2017
The relevance of moral norms in distinct relational contexts: Purity versus harm norms regulate self-directed actions
Abstract: Recent efforts to partition the space of morality have focused on the descriptive content of distinct moral domains (e.g., harm versus purity), or alternatively, the relationship between the perpetrator and victim of moral violations. Across three studies, we demonstrate that harm and purity norms are relevant in distinct relational contexts. Moral judgments of purity violations, compared to harm violations, are relatively more sensitive to the negative impact perpetrators have on themselves versus other victi…
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
31
5
3
2
Citation Types
0
35
0
0
Year Published
2018
2025
Publication Types
Select...
24
10
4
Relationship
1
37
Authors
Journals
Cited by 38 publications
(35 citation statements)
References 71 publications
0
35
0
0
“…First, they support the dissociation of causal and mental-state processes in moral judgment (Cushman, 2008;Rottman & Young, 2019;Young et al, 2007Young et al, , 2010. Second, they support disparate judgment processes for harmful versus "victimless" moral violations (Chakroff et al, 2013(Chakroff et al, , 2017Dungan et al, 2017;Giner-Sorolla & Chapman, 2017;Rottman & Young, 2019). Third, they reinforce the idea that punishment often involves a "backward-looking" retributive focus on responsibility, rather than a "forwards-looking" focus on rehabilitation, incapacitation, or deterrence (which, we presume, would generally favor treating solo and group actors equivalently).…”
Section: Solo Jointmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…First, they support the dissociation of causal and mental-state processes in moral judgment (Cushman, 2008;Rottman & Young, 2019;Young et al, 2007Young et al, , 2010. Second, they support disparate judgment processes for harmful versus "victimless" moral violations (Chakroff et al, 2013(Chakroff et al, , 2017Dungan et al, 2017;Giner-Sorolla & Chapman, 2017;Rottman & Young, 2019). Third, they reinforce the idea that punishment often involves a "backward-looking" retributive focus on responsibility, rather than a "forwards-looking" focus on rehabilitation, incapacitation, or deterrence (which, we presume, would generally favor treating solo and group actors equivalently).…”
Section: Solo Jointmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…First, they support the dissociation of causal and mental-state processes in moral judgment [6][7][8]32 . Second, they support disparate judgment processes for harmful versus "victimless" moral violations [26][27][28][29][30]32 . Third, they reinforce the idea that punishment often involves a "backward-looking", retributive focus on responsibility, rather than a "forwards-looking" focus on rehabilitation, incapacitation, or deterrence (which, we presume, would generally favor treating solo and group actors Vol:.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, our stimuli included only harm violations and not other kinds of moral wrongs, including violations of norms about purity, loyalty, or other concerns (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009). Recent work suggests that the influence of intentions on moral judgment is strongest for harm violations and less strong for other kinds of violations, including purity violations (Chakroff, Dungan, & Young, 2013; Chakroff et al., 2016; Chakroff, Russell, Piazza, & Young, 2017; Chakroff & Young, 2015; Dungan, Chakroff, & Young, 2017; Giner‐Sorolla & Chapman, 2017). From this perspective, harm violations are an ideal set of stimuli with which to test our hypotheses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
