Explaining the Abstract/Concrete Paradoxes in Moral Psychology: The NBAR Hypothesis

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
For some reason, participants hold agents more responsible for their actions when a situation is described concretely than when the situation is described abstractly. We present examples of this phenomenon, and survey some attempts to explain it. We divide these attempts into two classes: affective theories and cognitive theories. After criticizing both types of theories we advance our novel hypothesis: that people believe that whenever a norm is violated, someone is responsible for it. This belief, along with the familiar workings of cognitive dissonance theory, is enough to not only explain all of the abstract/concrete paradoxes, but also explains seemingly unrelated effects, like the anthropomorphization of malfunctioning inanimate objects.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MANETA
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-06-14
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Thinking is Believing.Mandelbaum, Eric

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2012-08-30

Total views
1,260 ( #2,137 of 50,280 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
71 ( #7,487 of 50,280 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.