PSYCH 120N: Quiz 4

5 neutralization techniques

1. denial of responsibility 2. denial of injury 3. denial of victim 4. condemning the condemners 5. appeal to higher loyalty

what 3 questions are Homo economicus likely to ask themself when confronted with a criminal or immoral opportunity?

1. how much can I gain? 2. how likely am I to be caught? 3. how severe would the punishment be if I'm caught?

example of appeal to higher loyalty

I did it out of friendship

what is the role of comparator in the identity theory model?

"program" that runs in the background of our brains that compare the 3 elements, we feel best when all 3 are in alignment

eudaimonia

a life well lived, human flourishing

why are counterfactual taboo questions risky to answer?

a person willing to entertain such hypotheticals seem more likely to betray us

how does reflective equilibrium relate to the diagram of moral identity theory?

behaving in ways that are consistent with our moral identity, overall happiness comes mostly from the activity of our remembering self

comparator

compares the 3 elements

example of moral exemplars

doing an act over and over again until the act is part of your character, effortless

virtue/vice

emphasizes an individual's character rather than following a set of rules

example of how identity salience influences behavior

everyone knows it's wrong to steal, but not everyone's moral identity is turned up to "high" at the time of choice

two pieces of evidence that suggest that judging the character of others may be innate in humans

evolving into small groups and baby lab

virtue ethics

focuses on what it means to be a good person

how does diagnosticity of behavior work?

focusing on not just what someone does, but how they do it

which question is Homo economicus likely to leave out of their decision making?

how badly would stealing or cheating make me feel?

what 2 experiences/feelings associated with it can comparator produce?

identity verification - behavior, audience feedback, and moral identity all match --> reflective equilibrium, positive self feelings (pride); identity non-verification - behavior, audience feedback, and moral identity doesn't align --> reflective disequilibrium, negative feelings (guilt, shame)

how does essentialism relate to our judgments of others?

infer what we can't see based on what we can see (behaviors, choices they make, loyalty)

reflective equilibrium

inner sense that our past behavior aligns with our moral identity

example of denial of responsibility

it wasn't my fault

example of golden mean

knowing how much to give, honesty

what percent of people will cheat by the maximum amount possible if given the chance?

less than 1%

example of act-person dissociation

manager A is rude to all employees, manage B is rude to obese employees

golden mean

mid-point between two vices - just the right amount

identity theory model

moral identity as the strength of your inner feeling that you must "do the right thing" and the definition of the "right thing" is tied to your moral foundation/code

what metaphor (or comparison) did Socrates' use to argue his position?

morality in people is like morality in a city

categorization malleability

not a difference in value, difference in our mind

what was found in the study where people were given the opportunity to cheat (by being overpaid for a task)?

only 20% would correct the cashier's mistake when handed the wrong amount of change, 60% correct the mistake when the cashier asks "is the amount correct?"

how is partner choice theory linked to our evolutionary past?

our minds were designed by evolution to judge people for their potential as relationship partners

partner choice theory

our minds were designed through evolution to judge people as potential relationship partners

Glaucon's position regarding the difference between being good and seeming good

people value their reputations over actually being good

moral exemplars

people who already possess virtue

Socrates' position regarding the difference between being good and seeming good

people would rather be good than seem good

counterfactual taboo question

possible future that did no occur

identity salience

priming the moral identity

what metaphor (rhetorical device) did Glaucon use to argue his position?

ring of gyges

systems of accountability

social system in which we expect to be called upon to justify our beliefs, feelings, or actions to others

example of how moral filtering works

someone leaving an expensive item unattended: a person with a strong moral identity won't even consider stealing, a person with a weak moral identity sees a theft opportunity - self-control is needed

example of how the same behavior or decision can have different implications for judging a person's moral character

someone who reluctantly partakes in an immoral behavior is seen as having a better character than someone who does it easily

example of how categorization malleability works to influence behavior

steal a stapler/box of pens worth $20 or steal $20 from a cash register

example of eudaimonia

striving and pushing oneself to success

example of denial of victim

they deserved it

how can partner choice theory help explain why our moral intuitions tend to align with deontology?

they expect the person who treats others how they want to be treated will behave more caringly towards them

what did the experimenters change to reduce people's likelihood of cheating?

they had the cashier ask the person if they did it right and to double check

example of denial of injury

they're going to be fine

essentialism

to infer underlying/hidden properties that make up a person's true nature

what 3 characteristics do people find most valuable in others?

trustworthiness, compassion, loyalty

diagnosticity of behavior

using behavior to "diagnose" character

how is virtue ethics different than deontology?

virtue ethics is about having a good moral character, while deontology adheres to the golden rule

how is virtue ethics different from utilitarianism?

virtue ethics is more "person-centered" while utilitarianism is for the greatest number of people

why do moral and immoral behaviors differ in how informative they are for judging moral character?

we draw stronger inferences from immoral behavior, we're able to get more information about a characters behavior when they do something bad

what does it mean when someone is an intuitive virtue ethicist?

we judge other people's character automatically and effortlessly

how does the riskiness of counterfactual taboo questions relate to act-person dissociation?

we judge someones character negatively simply for entertaining questions like this

how do systems of accountability relate to Glaucon's idea about why people are moral?

we must manage our impressions by acting like intuitive politicians seeking the good will of our constituencies

act-person dissociation

we're able to dissociate the act from the person's character

how does act-person dissociation relate to moral dumbfounding?

we're able to judge someone's character separate from their act

why will people only cheat by that much?

we're willing to cheat, but within limits so that we don't feel like bad people

moral filtering

when our moral identity is weak, immoral choices enter our awareness, and it becomes necessary for us to exercise self-control to resist them

example of virtue/vice

when to intervene in a situation, being courageous

example of condemning the condemners

who are they to point fingers?

when given the opportunity, will most people cheat?

yes