Taking the moral high ground: deontological and absolutist moral dilemma judgments convey self-righteousness
Taking the moral high ground: deontological and absolutist moral dilemma judgments convey self-righteousness
Individuals who reject sacrificial harm to maximize overall outcomes, consistent with deontological (vs. utilitarian) ethics, appear warmer, more moral, and more trustworthy. Yet, deontological judgments may not only convey emotional reactions, but also strict adherence to moral rules. We therefore hypothesized that people view deontologists as more morally absolutist and hence self-righteous—as perceiving themselves as morally superior.In addition, both deontologists and utilitarians who base their decisions on rules (vs. emotions) should appearmore self-righteous. Four studies (N =1254) tested these hypotheses. Participants perceived targets as more self-righteous when they rejected (vs. accepted) sacrificial harm in classic moral dilemmas where harm maximizesoutcomes (i.e., deontological vs. utilitarian judgments), but not parallel cases where harm fails to maximizeoutcomes (Study 1). Preregistered Study 2 replicated the focal effect, additionally indicating mediation viaperceptions of moral absolutism. Study 3 found that targets who reported basing their deontological judgmentson rules, compared to emotional reactions or when processing information was absent, appeared particularlyself-righteous. Preregistered Study 4 included both deontological and utilitarian targets and manipulatedwhether their judgments were based on rules versus emotion (specifically sadness). Grounding either moralposition in rules conveyed self-righteousness, while communicating emotions was a remedy. Furthermore,participants perceived targets as more self-righteous the more targets deviated from their own moral beliefs.Studies 3 and 4 additionally examined participants’ self-disclosure intentions. In sum, deontological dilemmajudgments may convey an absolutist, rule-focused view of morality, but any judgment stemming from rules (incontrast to sadness) promotes self-righteousness perceptions.
Deontology, Moral absolutism, Moral dilemmas, Self-disclosure, Self-righteousness, Utilitarianism
Weiss, Alexa
38d1177a-1f9e-44b3-b404-47eebb701257
Burgmer, Pascal
c8c43b56-572c-4242-800c-9f44ff648cec
Rom, Sarah C.
4fc106dd-4702-45db-a639-b1cc418e1357
Conway, Paul
765aaaf9-173f-44cf-be9a-c8ffbb51e286
31 August 2023
Weiss, Alexa
38d1177a-1f9e-44b3-b404-47eebb701257
Burgmer, Pascal
c8c43b56-572c-4242-800c-9f44ff648cec
Rom, Sarah C.
4fc106dd-4702-45db-a639-b1cc418e1357
Conway, Paul
765aaaf9-173f-44cf-be9a-c8ffbb51e286
Weiss, Alexa, Burgmer, Pascal, Rom, Sarah C. and Conway, Paul
(2023)
Taking the moral high ground: deontological and absolutist moral dilemma judgments convey self-righteousness.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 110, [104505].
(doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104505).
Abstract
Individuals who reject sacrificial harm to maximize overall outcomes, consistent with deontological (vs. utilitarian) ethics, appear warmer, more moral, and more trustworthy. Yet, deontological judgments may not only convey emotional reactions, but also strict adherence to moral rules. We therefore hypothesized that people view deontologists as more morally absolutist and hence self-righteous—as perceiving themselves as morally superior.In addition, both deontologists and utilitarians who base their decisions on rules (vs. emotions) should appearmore self-righteous. Four studies (N =1254) tested these hypotheses. Participants perceived targets as more self-righteous when they rejected (vs. accepted) sacrificial harm in classic moral dilemmas where harm maximizesoutcomes (i.e., deontological vs. utilitarian judgments), but not parallel cases where harm fails to maximizeoutcomes (Study 1). Preregistered Study 2 replicated the focal effect, additionally indicating mediation viaperceptions of moral absolutism. Study 3 found that targets who reported basing their deontological judgmentson rules, compared to emotional reactions or when processing information was absent, appeared particularlyself-righteous. Preregistered Study 4 included both deontological and utilitarian targets and manipulatedwhether their judgments were based on rules versus emotion (specifically sadness). Grounding either moralposition in rules conveyed self-righteousness, while communicating emotions was a remedy. Furthermore,participants perceived targets as more self-righteous the more targets deviated from their own moral beliefs.Studies 3 and 4 additionally examined participants’ self-disclosure intentions. In sum, deontological dilemmajudgments may convey an absolutist, rule-focused view of morality, but any judgment stemming from rules (incontrast to sadness) promotes self-righteousness perceptions.
Text
Weiss, Burgmer, Rom, & Conway (2023, JESP) - Taking the Moral High Ground (Accepted Manuscript)
- Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 August 2025.
Request a copy
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 22 June 2023
e-pub ahead of print date: 31 August 2023
Published date: 31 August 2023
Additional Information:
Funding Information:
This research was partly funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through a Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize awarded to Thomas Mussweiler (MU 1500/5–1). We thank Nicole Jasica for collecting the data for Study 2b as part of her Bachelor thesis.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier Inc.
Keywords:
Deontology, Moral absolutism, Moral dilemmas, Self-disclosure, Self-righteousness, Utilitarianism
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 483365
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/483365
ISSN: 0022-1031
PURE UUID: 8858c8b3-c13e-4649-8358-eb7d3819d517
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 30 Oct 2023 09:53
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:17
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Alexa Weiss
Author:
Pascal Burgmer
Author:
Sarah C. Rom
Author:
Paul Conway
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics