Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Authority dependence and judgments of utilitari...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm. / Piazza, Jared; Sousa, Paulo; Holbrook, Colin.
In: Cognition, Vol. 128, No. 3, 09.2013, p. 261-270.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Piazza, J, Sousa, P & Holbrook, C 2013, 'Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm', Cognition, vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.001

APA

Piazza, J., Sousa, P., & Holbrook, C. (2013). Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm. Cognition, 128(3), 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.001

Vancouver

Piazza J, Sousa P, Holbrook C. Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm. Cognition. 2013 Sept;128(3):261-270. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.001

Author

Piazza, Jared ; Sousa, Paulo ; Holbrook, Colin. / Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm. In: Cognition. 2013 ; Vol. 128, No. 3. pp. 261-270.

Bibtex

@article{f36cc3ffd0a54bda925a211e0623d11b,
title = "Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm",
abstract = "Three studies tested the conditions under which people judge utilitarian harm to be authority dependent (i.e., whether its right or wrongness depends on the ruling of an authority). In Study 1, participants judged the right or wrongness of physical abuse when used as an interrogation method anticipated to yield useful information for preventing future terrorist attacks. The ruling of the military authority towards the harm was manipulated (prohibited vs. prescribed) and found to significantly influence judgments of the right or wrongness of inflicting harm. Study 2 established a boundary condition with regards to the influence of authority, which was eliminated when the utility of the harm was definitely obtained rather than forecasted. Finally, Study 3 replicated the findings of Studies 1–2 in a completely different context—an expert committee{\textquoteright}s ruling about the harming of chimpanzees for biomedical research. These results are discussed as they inform ongoing debates regarding the role of authority in moderating judgments of complex and simple harm.",
keywords = "Utilitarian harm, Authority, Moral judgments, Moral reasoning, Moral dilemmas, Moral/conventional task",
author = "Jared Piazza and Paulo Sousa and Colin Holbrook",
year = "2013",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.001",
language = "English",
volume = "128",
pages = "261--270",
journal = "Cognition",
issn = "0010-0277",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Authority dependence and judgments of utilitarian harm

AU - Piazza, Jared

AU - Sousa, Paulo

AU - Holbrook, Colin

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - Three studies tested the conditions under which people judge utilitarian harm to be authority dependent (i.e., whether its right or wrongness depends on the ruling of an authority). In Study 1, participants judged the right or wrongness of physical abuse when used as an interrogation method anticipated to yield useful information for preventing future terrorist attacks. The ruling of the military authority towards the harm was manipulated (prohibited vs. prescribed) and found to significantly influence judgments of the right or wrongness of inflicting harm. Study 2 established a boundary condition with regards to the influence of authority, which was eliminated when the utility of the harm was definitely obtained rather than forecasted. Finally, Study 3 replicated the findings of Studies 1–2 in a completely different context—an expert committee’s ruling about the harming of chimpanzees for biomedical research. These results are discussed as they inform ongoing debates regarding the role of authority in moderating judgments of complex and simple harm.

AB - Three studies tested the conditions under which people judge utilitarian harm to be authority dependent (i.e., whether its right or wrongness depends on the ruling of an authority). In Study 1, participants judged the right or wrongness of physical abuse when used as an interrogation method anticipated to yield useful information for preventing future terrorist attacks. The ruling of the military authority towards the harm was manipulated (prohibited vs. prescribed) and found to significantly influence judgments of the right or wrongness of inflicting harm. Study 2 established a boundary condition with regards to the influence of authority, which was eliminated when the utility of the harm was definitely obtained rather than forecasted. Finally, Study 3 replicated the findings of Studies 1–2 in a completely different context—an expert committee’s ruling about the harming of chimpanzees for biomedical research. These results are discussed as they inform ongoing debates regarding the role of authority in moderating judgments of complex and simple harm.

KW - Utilitarian harm

KW - Authority

KW - Moral judgments

KW - Moral reasoning

KW - Moral dilemmas

KW - Moral/conventional task

U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.001

DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.001

M3 - Journal article

VL - 128

SP - 261

EP - 270

JO - Cognition

JF - Cognition

SN - 0010-0277

IS - 3

ER -