Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > When a virtue is not a virtue

Research

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

When a virtue is not a virtue: conditional virtues in moral evaluation

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

Published

Standard

When a virtue is not a virtue: conditional virtues in moral evaluation. / Piazza, Jared; Goodwin, Geoffrey; Rozin, Paul et al.
In: Social Cognition, Vol. 32, No. 6, 12.2014, p. 528-558.

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

Harvard

Piazza, J, Goodwin, G, Rozin, P & Royzman, E 2014, 'When a virtue is not a virtue: conditional virtues in moral evaluation', Social Cognition, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 528-558. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.6.528

APA

Piazza, J., Goodwin, G., Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. (2014). When a virtue is not a virtue: conditional virtues in moral evaluation. Social Cognition, 32(6), 528-558. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.6.528

Vancouver

Piazza J, Goodwin G, Rozin P, Royzman E. When a virtue is not a virtue: conditional virtues in moral evaluation. Social Cognition. 2014 Dec;32(6):528-558. doi: 10.1521/soco.2014.32.6.528

Author

Piazza, Jared ; Goodwin, Geoffrey ; Rozin, Paul et al. / When a virtue is not a virtue : conditional virtues in moral evaluation. In: Social Cognition. 2014 ; Vol. 32, No. 6. pp. 528-558.

Bibtex

@article{fb91ab31c2e3459a80e6f97e45b42dc1,
title = "When a virtue is not a virtue: conditional virtues in moral evaluation",
abstract = "Four studies show that people distinguish between two sorts of moral virtues: core goodness traits that unconditionally enhance the morality of any agent, and value commitment traits that are conditionally good (i.e., that polarize the morality of good and bad agents). Study 1 revealed that commitment traits (e.g., dedicated) amplify the badness of a bad agent (terrorist), whereas core goodness traits (e.g., kind) amplify the goodness of the bad agent. Study 2 replicated these results while also showing that both commitment and core goodness traits enhance the perceived goodness of neutral and good agents. Studies 2–4 established that commitment traits polarize moral evaluations by signaling agents{\textquoteright} commitment to certain values, rather than their agency or effectiveness in pursuing those values. These results extend current understanding of the perceived structure of moral character.",
author = "Jared Piazza and Geoffrey Goodwin and Paul Rozin and Edward Royzman",
year = "2014",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1521/soco.2014.32.6.528",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "528--558",
journal = "Social Cognition",
issn = "0278-016X",
publisher = "Guilford Publications",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - When a virtue is not a virtue

T2 - conditional virtues in moral evaluation

AU - Piazza, Jared

AU - Goodwin, Geoffrey

AU - Rozin, Paul

AU - Royzman, Edward

PY - 2014/12

Y1 - 2014/12

N2 - Four studies show that people distinguish between two sorts of moral virtues: core goodness traits that unconditionally enhance the morality of any agent, and value commitment traits that are conditionally good (i.e., that polarize the morality of good and bad agents). Study 1 revealed that commitment traits (e.g., dedicated) amplify the badness of a bad agent (terrorist), whereas core goodness traits (e.g., kind) amplify the goodness of the bad agent. Study 2 replicated these results while also showing that both commitment and core goodness traits enhance the perceived goodness of neutral and good agents. Studies 2–4 established that commitment traits polarize moral evaluations by signaling agents’ commitment to certain values, rather than their agency or effectiveness in pursuing those values. These results extend current understanding of the perceived structure of moral character.

AB - Four studies show that people distinguish between two sorts of moral virtues: core goodness traits that unconditionally enhance the morality of any agent, and value commitment traits that are conditionally good (i.e., that polarize the morality of good and bad agents). Study 1 revealed that commitment traits (e.g., dedicated) amplify the badness of a bad agent (terrorist), whereas core goodness traits (e.g., kind) amplify the goodness of the bad agent. Study 2 replicated these results while also showing that both commitment and core goodness traits enhance the perceived goodness of neutral and good agents. Studies 2–4 established that commitment traits polarize moral evaluations by signaling agents’ commitment to certain values, rather than their agency or effectiveness in pursuing those values. These results extend current understanding of the perceived structure of moral character.

U2 - 10.1521/soco.2014.32.6.528

DO - 10.1521/soco.2014.32.6.528

M3 - Journal article

VL - 32

SP - 528

EP - 558

JO - Social Cognition

JF - Social Cognition

SN - 0278-016X

IS - 6

ER -