CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentSocial and Intergroup PsychologyEthics in Business and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Religiosity, Political Orientation, and Consequentialist Moral Thinking

Piazza, Jared, Sousa, Paulo·2014·Social Psychological and Personality Science
DOI 10.1177/1948550613492826
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Three studies demonstrated that the moral judgments of religious individuals and political conservatives are highly insensitive to consequentialist (i.e., outcome-based) considerations. In Study 1, both religiosity and political conservatism predicted a resistance toward consequentialist thinking concerning a range of transgressive acts, independent of other relevant dispositional factors (e.g., disgust sensitivity). Study 2 ruled out differences in welfare sensitivity as an explanation for these findings. In Study 3, religiosity and political conservatism predicted a commitment to judging “harmless” taboo violations morally impermissible, rather than discretionary, despite the lack of negative consequences rising from the act. Furthermore, non-consequentialist thinking style was shown to mediate the relationship religiosity/conservatism had with impermissibility judgments, while intuitive thinking style did not. These data provide further evidence for the influence of religious and political commitments in motivating divergent moral judgments, while highlighting a new dispositional factor, non-consequentialist thinking style, as a mediator of these effects.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1948550613492826

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Greene J. D., 2008, Moral psychology: The neuroscience of morality, 35
  2. Kant I., 1797, Practical philosophy, 611
  3. Mill J. S., 1861, Utilitarianism
  4. Piazza J., 2013, Because God commands it: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority explains the link between religiosity and non-consequentialist moral thinking
  5. Russell P. S., 2012, When do deontological arguments communicate more moral conviction than consequentialist arguments?
  6. Sinnott-Armstrong W. (2009a). Consequentialism. In Zalta E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.science.uva.nl/∼seop/archives/spr2009/entries/consequ-entialism

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–159 of 159

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Piazza, J., & Sousa, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
Corresponding author
Piazza, Jared
ORCID
Venue
Social Psychological and Personality Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-06-13
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
334-342
ISSN
  • 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-5514
DOI
10.1177/1948550613492826
OpenAlex
W2100942092
Cited by
160
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
religiosity, political conservatism, moral judgment, taboo violation, disgust sensitivity, intuitive thinking, moral transgression

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