We investigated how moral judgments were influenced by (a) the age and gender of the moral perpetrator and victim, (b) the moral judge’s benevolent ageism and benevolent sexism, and (c) the moral judge’s gender. By systematically manipulating the age and gender of the perpetrators and victims in moral scenarios, participants in two studies made judgments about the moral transgressions. We found that (a) people made more negative judgments when the victims were old or female rather than young or male, (b) benevolent ageism influenced people’s judgments about young versus old perpetrators, and (c) people had differential moral expectations of perpetrators who belonged to their same-gender group versus opposite-gender group. The findings suggest that age and gender stereotypes are so salient to bias people’s moral judgments even when the transgression is undoubtedly intentional and hostile.
AbramsD.VikiG.MasserB.BohnerG. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111
2.
BarretoM.RyanM. K.SchmittM. T. (2009). Introduction: Is the glass ceiling still relevant in the 21st century? In BarretoM.RyanM. K.SchmittM. T. (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11863-001
3.
BernardiR. A.LeComteK. L. (2008). Impressions of questionable marketing practices in Indonesia: The influence of gender and social desirability response bias. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 13, 42–50.
4.
Blanchard-FieldsF.BaldiR.SteinR. (1999). Age relevance and context effects on attributions across the adult lifespan. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 665–683. doi:10.1080/016502599383748
5.
CameronC. D.LindquistK. A.GrayK. (2015). A constructionist review of morality and emotions: No evidence for specific links between moral content and discrete emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 371–394. doi:10.1177/1088868314566683
6.
CaryL. A.ChasteenA. L.RemediosJ. (2016). The ambivalent ageism scale: Developing and validating a scale to measure benevolent and hostile ageism. Gerontologist, 00, 1–10. doi:10.1093/geront/gnw118
7.
ChasteenA. L.CaryL. A. (2015). Age stereotypes and age stigma: Connections to research on subjective aging. In DiehlM.WahlH.DiehlM.WahlH. (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, Vol. 35, 2015: Subjective aging: New developments and future directions (pp. 99–119). New York, NY: Springer.
8.
ChasteenA. L.RemediosJ. D.SkyvingtonS.CaryL.CadieuxJ. (2013, 1). Unwanted kindness: How benevolent ageism can undermine older adults and go unrecognized. Poster presented at the 14th Annual Convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
9.
CherryK. E.PalmoreE. (2008). Relating to Older People Evaluation (ROPE): A measure of self-reported ageism. Educational Gerontology, 34, 849–861. doi:10.1080/036012708020 42099
10.
CuddyA. C.FiskeS. T. (2002). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in stereotyping of older persons. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons (pp. 3–26). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11.
CuddyA. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
12.
DaltonD.OrtegrenM. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 73–93. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0843-8
13.
ErberJ. T.LongB. A. (2006). Perceptions of forgetful and slow employees: Does age matter?The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61, 333–339. doi:10.1093/geronb/61.6.P333
14.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
15.
FriesdorfR.ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 696–713. doi:10.1177/0146167215575731
16.
FumagalliM.FerrucciR.MameliF.MarcegliaS.Mrakic-SpostaS.ZagoS.…PrioriA. (2010). Gender-related differences in moral judgments. Cognitive Processing, 11, 219–226. doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0335-2
17.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
18.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.…LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
19.
GlickP.Sakalli-UgurluN.FerreiraM. C.de SouzaM. A. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 292–297. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068
20.
GoldN.ColmanA. M.PulfordB. D. (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 65–76.
21.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
22.
GreeneJ.HaidtJ. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517–523. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9
23.
GrühnD.RebucalK.DiehlM.LumleyM.Labouvie-ViefG. (2008). Empathy across the adult lifespan: Longitudinal and experience-sampling findings. Emotion, 8, 753–765. doi:10.1037/a0014123
24.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
25.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
26.
HaidtJ.JosephC. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133, 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555
27.
HainesR.LeonardL. K. (2007). Situational influences on ethical decision-making in an IT context. Information & Management, 44, 313–320. doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.02.002
28.
HelzerE. G.PizarroD. A. (2011). Dirty Liberals! Reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychological Science, 22, 517–522. doi:10.1177/0956797611402514
29.
JaffeeS.HydeJ. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703–726. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.703
30.
KennedyJ. A.KrayL. J. (2013). Who is willing to sacrifice ethical values for money and social status? Gender differences in reactions to ethical compromises. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 52–59. doi:10.1177/1948550613482987
31.
KiteM. E.StockdaleG. D.WhitleyB. R.JohnsonB. T. (2005). Attitudes toward younger and older adults: An updated meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 241–266. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00404.x
32.
KujalaJ.PietiläinenT. (2007). Developing moral principles and scenarios in the light of diversity: An extension to the multidimensional ethics scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 141–150. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9101-x
33.
McCoyM. L.GrayJ. M. (2007). The impact of defendant gender and relationship to victim on juror decisions in a child sexual abuse case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1578–1593. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00228.x
34.
MillerL. M.CharlesS. T.FingermanK. L. (2009). Perceptions of social transgressions in adulthood. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences And Social Sciences, 64, 551–559. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp062
35.
NelsonT. D. (2002). Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
36.
NorthM. S.FiskeS. T. (2013). Act your (old) age: Prescriptive, ageist biases over succession, consumption, and identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 720–734. doi:10.1177/0146167213480043
37.
QuasJ. A.BottomsB. L.HaegerichT. M.Nysse-CarrisK. L. (2002). Effects of victim, defendant and juror gender on decisions in child sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1993–2021. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02061.x
38.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
StarckeK.PolzerC.WolfO. T.BrandM. (2011). Does stress alter everyday moral decision-making?Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36, 210–219. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.07.010
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.
