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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.