Actions that do not have as their goal the advancement or protection of one’s material interests are often seen as illegitimate. Four studies suggested that moral values can legitimate action in the absence of material interest. The more participants linked sociopolitical issues to moral values, the more comfortable they felt advocating on behalf of those issues and the less confused they were by others’ advocacy (Studies 1 and 2). Crime victims were perceived as being more entitled to claim special privileges when the crime had violated their personal moral values (Studies 3 and 4). These effects were strongest when the legitimacy to act could not already be derived from one’s material interests, suggesting that moral values and material interest can represent interchangeable justifications for behavior. No support was found for the possibility that attitude strength explained these effects. The power of moralization to disinhibit action is discussed.
CranoW. D. (1995). Attitude strength and vested interest. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength, antecedents and consequences (Vol. 4, pp. 131-158). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
EaglyA. H.WoodW.ChaikenS. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435.
4.
GreenD. P.CowdenJ. A. (1992). Who protests: Self-interest and white opposition to busing. Journal of Politics, 54, 471-496.
5.
HaidtJ.RosenbergE.HomH. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1-36.
6.
HornseyM. J.TrembathM.GunthorpeS. (2004). “You can criticize because you care”: Identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 499-518.
7.
MillerD. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053-1060.
8.
MillerD. T.EffronD. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. In ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 117-158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
9.
MillerD. T.EffronD. A.ZakS. V. (2009). From moral outrage to social protest: The role of psychological standing. In KayA. C.BobocelD. R.ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 103-123). New York, NY: Psychological Press.
10.
MillerD. T.RatnerR. K. (1996). The power of the myth of self-interest. In MontadaL.LernerM. J. (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 25-48). New York, NY: Plenum.
11.
MillerD. T.RatnerR. K. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 53-62.
12.
MinsonJ.MoninB. (2011). Do-gooder derrogation: Disparaging morally-motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/194855061141569510.1177/1948550611415695
13.
MullenE.SkitkaL. J. (2006). Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, group differentiation or anger?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 629-643.
14.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 161-176.
15.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867-872.
16.
PaganoS. J.HuoY. J. (2007). The role of moral emotions in predicting support for political actions in post-war Iraq. Political Psychology, 28, 227-255.
17.
RatnerR. K.MillerD. T. (2001). The norm of self-interest and its effects on social action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 5-16.
18.
ReganD. T.FazioR. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 28-45.
19.
RozinP. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10, 218-221.
20.
SearsD. O.HenslerC. P.SpeerL. K. (1979). Whites’ oppositions to “busing”: Self-interest or symbolic politics?American Political Science Review, 73, 369-384.
21.
SivacekJ.CranoW. D. (1982). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 210-221.
22.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29, 29-54.
23.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895-917.
24.
SkitkaL. J.HoustonD. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14, 305-326.
25.
SkitkaL. J.MullenE. (2002a). The dark side of moral conviction. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2, 35-41.
26.
SkitkaL. J.MullenE. (2002b). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1419-1429.
27.
TurielE. (1983). The development of social knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
WalsterE.AronsonE.AbrahamsD. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325-342.
29.
WrightJ. C.CullumJ.SchwabN. (2008). The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction: Implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal tolerance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1461-1476.
