Although two people could both enact similar forms of hypocrisy, one person might be judged as hypocritical than the other. The present research advances a novel, theoretical explanation for a paradigmatic instance of this: the increased hypocrisy ascribed to contradicting a morally (vs. nonmorally) based attitude. In contrast to prior explanations, the present research shows that people infer targets holding morally (vs. nonmorally) based attitudes are more difficult to change. Consequently, when people are hypocritical on these stances, it elicits greater surprise, which amplifies the perceived hypocrisy. Through both statistical mediation and experimental moderation, we provide evidence for this process and show how our explanation generalizes to understanding heightened hypocrisy in other contexts, too (i.e., violating nonmoral attitudes held with certainty vs. uncertainty). Altogether, we provide an integrative, theoretical lens for predicting when moral and nonmoral acts of hypocrisy will be perceived as particularly hypocritical.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672231177773DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

morally nonmorally
8
nonmorally based
8
hypocrisy
6
understanding magnitude
4
magnitude hypocrisy
4
hypocrisy moral
4
moral contradictions
4
contradictions role
4
role surprise
4
surprise violating
4

Similar Publications

Objective: To date, research and policy directives have focused on identifying individual risk factors for moral injury, with less attention to solutions for establishing non-morally injurious cultures and practices.

Methods: Experts with academic or clinical knowledge of moral injury were recruited to a three-round e-Delphi survey exploring descriptors and characteristics of non-morally injurious organisations.

Results: Forty-nine, forty-one and thirty-nine experts responded at each round.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Although two people could both enact similar forms of hypocrisy, one person might be judged as hypocritical than the other. The present research advances a novel, theoretical explanation for a paradigmatic instance of this: the increased hypocrisy ascribed to contradicting a morally (vs. nonmorally) based attitude.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The impact of moral injury on the wellbeing of UK military veterans.

BMC Psychol

May 2021

King's Centre for Military Health Research, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK.

Background: Experiences of potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) have been found to negatively impact the mental health of US personnel/veterans, yet little is known about the effect of PMIEs on the mental health of the UK Armed Forces (AF). This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the association between PMIEs and the mental health outcomes of UK AF veterans.

Method: Assessments of PMIE exposure and self-report measures of common mental disorders were administered using an online questionnaire to 204 UK veterans.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The impact of trauma exposure and moral injury on UK military veterans: a qualitative study.

Eur J Psychotraumatol

January 2020

King's Centre for Military Health Research, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

: Exposure to a potentially morally injurious event (PMIE) has been found to be associated with a range of adverse mental health outcomes. However, how the psychological consequences following PMIEs compare to those encountered after a traumatic, but not a PMIE, remain poorly understood. : The aim was to qualitatively explore UK military veterans' responses to experiences of trauma and moral injury and the impact of such events on psychological wellbeing.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Behavioral forecasts of individuals ("How likely is it a randomly selected person will…") and behavioral forecasts of populations ("What percentage of people will…") are often used interchangeably. However, 6 studies showed that behavioral forecasts of individuals and populations systematically differ. In judgments of morally relevant behaviors, forecasters estimated that a randomly selected individual (e.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!