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.

Evaluative Deflation, Social Expectations, and the Zone of Moral Indifference

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

Money, Moral Transgressions, and Blame

The deflationary model of harm and moral wrongdoing: A rejoinder to Royzman & Borislow

When Feeling Good Feels “Wrong”: Avoiding Hedonic Consumption When It Reflects Immoral Character

When it's not easy to do the right thing: Developmental changes in understanding cost drive evaluations of moral praiseworthiness

Morality Predicts Enjoyment But Not Appreciation of Morally Ambiguous Characters

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

Threshold violations in social judgment.

Moral dumbfounding and imaginative resistance

All is well that ends well, at least for proselfs: emotional reactions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation

Deformative Experience: Explaining the Effects of Adversity on Moral Evaluation

Situational Moral Evaluations: The Role of Rationalizations & Moral Identity

Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors

Ethical Reflections on the Boundaries of Moral Indifference -To what extent are we responsible for others?

Moral evaluation in critical discourse analysis

Doing the right thing (or not) in a lemons-like situation: on the role of social preferences and Kantian moral concerns

Social appropriateness with contractual incompleteness

The Foreign Language Effect on Moral Judgment: The Role of Emotions and Norms

Who Is Your Biggest Critic? Cultural Variation in Moral Judgments of the Self and Others

Moral preference reversals: Violations of procedure invariance in moral judgments of sacrificial dilemmas