Conveying one's agreeableness: Agreeable people alter their moral judgments to convey a moral identity

Abstract

People higher (vs. lower) in agreeableness tend to provide moral judgments that are indicative of a highly moral character, but the mechanisms underlying these judgments requires further understanding. Here, based in a self-verification framework, we suggest that people higher (vs. lower) in agreeableness might indicate third-party punitive judgments (a type of moral judgment) to, in part, convey a more agreeable moral identity. An online study had college participants (N = 306) complete measures of agreeableness and then read about agents who engaged in intentional harm toward others. Participants reported third-party punitive judgments toward the agent. When participants were led to believe that, in prior studies, agreeable people were more punitive than their less agreeable counterparts (intimating that punitiveness is signaling an agreeable identity), agreeableness related to enhanced punitive judgments; but, when participants were led to believe that, in prior studies, agreeable people were less punitive than their less agreeable counterparts (intimating that leniency is signaling an agreeable identity), agreeableness related to reduced punitive judgments. In theory, being agreeable is an identity that, like any identity, must be cultivated and defended, which entails monitoring and controlling the socially-determined symbolic expressions of morality. We discuss the limitations and implications of the study.