Running Head: ATTRIBUTIONS ABOUT PRAISE AND BLAME The Positivity Effect in Attributions of Praise and Blame

Contradictory findings have been found with regard to attributions of praise and blame. In some cases, research points to a negativity effect whereby attributions of blame are greater for immoral behaviors than attributions of praise for similar moral behaviors (Knobe, 2003;Malle, 2006). Other researchers have demonstrated the opposite effect (Pizzaro, Uhlmann, & Salovey, 2003). In the current paper praise and blame attributions are investigated using Kant’s morality distinction between perfect and imperfect duties. Participants were asked to respond as fast as possible to forty-eight positive and negative perfect and imperfect duty words by indicating whether the target word was blame or praise worthy. Results indicated that participants were faster to respond that positive behaviors were praiseworthy than that negative behaviors were blameworthy. Attributions about Praise and Blame 3 The Positivity Effect in Attributions of Praise and Blame The negativity effect, or the tendency for people to assign more weight to negative information, is a pervasive phenomenon in psychological literature. It is evident in research ranging from trait attributions to stereotyping and stigmatization (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Fickenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Recently, it has been implicated in moral judgments as well. Specifically, some researchers find that attributions of blame are higher following the performance of a negative behavior than attributions of praise following the performance of a similar positive behavior (Knobe, 2003; Malle, 2006). For example, Malle (2006) found that an unfriendly behavior was seen as more blameworthy than a similar friendly behavior was seen as praiseworthy. Contrary to Malle’s (2006) findings, Pizarro, Uhlmann, and Salovey (2003) demonstrated that positive behaviors receive more praise than similar negative behaviors receive blame. For example, Pizarro and colleagues (2003) gave participants vignettes describing behaviors that were either positive or negative, and the target person either performed the behavior deliberately or impulsively. Participant assigned less blame for impulsive negative acts than deliberate negative acts, but assigned similar praise to impulsive and deliberate positive acts. Malle’s studies suggest a negativity effect in the assignment of praise and blame, whereas Pizarro et al.’s (2003) research points to a positivity effect. To resolve this apparent contradiction we draw on research regarding trait attributions. In one set of studies, Trafimow and Trafimow (1999) found that certain types of negative behaviors carried more attributional weight than other types of immoral behaviors. Specifically, perfect duty violation carried more attributional weight than imperfect duty violations. Trafimow and Trafimow (1999) had drawn from Immanual Kant’s ethical duty distinction. Attributions about Praise and Blame 4 Kant believed ethical agents must perform perfect duties, regardless of other considerations. In contrast, one’s morality is irrelevant with regard to the performance or violation of imperfect duties. To illustrate, Kant suggested that honesty and loyalty are perfect moral duties and that friendly and charitable behaviors are imperfect moral duties. One must be consistently honest and loyal if one wishes to be ethical. However, one is not at risk for immorality if one chooses to be uncharitable or unfriendly. Interestingly, Trafimow, Bromgard, Finlay, and Ketelaar (2005) later found that violations of perfect duties produced more negative affect than imperfect duty violations. Trafimow and his colleagues (2005) research implies that the type of behavior that is performed confounds the negativity effect in trait attributions—perfect duty violations elicit negative affect whereas imperfect duty violations do not. Trafimow et al.’s (2005) findings also have implications for the current discussion. First, if negative affect is important for trait inferences, then it may also influence attributions of praise and blame. Second, Kant’s duties can be used to efficiently categorize moral behaviors. Researchers interested in moral attributions may benefit from such a categorization, especially if certain behaviors, such as violations of perfect duties, produce greater negative affect than imperfect duty violations. The present study sought to examine the asymmetry in attributions of praise and blame by examining response time. Individuals’ were asked to respond as fast as possible to a series of forty-eight behavior words by determining whether the behavior was praise or blameworthy. Half of the behaviors were positive (moral) and half of the behavior words were negative or immoral. Further, perfect and imperfect duties were counterbalanced across trials. Two different findings were possible. On the one hand, if immoral acts are weighed more heavily than moral actions, negative affect should influence the speed with which people attribute blame. On the Attributions about Praise and Blame 5 other hand, if there is a positivity effect in attributions of praise and blame, individuals should be faster to respond that moral behaviors are praiseworthy. Finally, if perfect duty violations, or negative behaviors such as dishonesty and disloyalty, produce greater amounts of negative affect than imperfect duties, then we would expect people to respond faster that violations of perfect duties are, in fact, blameworthy.