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.

The Moral Psychology and Exemplarism of Leaders in Advertising

Pride or empathy? Exploring effective CSR communication strategies on social media

Moral beacons: Understanding moral character and moral influence

Morality in Advertising: an Fmri Study on Persuasion in Communication.

THE ROLE OF ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND WHISTLEBLOWING INTENTIONS: MEDIATING APPARATUS OF MORAL IDENTITY

Ethical Leadership and UPB: the Mediating Mechanism of Moral Attentiveness

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

More than law‐abiding: A multi‐staged consumer study on brand morality

Understanding CSR Campaigns Through the Lens of Culture Values and Moral Emotion

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

Leaders’ Use of Moral Justifications Increases Policy Support

Determinants of Consumer Attitudes Toward Prosocial Products: A Focus on the Communication of Love (vs. Pride, Hope, and Compassion) Within Advertisements

Examining the Cognitive and Affective Trust-Based Mechanisms Underlying the Relationship Between Ethical Leadership and Organisational Citizenship: A Case of the Head Leading the Heart?

Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages

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

Is brand activism an emotional affair? The role of moral emotions in consumer responses to brand activism

Do celebrities in advertisements matter? Familiar endorsers as an accelerator of gestural cues of persuasion

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

Truth, Lies and Advertising: Understanding Market and Individual Causes of False Advertising Claims

Sinfully decadent: priming effects of immoral advertising symbols on indulgence

Examining CEOs’ Moral Reasoning in the Automotive Industry