“Black-and-White” thinking: Does visual contrast polarize moral judgment? Independent replications and extension of Study 1

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104712
Kevin Vezirian, Elisa Sarda, Laurent Bègue, Pierre-Jean Laine, Hans IJzerman
{"title":"“Black-and-White” thinking: Does visual contrast polarize moral judgment? Independent replications and extension of Study 1","authors":"Kevin Vezirian, Elisa Sarda, Laurent Bègue, Pierre-Jean Laine, Hans IJzerman","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Does a black-and-white contrast background lead to more extreme moral judgments? Zarkadi and Schnall (2013) found in their Study 1 (<ce:italic>N</ce:italic> = 111) that, indeed, exposing English-speaking participants to a black-and-white (versus two other-colored conditions) background polarized participants' judgments in a moral dilemma task. This study supported a moral intuitionist model of moral judgment, lent further support to so-called Conceptual Metaphor Theories (Lakoff &amp; Johnson, 1999), and provided evidence that not only the colors “black” and “white” influence our moral perception, but that the metaphorical associations with the combination of those two colors (i.e., “black-and-white thinking”, Yin-Yang) led people to have more extreme moral judgments. Due to the striking nature of this finding, yet given various factors that undermine confidence in its veracity, we have decided to re-examine the question. A first study conducted on a large French-speaking sample (<ce:italic>N</ce:italic> = 8602), and two subsequent direct replications conducted on English-speaking samples (<ce:italic>N</ce:italic> = 365 and <ce:italic>N</ce:italic> = 215), failed to reveal any influence of background color on the evaluation of a moral dilemma. Numerous exploratory and supplementary analyses, including controlling for relevant covariates associated with variations in morality (e.g., age, gender), did not account for our consistent inability to replicate the original findings. This research suggests that age may influence perceived morality, with older participants (at least in Study 1) viewing Heinz's behavior as more wrong. Overall, this research suggests that it is doubtful that the evaluation of the Heinz's dilemma can be influenced by a subtle black-and-white visual priming.","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104712","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Does a black-and-white contrast background lead to more extreme moral judgments? Zarkadi and Schnall (2013) found in their Study 1 (N = 111) that, indeed, exposing English-speaking participants to a black-and-white (versus two other-colored conditions) background polarized participants' judgments in a moral dilemma task. This study supported a moral intuitionist model of moral judgment, lent further support to so-called Conceptual Metaphor Theories (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999), and provided evidence that not only the colors “black” and “white” influence our moral perception, but that the metaphorical associations with the combination of those two colors (i.e., “black-and-white thinking”, Yin-Yang) led people to have more extreme moral judgments. Due to the striking nature of this finding, yet given various factors that undermine confidence in its veracity, we have decided to re-examine the question. A first study conducted on a large French-speaking sample (N = 8602), and two subsequent direct replications conducted on English-speaking samples (N = 365 and N = 215), failed to reveal any influence of background color on the evaluation of a moral dilemma. Numerous exploratory and supplementary analyses, including controlling for relevant covariates associated with variations in morality (e.g., age, gender), did not account for our consistent inability to replicate the original findings. This research suggests that age may influence perceived morality, with older participants (at least in Study 1) viewing Heinz's behavior as more wrong. Overall, this research suggests that it is doubtful that the evaluation of the Heinz's dilemma can be influenced by a subtle black-and-white visual priming.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
期刊最新文献
Empathic listening satisfies speakers' psychological needs and well-being, but doesn't directly deepen solitude experiences: A registered report “Black-and-White” thinking: Does visual contrast polarize moral judgment? Independent replications and extension of Study 1 Ideological beliefs as cues to exploitation-exploration behavior Consume humanity: Eating anthropomorphic food leads to the dehumanization of others Women underrepresented or men overrepresented? Framing influences women's affective and behavioral responses to gender gap in political leadership
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1