Department of Psychology, Franklin and Marshall College, United States of America.
Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College, United States of America.
Cognition. 2023 Oct;239:105570. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105570. Epub 2023 Aug 1.
Moral dilemmas are inescapable in daily life, and people must often choose between two desirable character traits, like being a diligent employee or being a devoted parent. These moral dilemmas arise because people hold competing moral values that sometimes conflict. Furthermore, people differ in which values they prioritize, so we do not always approve of how others resolve moral dilemmas. How are we to think of people who sacrifice one of our most cherished moral values for a value that we consider less important? The "Good True Self Hypothesis" predicts that we will reliably project our most strongly held moral values onto others, even after these people lapse. In other words, people who highly value generosity should consistently expect others to be generous, even after they act frugally in a particular instance. However, reasoning from an error-management perspective instead suggests the "Moral Stringency Hypothesis," which predicts that we should be especially prone to discredit the moral character of people who deviate from our most deeply cherished moral ideals, given the potential costs of affiliating with people who do not reliably adhere to our core moral values. In other words, people who most highly value generosity should be quickest to stop considering others to be generous if they act frugally in a particular instance. Across two studies conducted on Prolific (N = 966), we found consistent evidence that people weight moral lapses more heavily when rating others' membership in highly cherished moral categories, supporting the Moral Stringency Hypothesis. In Study 2, we examined a possible mechanism underlying this phenomenon. Although perceptions of hypocrisy played a role in moral updating, personal moral values and subsequent judgments of a person's potential as a good cooperative partner provided the clearest explanation for changes in moral character attributions. Overall, the robust tendency toward moral stringency carries significant practical and theoretical implications.
道德困境在日常生活中是不可避免的,人们常常必须在两种理想的性格特质之间做出选择,比如做一个勤奋的员工还是一个尽职尽责的父母。这些道德困境之所以产生,是因为人们持有相互竞争的道德价值观,而这些价值观有时会发生冲突。此外,人们对自己重视哪些价值观存在差异,因此我们并不总是赞同他人如何解决道德困境。我们如何看待那些为了我们认为不那么重要的价值观而牺牲我们最珍视的道德价值观之一的人呢?“善良真实自我假说”预测,即使在这些人犯错之后,我们也会可靠地将我们最强烈持有的道德价值观投射到他人身上。换句话说,那些高度重视慷慨大方的人应该始终期望别人慷慨大方,即使他们在特定情况下表现得节俭。然而,从错误管理的角度进行推理则提出了“道德严格性假说”,该假说预测,鉴于与那些不坚定地遵守我们核心道德价值观的人结盟的潜在代价,我们应该特别倾向于质疑那些偏离我们最珍视的道德理想的人的道德品质。换句话说,如果一个人在特定情况下表现得节俭,那么那些最看重慷慨大方的人应该是最快停止认为别人慷慨大方的人。在在 Prolific 上进行的两项研究(N=966)中,我们发现了一致的证据,即当人们对他人在高度珍视的道德类别中的成员身份进行评价时,会更加强烈地重视道德失误,这支持了“道德严格性假说”。在研究 2 中,我们检验了这种现象背后的一种可能机制。尽管虚伪的认知在道德更新中发挥了作用,但个人的道德价值观以及随后对一个人作为良好合作伙伴的潜力的判断,为道德品质归因的变化提供了最清晰的解释。总的来说,这种强烈的道德严格倾向具有重要的实践和理论意义。