The present research examines how psychological distance influences the weight given to individuating information about targets of justice judgments. Drawing on construal level theory, which links psychological distance to levels of construal, we hypothesize that increasing psychological distance from justice judgments reduces people’s sensitivity to specific features of targets, thereby minimizing the extent to which applications of justice are influenced by target-specific information. Psychological proximity, by contrast, enhances the salience of targets’ idiosyncratic characteristics, thereby leading to applications of justice that are more sensitive to targets’ identity. Six studies, examining various justice principles, support these conclusions. Studies 1 to 3 show that psychological distancing reduces the weight of target-specific features in justice judgments. Supporting the role of construal level in driving these results, Studies 4 to 6 demonstrate parallel patterns when construal level is manipulated directly. This work offers a novel outlook on the role of construal and target characteristics in moral exclusion.
AlterA. L.DarleyJ. M. (2009). When the association between appearance and outcome contaminates social judgment: A bidirectional model linking group homogeneity and collective treatment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 776-795.
2.
AmitE.GreeneJ. D. (2012). You see, the ends don’t justify the means: Visual imagery and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 23, 861-868.
3.
Bar-AnanY.LibermanN.TropeY. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 609-622.
4.
BarnaG.BartonD. (2014). U-turn: Restoring America to the strength of its roots. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma Media.
5.
Bar-TalD. (1990). Causes and consequences of delegitimization: Models of conflict and ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 65-81.
6.
Bar-TalD.TeichmanY. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BoeckmannR. J.TylerT. R. (1997). Commonsense justice and Inclusion within the moral community: When do people receive procedural protections from others?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 362-380.
8.
BrickmanP.FolgerR.GoodeE.SchulY. (1981). Microjustice and macrojustice. In LernerM. (Ed.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 173-202). New York, NY: Plenum.
9.
BrocknerJ. (1990). Scope of justice in the workplace: How survivors react to coworker layoffs. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 95-106.
CohenR. L. (1987). Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research, 1, 19-40.
12.
DeutschM. (1990). Psychological roots of moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 21-26.
13.
EberhardtJ. L.GoffP. A.PurdieV. J.DaviesP. G. (2004). Seeing black: race, crime, and visual processing. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 87, 876.
14.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1-11.
15.
EyalT.SagristanoM. D.TropeY.PetrinanN.ChaikenS. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 35-43.
16.
FujitaK.HanH. A. (2009). Moving beyond deliberative control of impulses: The effect of construal levels on evaluative associations in self-control conflicts. Psychological Science, 20, 799-804.
17.
FujitaK.HendersonM. D.EngJ.TropeY.LibermanN. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278-282.
18.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140-150.
19.
GreeneJ. D.HaidtJ. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517-523.
20.
GreeneJ. D.MorelliS. A.LowenbergK.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144-1154.
21.
HaferC. L.ConwayP.CheungI.MalykD.OlsonJ. M. (2012). The relation between people’s connection with a target and the perceived importance of justice. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 395-409.
22.
HaferC. L.OlsonJ. M. (2003). An analysis of empirical research on the scope of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 311-323.
23.
KantI. (1981). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (EllingtonJ. W., Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work published 1785)
24.
KelmanH. C. (2001). Reflections on social and psychological processes of legitimization and delegitimization. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 54-73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
KerrN. L.HymesR. W.AndersonA. B.WeathersJ. E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545-567.
26.
KohlbergL. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In GoslinD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of socialization and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
27.
KohlbergL. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
28.
LedgerwoodA.TropeY.ChaikenS. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 32-51.
29.
LeetsL. (2001). Interrupting the cycle of moral exclusion: A communication contribution to social justice research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1859-1891.
30.
LibermanN.SagristanoM. D.TropeY. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-534.
31.
LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). The psychology of transcending here and now. Science, 322, 1201-1205.
LoewensteinG.SmallD. A. (2007). The Scarecrow and the Tin Man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 112.
34.
LuguriJ. B.NapierJ. L.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Reconstructing intolerance: Abstract thinking reduces conservatives’ prejudice against nonnormative groups. Psychological Science, 23, 756-763.
35.
MaglioS. J.TropeY.LibermanN. (2013). Distance from a distance: Psychological distance reduces sensitivity to any further psychological distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 644-657.
36.
NagataD. K. (1990). The Japanese–American Internment: Perceptions of Moral Community, Fairness, and Redress. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 133-146.
37.
OlsonJ. M.CheungI.ConwayP.HutchisonJ.HaferC. L. (2011). Distinguishing two meanings of moral exclusion: Exclusion from moral principles or principled harm-doing?Social Justice Research, 24, 365-390.
38.
OpotowS. (1993). Animals and the scope of justice. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 71-85.
39.
OpotowS. (1994). Predicting protection: Scope of justice and the natural world. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 49-63.
40.
OpotowS. (1995). Drawing the line: Social categorization, moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. In BunkerB. B.RubinJ. Z. (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice (pp. 347-369). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41.
OpotowS. (2001). Reconciliation in times of impunity: Challenges for social justice. Social Justice Research, 14, 149-170.
42.
OpotowS.GersonJ.WoodsideS. (2005). From moral exclusion to moral inclusion: Theory for teaching peace. Theory Into Practice, 44, 303-318.
43.
PaxtonJ. M.GreeneJ. D. (2010). Moral reasoning: Hints and allegations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 511-527.
44.
PetrinovichL.O’NeillP.JorgensenM. (1993). An empirical study of moral intuitions: Toward an evolutionary ethics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 467-478.
45.
RimS.HansenJ.TropeY. (2013). What happens why? Psychological distance and focusing on causes versus consequences of events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 457-472.
46.
ShenY. (2000). Conceptions and receptions of legality: Understanding the complexity of law reform in modern China. In TurnerK. G.FeinermanJ. V.Kent GuyR. (Eds.), The limits of the rule of law in China (pp. 20-44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
47.
StaubE. (1990). Moral exclusion, personal goal theory, and extreme destructiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 47-64.
48.
SwannW. B.GómezÁ.DovidioJ. F.HartS.JettenJ. (2010). Dying and killing for one’s group identity fusion moderates responses to intergroup versions of the trolley problem. Psychological Science, 21, 1176-1183.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
51.
TylerT. R.WakslakC. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42, 253-282.
52.
UhlmannE. L.PizarroD. A.TannenbaumD.DittoP. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 479-491.
53.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3-15.
54.
Van BavelJ. J.PackerD. J.HaasI. J.CunninghamW. A. (2012). The importance of moral construal: Moral versus non-moral construal elicits faster, more extreme, universal evaluations of the same actions. PLoS ONE, 7, e48693.
55.
WakslakC. J.TropeY. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20, 52-58.
56.
WakslakC. J.TropeY.LibermanN.AlonyR. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 641-653.
57.
WenzelM. (2001). A social categorization approach to distributive justice: Social identity as the link between relevance of inputs and need for justice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 315-335.
58.
WenzelM. (2004). A social categorisation approach to distributive justice. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 219-257.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
