Literature DB >> 21500892

Moral anger, but not moral disgust, responds to intentionality.

Pascale Sophie Russell1, Roger Giner-Sorolla.   

Abstract

We propose that, when people judge moral situations, anger responds to the contextual cues of harm and intentionality. On the other hand, disgust responds uniquely to whether or not a bodily norm violation has occurred; its apparent response to harm and intent is entirely explained by the coactivation of anger. We manipulated intent, harm, and bodily norm violation (eating human flesh) within a vignette describing a scientific experiment. Participants then rated their anger, disgust, and moral judgment, as well as various appraisals. Anger responded independently of disgust to harm and intentionality, whereas disgust responded independently of anger only to whether or not the act violated the bodily norm of cannibalism. Theoretically relevant appraisals accounted for the effects of harm and intent on anger; however, appraisals of abnormality did not fully account for the effects of the manipulations on disgust. Our results show that anger and disgust are separately elicited by different cues in a moral situation. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21500892     DOI: 10.1037/a0022598

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emotion        ISSN: 1528-3542


  13 in total

1.  When minds matter for moral judgment: intent information is neurally encoded for harmful but not impure acts.

Authors:  Alek Chakroff; James Dungan; Jorie Koster-Hale; Amelia Brown; Rebecca Saxe; Liane Young
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Cultured Meat in Islamic Perspective.

Authors:  Mohammad Naqib Hamdan; Mark J Post; Mohd Anuar Ramli; Amin Rukaini Mustafa
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2018-12

3.  Disgust, contempt, and anger and the stereotypes of obese people.

Authors:  Lenny R Vartanian; Margaret A Thomas; Eric J Vanman
Journal:  Eat Weight Disord       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 4.652

4.  The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice.

Authors:  Brock Bastian; Thomas F Denson; Nick Haslam
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  The relevance of moral norms in distinct relational contexts: Purity versus harm norms regulate self-directed actions.

Authors:  James A Dungan; Alek Chakroff; Liane Young
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Is moral elevation an approach-oriented emotion?

Authors:  Julie Van de Vyver; Dominic Abrams
Journal:  J Posit Psychol       Date:  2016-05-17

7.  Moral Violations and the Experience of Disgust and Anger.

Authors:  Megan Oaten; Richard J Stevenson; Mark A Williams; Anina N Rich; Marina Butko; Trevor I Case
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 3.558

8.  Asking 'why?' enhances theory of mind when evaluating harm but not purity violations.

Authors:  James A Dungan; Liane Young
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Harming ourselves and defiling others: what determines a moral domain?

Authors:  Alek Chakroff; James Dungan; Liane Young
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Moral judgment as information processing: an integrative review.

Authors:  Steve Guglielmo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-10-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.