Work

Own or Other Integrity in Expected Moral Judgments? Moral Pluralism and Political Partisanship

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: We examine whether people believe they should be judged in ways consistent with their own moral values, or with those of their judge. Drawing on the differing moral priorities of Democrats and Republicans, in two studies, we compare the own-integrity hypothesis (believing judgments should align with one’s own moral standards, based on the universality of morality) and the other-integrity hypothesis (believing judgments should align with the out-group’s standards, based on aversion to moral hypocrisy). Our findings support the other-integrity hypothesis : Republicans believed that Democrats should judge them more harshly for violations of individualizing moralities (which Democrats prioritize), while Democrats believed that Republicans should judge them more harshly for violations of binding moralities (which Republicans prioritize); Democrats and Republicans showed greater confidence predicting future judgments by an out-group judge whose previous judgments aligned with the judge’s group moral priorities, rather than the participant’s group, while considering both judges equally moral.

Source: Social Psychological and Personality Science

DOI: 10.1177/19485506251375514

Authors: Eitan Venzhik, Benjamin C. Ruisch, Adi Amit

Institutions: Open University of Israel, University of Kent

Language: English

Topic: Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Subfield: Cognitive Neuroscience

Field: Neuroscience

Domain: Life Sciences

SDG: Peace, justice, and strong institutions

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $3,900