A Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

The goal of this research is to test the theoretical possibility that personal identity concerns play an important role in how people decide whether something is fair or unfair, and to explore how these concerns relate to people's ability to generate procedures to resolve conflict. Specifically, people are highly motivated to act in ways that allow for public and private affirmation of the belief that they are authentically good and moral beings (Steele, 1988). Given that moral values form the core of personal identity (Rokeach, 1973), self-affirmation should involve endorsing self-expressive moral positions or stands, or what Skitka (in press) has referred to as "moral mandates." Thinking about, experiencing, witnessing, or behaving in a way that leads to a violation of a moral mandate should be experienced as a threat to people's sense of self, and therefore should be defended more vigorously than other kinds of strong attitudes. One implication of this line of theorizing is that people should have much greater difficulty negotiating procedures to decide issues that involve moral mandates than they do for issues that involve other concerns. To test this hypothesis, research participants (college students) participating in small heterogeneous or homogeneous groups, will be asked to come to consensus on a fair procedure to decide an issue that they either (a) have a moral mandate about, (b) do not have a moral mandate about, or (c) have a strong attitude, but not a moral mandate about. Groups will have three options to end negotiations: Unanimously agree to a procedure that each participant agrees that they could accept as a binding way to decide their assigned issue; unanimously agree that they will never come to consensus on a binding procedure; or 1 hour passes (whichever occurs first). Groups' ability to generate a consensually accepted procedure, perceptions of the group process and other group members, and degree of post-discussion attitude change (i.e., polarization on morally mandated as compared to non-morally mandated issues) as a function of group discussion will be assessed. A follow-up study will explore the perceived fairness of the procedures generated in the group discussion study when they are evaluated without reference to a specific issue.