Personal Misconduct Elicits Harsher Professional Consequences for Artists (vs. Scientists): A Moral-Decoupling Process.

Recent years have brought increased accountability for personal misconduct, yet often, unequal consequences have resulted from similar offenses. Findings from a unique archival data set (N = 619; all university faculty) and three preregistered experiments (N = 2,594) show that the perceived artistic-versus-scientific nature of the offender's professional contributions influences the professional punishment received. In Study 1, analysis of four decades of university sexual-misconduct cases reveals that faculty in artistic (vs. scientific) fields have on average received more severe professional consequences. Study 2 demonstrates this experimentally, offering mediational evidence that greater difficulty morally decoupling art (vs. science) contributes to the phenomenon. Study 3 provides further evidence for this mechanism through experimental moderation. Finally, Study 4 shows that merely framing an individual's work as artistic versus scientific results in replication of these effects. Several potential alternative mechanisms to moral decoupling are tested but not supported. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Understanding the Magnitude of Hypocrisy in Moral Contradictions: The Role of Surprise at Violating Strong Attitudes.

Although two people could both enact similar forms of hypocrisy, one person might be judged as more 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.

Are Some Attitudes More Self-Defining Than Others? Assessing Self-Related Attitude Functions and Their Consequences.

Attitudes serve multiple functions, some related to the self-concept. We call attitudes that help people define who they are "self-defining." Across four studies, we tested a brief self-report measure of the extent to which an attitude is self-defining. Studies 1 and 2 showed that self-defining attitudes tend to be extreme, positive, and unambivalent. Studies 3 and 4 produced two main findings. First, self-definition was related to, but not redundant with, a number of other characteristics of the attitude (e.g., attitude certainty). Second, self-definition predicted participants' intentions to spontaneously advocate and, in Study 4, their reactions to an opportunity to advocate behaviorally (i.e., writing about their attitude in an optional response box) following a self-threat. Overall, the results highlight the utility of this approach and, more broadly, demonstrate the value of considering the role of the self in attitudinal processes, and vice versa.