Perceived agency and patiency shift based on whom a target is paired with

Evidence

Participants read that David and Alex were sharing a train cabin on a long journey when the train is boarded by terrorists. The terrorists decide to torture everyone, and participants are asked to evaluate how much torture Alex could withstand and, separately, how much torture David could withstand. Participants indicated this by circling a response on a 4-point scale ranging from none at all to a lot of torture. This measure was reversed scored to serve as an index of patiency. To assess perceived agency, we told participants that the passengers on the train staged a revolt and overthrew the terrorists. Participants were asked to evaluate, on a 4-point scale, how responsible they thought each of Alex and David was for this revolt. The scale ranged from not at all to very responsible and served as our measure of agency. … There was a significant interaction between target pairing and moral characteristic, F(1, 74) 14.13, p .001, 2 .16, and simple effects tests showed the predicted pattern in target evaluation. The neutral target, David, was seen to be significantly more agentic when paired with the orphan (M 2.46) than when paired with the red cross pilot (M 2.07), F(1, 74) 4.34, p .05, 2 .04. As well, the neutral target David was seen to be more sensitive to pain when paired with the red cross pilot (M 2.07) than when paired with the orphan (M 1.54), F(1, 74) 17.10, p .001, 2 . (see Figure 5). These results suggest that perceptions of the moral characteristics of a target vary depending upon the person with whom a target is paired. The discovery of a moral contrast effect highlights the perceptual nature of moral attributes and suggests that moral perception may also share the attributes of other perceptual processes, from basic psychophysical perception to viewing emotions in others (Fehr & Russell, 1994). — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting, 128

Categorization

• XREF: The moral contrast effect — judgments of a target varying with the comparison person — parallels contrast effects in basic psychophysics that the stimuli judge even notes (Fehr & Russell). Also directly the template the reader wants: pairing-based recalibration of perceived attributes, adaptable to recategorizing a religious group as ‘ideological.’ — connects to: Recategorizing a target’s status shifts perceived agency and victimhood in complementary directions — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting: Divergent…, 37; Recategorizing a target only along one agency dimension shifts both responsibility and sensitivity judgments — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting: Divergent…, 43; Perceiving someone as an agent shifts how we categorize a paired neutral person — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting: Divergent…, 121 (+4 more)
• CANDY: A neutral man is seen as more pain-sensitive or more responsible simply depending on whether he rides with a heroic Red Cross pilot or a vulnerable orphan.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting: Divergent…, 128

Broader Connections

• Recategorizing a target by morally relevant features alters perceived agency. #exemplifies (0.78) — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting, 51
• Only moral agency, not instrumental competence, suppresses perceived patiency #qualifies (0.74) — Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Moral Typecasting, 99
• Group membership salience shifts flexibly across contexts and individuals #expands (0.73) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 111
• Stereotype beliefs shift with the situational context of the target group member #expands (0.72)