|
|
| Research article summary (published 30 Mar 2006): |
Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger?
Full Abstract
When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, their judgments of both outcome and procedural fairness become driven more by whether outcomes support or oppose their moral mandates than by whether procedures are proper or improper (the moral mandate effect). Two studies tested 3 explanations for the moral mandate effect. In particular, people with moral mandates may (a) have a greater motivation to seek out procedural flaws when outcomes fail to support their moral point of view (the motivated reasoning hypothesis), (b) be influenced by in-group distributive biases as a result of identifying with parties that share rather than oppose their moral point of view (the group differentiation hypothesis), or (c) react with anger when outcomes are inconsistent with their moral point of view, which, in turn, colors perceptions of both outcomes and procedures (the anger hypothesis). Results support the anger hypothesis.
Learn Faster Today Improve your study skills
Author information
Author/s: Mullen, Elizabeth (E); Skitka, Linda J (LJ);
Affiliation: Department of Management and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. e-mullen(-atsign-)kellogg.northwestern.edu
Journal and publication information
Publication Type: Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Journal: Journal of personality and social psychology (J Pers Soc Psychol), published in United States. (Language: eng)
Reference: 2006-Apr; vol 90 (issue 4) : pp 629-43
Dates: Created 2006/05/02; Completed 2006/09/28; Revised 2006/11/15;
PMID: 16649859, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 12/26/2008)
Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.
External Links for this article (including full text providers, if available):
Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.
This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.
MeSH headings (categories)
This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.
|
Related articles
These are the highest related articles currently in the database:
- Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: the importance of social categorizations and guilt probability.
30 May 2006 - Unconscious affective reactions to masked happy versus angry faces influence consumption behavior and judgments of value.
30 Dec 2004 - Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies.
27 Feb 2007 - Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy.
30 Oct 2004 - Neural responses to emotional stimuli are associated with childhood family stress.
5 Feb 2006 - How to bite your tongue without blowing your top: implicit evaluation of emotion regulation predicts affective responding to anger provocation.
29 Apr 2006 - The prevalence and correlates of DSM-IV intermittent explosive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.
30 May 2006 - Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action.
30 Aug 2006 - First evidence for differential and sequential efferent effects of stimulus relevance and goal conduciveness appraisal.
16 Oct 2006 - They all look the same to me (unless they're angry): from out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity.
29 Sep 2006
Related Article Map
Legend:
- FREE Full text Article.
- Abstract only.
- Title only. More help.
See a large map of 100+ related articles.