Self-exculpation for moral transgressions

Social-cognitive research has shown that people often make biased judgments about various behaviours. This study examined biases in situations of moral transgression. One hundred and twenty participants recalled one of four types of transgression: transgressions they committed against others, transgressions others committed against them, transgressions they observed others committing against others, and transgressions they committed against themselves. Participants made a variety of judgments about the perpetrator's causal and moral responsibility for these transgressions. Participants then responded to Kohlberg's test of moral development. As expected, perpetrators consistently minimized their culpability for the transgressions they committed. Contrary to prediction, however, those describing their victimizations (by self and other) did not consistently maximize the culpability of the perpetrator forthe transgressions committed against them. Observers who identified with the victim tended to respond as victims by maximizing the culpability of the perpetrator. Victims who identified with the perpetrator tended to make moderate judgments of the perpetrator's culpability. After identification was considered, both perpetrators and victims made self-exculpating judgments. Overall, participants who scored relatively high on Kohlberg's test tended to judge the perpetrator to be more causally and morally responsible than participants who scored relatively low on Kohlberg's test. Higher scoring participants who responded from the perpetrator's perspective tended to hold the perpetrator (themselves or those whom they identified with) more culpable than lower scoring participants who responded from the perpetrator's perspective. The results are consistent with Kohlberg's two routes relating moral judgment to moral action.