Social influence on group moral decisions: the interactive effects of moral reasoning and sex role orientation.

In this study, we examined the effects of moral reasoning level and sex role orientation on social influence in group decision making. We predicted that these two individual difference constructs would have an interactive effect such that people who are compatible or nonconflicted on the two dimensions would have more influence on a group task with moral implications than would people who are conflicted. All subjects individually completed a distributive decision task that required ranking terminally ill patients for access to a life-saving kidney machine. They then met in small groups and reached a group decision on the same task. The subjects' moral reasoning level and sex role orientation--assessed via the Rest Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979) and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974), respectively--were used to predict influence on the group decision. Influence was measured in three ways: similarity between individual and group ranks, self-rated influence, and selection of the most influential group member. The results of all three influence measures provided support for the interactive hypothesis. In the discussion we consider the implications of the data for individual difference models of moral reasoning, the need for further understanding of goal competition and personality conflict, and the importance of considering the impact of moral factors on group decision-making proceses.

Guilt following transgression: an attribution of responsibility approach.

People typically experience guilt when they violate sociomoral norms. Using Heider's (1958) attribution of responsibility model in the two experiments reported here, I examined the attributional mediators of posttransgression guilt. The basic design of both studies was a Level of Responsibility X Subject Role factorial. The first study used a role-playing methodology; in the second, subjects generated protocols describing their own past experiences. The second experiment also distinguished between attributions of responsibility, causality, and blame. In both studies, harmdoer guilt was higher following accidental as opposed to intentional transgressions. The discussion focuses on the dynamics of guilt development and reduction and on the importance of maintaining conceptual distinctions among the various attribution measures in future guilt research.

Conditions for assigning blame: the impact of necessity and sufficiency.

The purpose of the experiment reported here was to examine the impact of necessary and sufficient causal conditions on assignment of blame for a negative outcome. In addition, the influence of inferential goals on the relative impact of necessity and sufficiency was investigated. Subjects read written scenarios in which the pattern of covariation between a target's behaviour and a negative outcome was systematically varied. The results indicate that subjects were able to integrate the covariation data to infer the nature of the causal condition, and utilize this information to infer the extent to which the target was the cause of, and deserving of blame for, a specific negative outcome. There were no effects due to the inferential goal factor. Implications for understanding the impact of necessary and sufficient conditions are discussed.

Downward comparison, prejudice, and evaluations of others: effects of self-esteem and threat.

In two studies, we explored the effects of trait self-esteem and threats to the self-concept on evaluations of others. In Study 1, subjects high, moderate, and low in self-esteem received either success, failure, or no feedback on a test and later evaluated three pairs of targets: in-groups and out-groups based on a minimal intergroup manipulation, those who scored above average and those who scored below average on the test, and themselves and the average college student. Study 2 explored the effects of self-esteem and threat on in-group favoritism in a real-world setting, campus sororities. Together, the results of these studies indicate that individuals high in self-esteem, but not those low in self-esteem, respond to threats to the self-concept by derogating out-groups relative to the in-group when the group boundaries have evaluative implications.