The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach
Abstract
Two studies document do-gooder derogation (the putting down of morally motivated others), by studying the reactions of meat eaters to vegetarians. In Study 1, 47% of participants freely associated negative terms with vegetarians and the valence of the words was negatively related to how much participants expected vegetarians to see themselves as morally superior to nonvegetarians. In Study 2, we manipulated the salience of anticipated moral reproach by varying whether participants reported these expectations before or after rating vegetarians. As predicted, participants rated vegetarians less positively after imagining their moral judgment of meat eaters. These studies empirically document the backlash reported by moral minorities and trace it back to resentment by the mainstream against feeling morally judged.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self
Steele, C. M. (1988) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60229-4 · Cited by 3,697
In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy.
Batson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L., Kampf, H. C., & Wilson, A. D. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1335 · Cited by 317
Cited by
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1153260 · Cited by 682
de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2014) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.002 · Cited by 355
The ironic impact of activists: negative stereotypes reduce social change influence.
Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., Nadolny, D., & Noyes, I. (2013) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.1983 · Cited by 229
Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters
Rothgerber, H. (2014) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003 · Cited by 207
Vegetarianism as a social identity
Nezlek, J. B., & Forestell, C. A. (2020) · Current Opinion in Food Science · doi:10.1016/j.cofs.2019.12.005 · Cited by 187
Metadata
- Authors
- Minson, J. A., & Monin, B.
- Venue
- Social Psychological and Personality Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-07-18
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 200-207
- ISSN
- 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-5514
- OpenAlex
- W2020028017
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1948550611415695
- The paper
- Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415695
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.