Scholarlink

<p>In previous studies, a distinct favorability toward ingroup members compared to outgroup members has been observed in moral situations. However, the specific categories of groups used and the judgments assessed in these studies have led to discrepancies and questions regarding the strength of this favorability bias. This research focuses on exploring the favorability bias and moral judgments within the context of a specific group category: nation. In this quantitative study, we recruited 303 adults using an online platform. Through a questionnaire, adults were individually asked to respond to a series of four moral dilemmas, determining whether they would or should protect other conationals, Colombians, or foreigners, Venezuelans, when they commit a moral transgression. We found that Colombians did not show any kind of favoritism in either <i>would</i> or <i>should judgments</i>, contrary to prior evidence on the phenomenon. We suggest that there can be particularities due to the dilemmas used and the context of the Venezuelan migration that could affect the favoritism effect and the difference between judgments. Besides, we discuss the possibility that nation is not a category that evokes favoritism in moral situations as much as other categories like family or friends.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

National Identity’s Influence on Moral Judgment: Evidence from a Colombian Sample

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月29日

查看全文
  • Nayib Sebastián Medina Paez,
  • William Jiménez-Leal

摘要

In previous studies, a distinct favorability toward ingroup members compared to outgroup members has been observed in moral situations. However, the specific categories of groups used and the judgments assessed in these studies have led to discrepancies and questions regarding the strength of this favorability bias. This research focuses on exploring the favorability bias and moral judgments within the context of a specific group category: nation. In this quantitative study, we recruited 303 adults using an online platform. Through a questionnaire, adults were individually asked to respond to a series of four moral dilemmas, determining whether they would or should protect other conationals, Colombians, or foreigners, Venezuelans, when they commit a moral transgression. We found that Colombians did not show any kind of favoritism in either would or should judgments, contrary to prior evidence on the phenomenon. We suggest that there can be particularities due to the dilemmas used and the context of the Venezuelan migration that could affect the favoritism effect and the difference between judgments. Besides, we discuss the possibility that nation is not a category that evokes favoritism in moral situations as much as other categories like family or friends.