Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEthics in Business and EducationPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Moral contamination: Perceptions of good (but not bad) deeds depend on the ethical history of the actor

Open access
Protzko, John, Schooler, Jonathan W.·2023·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1025214PMC PMC9892465
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the majority of moral decision-making research, we are asked to consider the action of someone we know little about—an anonymous actor. This is inconsistent with our everyday judgments of the actions of others. Here we test the novel prediction of whether actions are considered as comparably virtuous or malignant when performed by a good person, an immoral person, or the standard anonymous actor. Across four sets of experiments (nine studies in total), we show that the moral status of the actor contaminates peoples’ evaluations of the virtue of their actions. Even without ulterior motives, people do not judge good acts consistently across actors. We also discover a dose–response relationship where the more immoral the actor has been in the past—the less credit they are given for a good action in the present. This process does not occur for good people performing bad acts, however. Bad acts are bad regardless of who commits them. These results give new insights into the way people evaluate the behaviors of others.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1025214

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Differences in the moral status of the same action, for the same reasons, performed by different people. Error bars represent 95%CI. (A) Shows results from the pilot study; (B) shows results from the replication.
FIGURE 1 Differences in the moral status of the same action, for the same reasons, performed by different people. Error bars represent 95%CI. (A) Shows results from the pilot study; (B) shows results from the replication.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Moral contamination with ulterior motives. Error bars represent 95% CI.
FIGURE 2 Moral contamination with ulterior motives. Error bars represent 95% CI.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3 Moral contamination for intentional and unintentional bad actions. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
FIGURE 3 Moral contamination for intentional and unintentional bad actions. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4 Interaction of need for cognition with moral contamination.
FIGURE 4 Interaction of need for cognition with moral contamination.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 5 Likelihood of shoving a child who runs into someone again in the future. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.
FIGURE 5 Likelihood of shoving a child who runs into someone again in the future. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 6 Dose–response fitted lines of moral contamination.
FIGURE 6 Dose–response fitted lines of moral contamination.CC BY · PubMed Central
APPENDIX FIGURE 1 Hierarchy of bad behaviors with 95% CI.
APPENDIX FIGURE 1 Hierarchy of bad behaviors with 95% CI.CC BY · PubMed Central
APPENDIX FIGURE 2 Hierarchy of good behaviors with 95% CI.
APPENDIX FIGURE 2 Hierarchy of good behaviors with 95% CI.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Gert, 2016, The definition of morality, The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
  2. Glennie, 2011, Hugo chávez’s reverse-halo effect.
  3. Heighton, 2016, British army officer charged with sexual assault of Canadian soldier.

Cited by

See all 4

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Protzko, J., & Schooler, J. W.
Affiliations
  • Central Connecticut State University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Protzko, John
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-01-19
Volume
13
Pages
1025214-1025214
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1025214
PMC
PMC9892465
OpenAlex
W4317387829
Cited by
4
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
John E. Fetzer Memorial Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
moral judgment, moral credit, moral blame, ethical decision-making, dose-response relationship

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

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.