A Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning

这项研究的目的是检验个人身份担忧在人们如何决定某件事是公平还是不公平方面发挥重要作用的理论可能性，并探索这些担忧与人们产生解决冲突的程序的能力之间的关系。具体地说，人们有很高的动机以允许公开和私下确认他们是真正的善良和道德存在的信念的方式行事(Steele，1988)。鉴于道德价值构成了个人认同感的核心(Rokeach，1973)，自我肯定应该包括支持自我表达的道德立场或立场，或斯基卡(在媒体上)所说的“道德要求”。思考、经历、见证或行为导致违反道德命令的行为应该被认为是对人们自我意识的威胁，因此应该比其他类型的强烈态度得到更有力的辩护。这种理论的一个含义是，与涉及其他关切的问题相比，人们在谈判程序以决定涉及道德要求的问题时应该会有更大的困难。为了检验这一假设，研究参与者(大学生)将被要求在一个公平的程序上达成共识，以决定他们(A)有道德强制，(B)没有道德强制，或(C)有强烈的态度，但没有道德强制的问题。小组将有三种选择来结束谈判：一致同意一个程序，每个参与者都同意将其作为决定分配给他们的问题的具有约束力的方式；一致同意他们永远不会就具有约束力的程序达成共识；或者1小时过去(以最先发生的为准)。将评估各小组制定协商一致接受的程序的能力、对小组进程和其他小组成员的看法以及讨论后态度改变的程度(即，与非道德授权问题相比，在道德授权问题上的两极分化)作为小组讨论的功能。后续研究将探讨小组讨论研究中产生的程序在没有参考具体问题的情况下进行评估时所产生的程序的公正性。

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.