A Test of the Moral Mandate Hypothesis

主要研究者打算利用埃利安·冈萨雷斯的争议作为检验道德命令假说的一种手段。 大多数社会心理学研究表明，如果人们认为程序是公平的，那么他们就会认为该程序的结果是公平的。 道德命令假说表明，如果人们对什么是公平的结果有强烈的先验信念，那么他们对结果的评价胜过对程序的任何判断。 例如，如果一个人认为Elian Gonzalez应该返回古巴，那么无论遵循什么程序，这个人都会认为给予庇护是不公平的，主要调查员将在Gonzalez的情况得到解决之前随机收集成年人样本，以便找到在这个问题上有或没有“道德授权”的人。 那些这样做的人预计会根据结果来估计他们的公平性。 那些不这样做的人预计将根据他们的公平估计的程序。

Abstract0084781Skitka, LindaUniversity of Illinois - ChicagoThe principal investigator intends to use the Elian Gonzalez controversy as a means of testing the moral mandate hypothesis. Most social psychological research has shown that if people judge the procedure to be fair, then they will judge the outcome of that procedure to be fair. The moral mandate hypothesis suggests that if people have strong a priori beliefs concerning what constitutes a fair outcome, then their evaluation of the outcome trumps any judgment concerning the procedure. For example, if a person feels that Elian Gonzalez should return to Cuba, then the person will deem the granting of asylum to be unfair no matter what procedure is followed.The principal investigator will collect a random sample of adults before the resolution of the Gonzalez situation in order to locate persons who do or do not have a "moral mandate" with regard to this issue. Those who do are predicted to base their fairness estimates on the outcome. Those who do not are predicted to base their fairness estimates on the procedure.