IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0074434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Harming Ourselves and Defiling Others: What Determines a Moral Domain?

Author

Listed:
  • Alek Chakroff
  • James Dungan
  • Liane Young

Abstract

Recent work has distinguished “harm” from “purity” violations, but how does an act get classified as belonging to a domain in the first place? We demonstrate the impact of not only the kind of action (e.g., harmful versus impure) but also its target (e.g., oneself versus another). Across two experiments, common signatures of harm and purity tracked with other-directed and self-directed actions, respectively. First, participants judged self-directed acts as primarily impure and other-directed acts as primarily harmful. Second, conservatism predicted harsher judgments of self-directed but not other-directed acts. Third, while participants delivered harsher judgments of intentional versus accidental acts, this effect was smaller for self-directed than other-directed acts. Finally, participants judged self-directed acts more harshly when focusing on the actor’s character versus the action itself; other-directed acts elicited the opposite pattern. These findings suggest that moral domains are defined not only by the kind of action but also by the target of the action.

Suggested Citation

  • Alek Chakroff & James Dungan & Liane Young, 2013. "Harming Ourselves and Defiling Others: What Determines a Moral Domain?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-1, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0074434
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074434
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074434&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0074434?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Justin F. Landy & Pritika Shah, 2022. "What drives opposition to suicide? Two exploratory studies of normative judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 164-188, January.
    2. Scott, Sydney E. & Landy, Justin F., 2023. "“Good people don’t need medication”: How moral character beliefs affect medical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:164-188 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0074434. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.