Abstract:Individuals who reject sacrificial harm to maximize overall outcomes, consistent with deontological (vs. utilitarian) ethics, appear warmer, more moral, and more trustworthy. Yet, deontological judgments may not only convey emotional reactions, but also strict adherence to moral rules. We therefore hypothesized that people view deontologists as more morally absolutist and hence self-righteous—as perceiving themselves as morally superior. In addition, both deontologists and utilitarians who base their decisions on rules (vs. emotions) should appear more self-righteous. Four studies (N = 1254) tested these hypotheses. Participants perceived targets as more self-righteous when they rejected (vs. accepted) sacrificial harm in classic moral dilemmas where harm maximizes outcomes (i.e., deontological vs. utilitarian judgments), but not parallel cases where harm fails to maximize outcomes (Study 1). Preregistered Study 2 replicated the focal effect, additionally indicating mediation via perceptions of moral absolutism. Study 3 found that targets who reported basing their deontological judgments on rules, compared to emotional reactions or when processing information was absent, appeared particularly self-righteous. Preregistered Study 4 included both deontological and utilitarian targets and manipulated whether their judgments were based on rules versus emotion (specifically sadness). Grounding either moral position in rules conveyed self-righteousness, while communicating emotions was a remedy. Furthermore, participants perceived targets as more self-righteous the more targets deviated from their own moral beliefs. Studies 3 and 4 additionally examined participants' self-disclosure intentions. In sum, deontological dilemma judgments may convey an absolutist, rule-focused view of morality, but any judgment stemming from rules (in contrast to sadness) promotes self-righteousness perceptions.

Leaders’ Use of Moral Justifications Increases Policy Support

Does observability amplify sensitivity to moral frames? Evaluating a reputation-based account of moral preferences

Moral Positive Illusion: Self–other Valuation Difference in Moral Foundation Theory

Author Response for "how Does Leader Self‐sacrifice Lead to Employees' Unethical Pro‐organizational Behavior? A Moderated Mediation Model"

For the Greater Good: When Visionary Leadership Fosters Follower Moral Elevation and Unethical Prosocial Behavior

Taking the moral high ground: Deontological and absolutist moral dilemma judgments convey self-righteousness

How Moral Reframing Enhances Political Persuasion: The Role of Processing Fluency and Self-Affirmation

The Moral Psychology and Exemplarism of Leaders in Advertising

Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages

Ethical Leadership and UPB: the Mediating Mechanism of Moral Attentiveness

Leader Moral Identity/Attentiveness and Follower Moral Identity/Attentiveness

Motivational underpinnings of support for radical political leaders

The power of moral words: Loaded language generates framing effects in the extreme dictator game

The money or the morals? When moral language is more effective for selling social issues.

Moral labels increase cooperation and costly punishment in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game with punishment option

The Effects of Politician’s Moral Violations on Voters' Moral Emotions

Lay Theories of Moral Progress

Fulfilling Moral Duty or Prioritizing Moral Image? the Moral Self-Regulatory Consequences of Ethical Voice.

Leadership in a social dilemma: Does it matter if the leader is pro‐social or just says they are pro‐social?

Is Doing Good Good Enough? A Motivation, Action, Sacrifice, and Temptation (MAST) View of Moral Praiseworthiness

When Ethical Leader Behavior Breaks Bad: How Ethical Leader Behavior Can Turn Abusive Via Ego Depletion and Moral Licensing.