relationship between experience of workplace ostracism and unethical behaviors as rated by the immediate supervisors. This relationship was mediated by employees’ reports of experienced physiological arousal. Together, the results of these studies demonstrate that physiological arousal accompanies social exclusion and provides an explanatory mechanism for the increased unethical behavior in both samples. Theoretical implications of these findings for research on ethical behavior and social exclusion in the workplace are discussed.
---------------------
Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze
Philip Pärnamets et al.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 31 March 2015, Pages 4170-4175
Abstract:
Eye gaze is a window onto cognitive processing in tasks such as spatial memory, linguistic processing, and decision making. We present evidence that information derived from eye gaze can be used to change the course of individuals’ decisions, even when they are reasoning about high-level, moral issues. Previous studies have shown that when an experimenter actively controls what an individual sees the experimenter can affect simple decisions with alternatives of almost equal valence. Here we show that if an experimenter passively knows when individuals move their eyes the experimenter can change complex moral decisions. This causal effect is achieved by simply adjusting the timing of the decisions. We monitored participants’ eye movements during a two-alternative forced-choice task with moral questions. One option was randomly predetermined as a target. At the moment participants had fixated the target option for a set amount of time we terminated their deliberation and prompted them to choose between the two alternatives. Although participants were unaware of this gaze-contingent manipulation, their choices were systematically biased toward the target option. We conclude that even abstract moral cognition is partly constituted by interactions with the immediate environment and is likely supported by gaze-dependent decision processes. By tracking the interplay between individuals, their sensorimotor systems, and the environment, we can influence the outcome of a decision without directly manipulating the content of the information available to them.
---------------------
Justifications Shape Ethical Blind Spots
Andrea Pittarello et al.
Psychological Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
To some extent, unethical behavior results from people’s limited attention to ethical considerations, which results in an ethical blind spot. Here, we focus on the role of ambiguity in shaping people’s ethical blind spots, which in turn lead to their ethical failures. We suggest that in ambiguous settings, individuals’ attention shifts toward tempting information, which determines the magnitude of their lies. Employing a novel ambiguous-dice paradigm, we asked participants to report the outcome of the die roll appearing closest to the location of a previously presented fixation cross on a computer screen; this outcome would determine their pay. We varied the value of the die second closest to the fixation cross to be either higher (i.e., tempting) or lower (i.e., not tempting) than the die closest to the fixation cross. Results of two experiments revealed that in ambiguous settings, people’s incorrect responses were self-serving. Tracking participants’ eye movements demonstrated that people’s ethical blind spots are shaped by increased attention toward tempting information.
---------------------
Alan Brown et al.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
The present investigation documents memory borrowing in college-age students, defined as the telling of others' autobiographical stories as if they are one's own. In both pilot and online surveys, most undergraduates admit to borrowing personal stories from others or using details from others' experiences to embellish their own retellings. These behaviors appear primarily motivated by a desire to permanently incorporate others' experiences into one's own autobiographical record (appropriation), but other reasons include to temporarily create a more coherent or engaging conversational exchange (social connection), simplify conveying somebody else's interesting experience (convenience), or make oneself look good (status enhancement). A substantial percentage of respondents expressed uncertainty as to whether an autobiographical experience actually belonged to them or to someone else, and most respondents have confronted somebody over ownership of a particular story. Documenting memory borrowing is important as the behavior has potential consequences for the creation of false memories.
---------------------
Disgust Sensitivity Predicts Defensive Responding to Mortality Salience
Nicholas Kelley et al.
Emotion, forthcoming
Abstract:
Disgust protects the physical self. The present authors suggest that disgust also contributes to the protection of the psychological self by fostering stronger defensive reactions to existential concerns. To test this idea, 3 studies examined the link between disgust sensitivity and defensive responses to mortality salience or “terror management” processes (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997). Each study included an individual difference measure of disgust sensitivity, a manipulation of mortality salience, and a dependent measure of defensive responding. In Study 1, disgust sensitivity predicted increases in worldview defense in the mortality salience condition but not in the control condition. In Study 2, disgust sensitivity predicted increases in optimistic perceptions of the future in the mortality salience condition but not in the control condition. In Study 3, disgust sensitivity predicted reductions in delay discounting for those in the mortality salience condition such that those higher in disgust sensitivity discounted the future less. This pattern did not occur in the control condition. These findings highlight disgust sensitivity as a key to understanding reactions to mortality salience, and they support the view that disgust-related responses protect against both physical (e.g., noxious substances) and psychological threats.
---------------------
Thick as Thieves? Dishonest Behavior and Egocentric Social Networks
Jooa Julia Lee et al.
Harvard Working Paper, February 2015
Abstract:
People experience a threat to their moral self-concept in the face of discrepancies between their moral values and their unethical behavior. We theorize that people’s need to restore their view of themselves as moral activates thoughts of a high-density personal social network. Such thoughts also lead people to be more likely to engage in further unethical behavior. In five experiments, participants reflected on their past unethical behavior, and then completed a task designed to measure network density. Those who cheated more frequently in the past, recalled their negative moral identity, or decided to lie were more likely to activate a high-density network (Experiment 1-3). Using a mediation-by-moderation approach (Experiment 4), we confirm that this link between dishonesty and network density is explained by a threat to positive self-concept. Importantly, activating a dense network after engaging in dishonest behavior allows further dishonest behavior in a subsequent task (Experiment 5).
---------------------
Donald Palmer & Christopher Yenkey
Social Forces, forthcoming
Abstract:
This paper seeks a more comprehensive explanation of wrongdoing in organizations by theorizing two underexplored causes of wrongdoing related to an organizational participant's embeddedness in formal organizational structures and informal peer relationships: the criticality of a person's role in their organization's division of labor, and their social ties to deviant peers within their organization and industry who vary with respect to their experience with social control agents. We investigate how these factors influenced wrongdoing in the context of professional cyclists' use of banned performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in advance of the 2010 Tour de France. This empirical setting provides two advantages: it permits evaluation of a wider range of potential determinants of wrongdoing than is conventionally possible, and it allows for the use of a measure of wrongdoing that is not subject to the type of bias that plagues most previously used indicators. We find substantial support for our prediction that actors who perform critical organizational roles are more likely to engage in wrongdoing. Further, we find that while undifferentiated social ties to known wrongdoers did not increase the likelihood of wrongdoing, ties to unpunished offenders increased the probability of wrongdoing and ties to severely punished offenders decreased it. These effects were robust to consideration of other known causes of wrongdoing in organizations: weak governance regimes and permissive cultural contexts, performance strain, and individual propensities to engage in wrongdoing.
---------------------
Counterfactuals, Control, and Causation: Why Knowledgeable People Get Blamed More
Elizabeth Gilbert et al.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, May 2015, Pages 643-658
Abstract:
Legal and prescriptive theories of blame generally propose that judgments about an actor’s mental state (e.g., her knowledge or intent) should remain separate from judgments about whether the actor caused an outcome. Three experiments, however, show that, even in the absence of intent or immorality, actors who have knowledge relevant to a potential outcome will be rated more causal of that outcome than their ignorant counterparts, even when their actions were identical. Additional analysis revealed that this effect was mediated by counterfactual thinking — that is, by imagining ways the outcome could have been prevented. Specifically, when actors had knowledge, participants generated more counterfactuals about ways the outcome could have been different that the actor could control, which in turn increased causal assignment to the actor. These results are consistent with the Crediting Causality Model, but conflict with some legal and moral theories of blame.
---------------------
Joseph Schwartz & Kevin Beaver
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, May 2015, Pages 1125-1138
Abstract:
Academic achievement has been found to have a pervasive and substantial impact on a wide range of developmental outcomes and has also been implicated in the critical transition from adolescence into early adulthood. Previous research has revealed that self-reported grades tend to diverge from official transcript grade point average (GPA) scores, with students being more likely to report inflated scores. Making use of a sample of monozygotic twin (N = 282 pairs), dizygotic twin (N = 441 pairs), and full sibling (N = 1,757 pairs) pairs from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health; 65 % White; 50 % male; mean age = 16.14), the current study is the first to investigate the role that genetic and environmental factors play in misreporting grade information. A comparison between self-reported GPA (mean score of 2.86) and official transcript GPA scores (mean score of 2.44) revealed that self-reported scores were approximately one-half letter grade greater than official scores. Liability threshold models revealed that additive genetic influences explained between 40 and 63 % of the variance in reporting inflated grades and correctly reporting GPA, with the remaining variance explained by the nonshared environment. Conversely, 100 % of the variance in reporting deflated grade information was explained by nonshared environmental influences. In an effort to identify specific nonshared environmental influences on reporting accuracy, multivariate models that adequately control for genetic influences were estimated and revealed that siblings with lower transcript GPA scores were significantly less likely to correctly report their GPA and significantly more likely to report inflated GPA scores. Additional analyses revealed that verbal IQ and self-control were not significantly associated with self-reported GPA accuracy after controlling for genetic influences. These findings indicate that previous studies that implicate verbal IQ and self-control as significant predictors of misreporting grade information may have been the result of model misspecification and genetic confounding. The findings from the current study indicate that genetic influences play a crucial role in the accuracy in which grade information is reported, but that nonshared environmental influences also play a significant role in specific circumstances. The theoretical and methodological implications of the results are discussed.
---------------------
A Single Counterexample Leads to Moral Belief Revision
Zachary Horne, Derek Powell & John Hummel
Cognitive Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
What kind of evidence will lead people to revise their moral beliefs? Moral beliefs are often strongly held convictions, and existing research has shown that morality is rooted in emotion and socialization rather than deliberative reasoning. In addition, more general issues — such as confirmation bias — further impede coherent belief revision. Here, we explored a unique means for inducing belief revision. In two experiments, participants considered a moral dilemma in which an overwhelming majority of people judged that it was inappropriate to take action to maximize utility. Their judgments contradicted a utilitarian principle they otherwise strongly endorsed. Exposure to this scenario led participants to revise their belief in the utilitarian principle, and this revision persisted over several hours. This method provides a new avenue for inducing belief revision.
---------------------
Michael Wohl et al.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, May 2015, Pages 714-725
Abstract:
Although it is widely assumed that collective apologies for intergroup harms facilitate forgiveness, evidence for a strong link between the two remains elusive. In four studies we tested the proposition that the apology–forgiveness link exists, but only among people who hold an implicit belief that groups can change. In Studies 1 and 2, perceived group malleability (measured and manipulated, respectively) moderated the responses to an apology by Palestinian leadership toward Israelis: Positive responses such as forgiveness increased with greater belief in group malleability. In Study 3, university students who believed in group malleability were more forgiving of a rival university’s derogatory comments in the presence (as opposed to the absence) of an apology. In Study 4, perceived perpetrator group remorse mediated the moderating effect of group malleability on the apology–forgiveness link (assessed in the context of a corporate transgression). Implications for collective apologies and movement toward reconciliation are discussed.