Proscriptive Versus Prescriptive Morality: Two Faces of Moral Regulation

被引:318
作者
Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie [1 ]
Sheikh, Sana [1 ]
Hepp, Sebastian [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Massachusetts, Dept Psychol, Amherst, MA 01003 USA
关键词
morality; self-regulation; approach; avoidance; OMISSION BIAS; PROTECTED VALUES; NEGATIVITY BIAS; SELF-REGULATION; PROSPECT-THEORY; AVOIDANCE; JUDGMENT; INHIBITION; ASYMMETRY; PROMOTION;
D O I
10.1037/a0013779
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
A distinction is made between two forms of morality on the basis of approach-avoidance differences in self-regulation. Prescriptive morality is sensitive to positive outcomes, activation-based, and focused on what we should do. Proscriptive morality is sensitive to negative outcomes, inhibition-based, and focused on what we should not do. Seven studies profile these two faces of morality, support their distinct motivational underpinnings, and provide evidence of moral asymmetry. Both are well-represented in individuals' moral repertoire and equivalent in terms of moral weight. but proscriptive morality is condemnatory and strict, whereas prescriptive morality is commendatory and not strict. More specifically. in these studies proscriptive morality was perceived as concrete, mandatory, and duty-based, whereas prescriptive morality was perceived as more abstract, discretionary, and based in duty or desire; proscriptive immorality resulted in greater blame, whereas prescriptive morality resulted in greater moral credit. Implications for broader social regulation, including cross-cultural differences and political orientation, are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:521 / 537
页数:17
相关论文
共 88 条
[1]   Conscience in childhood: Old questions, new answers [J].
Aksan, N ;
Kochanska, G .
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 41 (03) :506-516
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
[3]  
ARISTOTLE, 1989, Nichomachean Ethics
[4]   Omission bias, individual differences, and normality [J].
Baron, J ;
Ritov, I .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 2004, 94 (02) :74-85
[5]   Limiting the scope of moral obligations to help - A cross-cultural investigation [J].
Baron, J ;
Miller, JG .
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 31 (06) :703-725
[6]  
Batson C.D., 2008, Handbook of Motivation Science, P135
[7]   WHY ACT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD - 4 ANSWERS [J].
BATSON, CD .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 1994, 20 (05) :603-610
[8]   5 STUDIES TESTING 2 NEW EGOISTIC ALTERNATIVES TO THE EMPATHY ALTRUISM HYPOTHESIS [J].
BATSON, CD ;
DYCK, JL ;
BRANDT, JR ;
BATSON, JG ;
POWELL, AL ;
MCMASTER, MR ;
GRIFFITT, C .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1988, 55 (01) :52-77
[9]  
Baumeister RF., 2001, Review of General Psychology, V5, P323, DOI [DOI 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323, 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323]
[10]  
Cacioppo J T, 1997, Pers Soc Psychol Rev, V1, P3, DOI 10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2