Literature DB >> 29311319

Preferences for moral vs. immoral traits in others are conditional.

David E Melnikoff1, April H Bailey2.   

Abstract

The preference for morality in others is regarded as a dominant factor in person perception. Moral traits are thought to foster liking, and immoral traits are thought to foster disliking, irrespective of the context in which they are embedded. We report the results of four studies that oppose this view. Using both explicit and implicit measures, we found that the preference for morality vs. immorality in others is conditional on the evaluator's current goals. Specifically, when immorality was conducive to participants' current goals, the preference for moral vs. immoral traits in others was eliminated or reversed. The preferences for mercifulness vs. mercilessness (experiment 1), honesty vs. dishonesty (experiment 2), sexual fidelity vs. infidelity (experiment 3), and altruism vs. selfishness (experiment 4) were all found to be conditional. These findings oppose the consensus view that people have a dominant preference for moral vs. immoral traits in others. Our findings also speak to nativist and empiricist theories of social preferences and the stability of the "social contract" underlying productive human societies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  evaluation; goals; implicit; morality; motivation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29311319      PMCID: PMC5789924          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1714945115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  21 in total

Review 1.  Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning.

Authors:  A Ohman; S Mineka
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.

Authors:  Anthony G Greenwald; Brian A Nosek; Mahzarin R Banaji
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2003-08

Review 3.  Genetics of taste and smell: poisons and pleasures.

Authors:  Danielle Renee Reed; Antti Knaapila
Journal:  Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 3.622

Review 4.  Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence.

Authors:  Susan T Fiske; Amy J C Cuddy; Peter Glick
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-12-22       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Group virtue: the importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups.

Authors:  Colin Wayne Leach; Naomi Ellemers; Manuela Barreto
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2007-08

6.  What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics.

Authors:  Catherine A Cottrell; Steven L Neuberg; Norman P Li
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2007-02

7.  When It's Bad to Be Friendly and Smart: The Desirability of Sociability and Competence Depends on Morality.

Authors:  Justin F Landy; Jared Piazza; Geoffrey P Goodwin
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2016-07-12

Review 8.  Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes.

Authors:  A G Greenwald; M R Banaji
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT.

Authors:  R Banse; J Seise; N Zerbes
Journal:  Z Exp Psychol       Date:  2001

10.  Social evaluation by preverbal infants.

Authors:  J Kiley Hamlin; Karen Wynn; Paul Bloom
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-11-22       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  10 in total

1.  Fraud and Understanding the Moral Mind: Need for Implementation of Organizational Characteristics into Behavioral Ethics.

Authors:  Petr Houdek
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Morality traits still dominate in forming impressions of others.

Authors:  Justin F Landy; Jared Piazza; Geoffrey P Goodwin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Reply to Landy et al.: Terms and conditions may apply.

Authors:  David E Melnikoff; April H Bailey
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Trolley Dilemma in Papua. Yali horticulturalists refuse to pull the lever.

Authors:  Piotr Sorokowski; Michalina Marczak; Michał Misiak; Michał Białek
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04

Review 5.  Norms and the Flexibility of Moral Action.

Authors:  Oriel FeldmanHall; Jae-Young Son; Joseph Heffner
Journal:  Personal Neurosci       Date:  2018-09-07

Review 6.  The emergence of emotionally modern humans: implications for language and learning.

Authors:  Sarah Blaffer Hrdy; Judith M Burkart
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Interindividual neural differences in moral decision-making are mediated by alpha power and delta/theta phase coherence.

Authors:  Annemarie Wolff; Javier Gomez-Pilar; Takashi Nakao; Georg Northoff
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Folk standards of sound judgment: Rationality Versus Reasonableness.

Authors:  Igor Grossmann; Richard P Eibach; Jacklyn Koyama; Qaisar B Sahi
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 14.136

9.  The boundary conditions of the liking bias in moral character judgments.

Authors:  Konrad Bocian; Katarzyna Myslinska Szarek; Katarzyna Miazek; Wieslaw Baryla; Bogdan Wojciszke
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Moderators of the Liking Bias in Judgments of Moral Character.

Authors:  Konrad Bocian; Wieslaw Baryla; Bogdan Wojciszke
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2021-05-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.