Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns About Procedural Fairness: A Reply to Napier and Tyler
نویسندگان
چکیده
Napier and Tyler (this issue) question whether moral convictions about outcomes really override the influence of procedural fairness (PF) on fairness judgments and decision acceptance. The empirical answer to this question is ‘‘yes.’’ When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, perceptions of outcome fairness and decision acceptance are primarily shaped by whether the morally ‘‘correct’’ outcomes are achieved. Pre-decision perceptions of PF have surprisingly little or no effect on these judgments. That said, pre-outcome perceptions of PF sometimes predict post-outcome perceptions of PF, even when people have morally vested outcome preferences. We provide further details supporting the validity and superiority of our data analytic approach and argue that our original conclusions were justified.
منابع مشابه
When Outcomes Prompt Criticism of Procedures: An Analysis of the Rodney King Case
A content analysis of newspaper editorials about the trial of the four officers accused of beating Rodney King investigated when people would become concerned with procedural propriety in the case. Consistent with research demonstrating that people’s moral convictions are important determinants of their perceptions of fairness and reactions to outcomes, results revealed that people were more cr...
متن کاملMoral disagreement and procedural justice: Moral mandates as constraints to voice effects
Procedural voice is a widely used and effective means to reduce or eliminate conflict. Moral disagreements, however, are particularly inflammatory, divisive, and difficult to manage. The current article reports two studies that demonstrated the unique challenge that moral disagreements pose. Specifically, the studies tested the extent to which procedural voice affected justice judgements, group...
متن کاملUnderstanding Judgments of Fairness in a Real-World Political Context: A Test of the Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning
Current theories of justice emphasize social identity reasons for why people care about justice to the relative neglect of personal identity concerns, that is, people’s need to express, defend, and live up to personal moral standards. The authors present a value protection model that predicts that self-expressive moral positions or stands (“moral mandates”) are important determinants of how peo...
متن کاملExploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger?
When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, their judgments of both outcome and procedural fairness become driven more by whether outcomes support or oppose their moral mandates than by whether procedures are proper or improper (the moral mandate effect). Two studies tested 3 explanations for the moral mandate effect. In particular, people with moral mandates may (a) have a greate...
متن کاملFrom partner choice to equity - and beyond?
Baumard et al. provide an intriguing model where morality emerges from the dynamics of partner choice in mutualistic interactions. I discuss evidence from human and nonhuman primates that supports the overall approach, but highlights a gap in explaining the human specificity of moral cognition. I suggest that an essential characteristic of human fairness is to override concerns about merit in f...
متن کامل