The emotional motivation of righteous behavior
Tóm tắt
A distinction is made between two types of prosocial behavior: personal-helping and righteous behavior. Past studies suggest that sympathy may motivate personal helping but not righteous behavior. The latter may be better predicted by feelings of moral outrage and existential guilt. An experiment was designed to motivate a piece of righteous behavior, the writing of a political letter to stop the testing of nuclear weapons. A series of premeasures ascertained strength of attitude, sense of efficacy, acceptance of responsibility, and prior antinuclear behavior. Subjects who supported a nuclear freeze were exposed to material advocating a nuclear test ban, a video of a congressional aide who argued for the efficacy of writing letters to congressional representatives, and emotionally arousing material on the bombing of Hiroshima. After answering a questionnaire that included items to measure emotional state, subjects were individually given the opportunity to write a letter as they were waiting to be interviewed. Social pressure was deliberately minimized. Extent of moral outrage predicted both previous behavior and letter-writing behavior during the experiment. It combined with previous behavior and sense of efficacy to predict 56% of the variance in experimental behavior: Neither sympathy nor existential guilt were significantly related to this righteous behavior.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Batson, D., Fultz, J., and Schoenrade, P. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences.J. Pers. 55: 19–39.
Chapman, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Cooperman, G., and Iannotti, R. (1987). Empathy and responsibility in the motivation of children's helping.Dev. Psychol. 23: 140–145.
de Rivera, J. H. (1977).A Structural Theory of the Emotions, International University Press, New York.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., Mathy, R. M. and Reno, R. (1989). Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: A multimethod study.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57: 55–66.
Fox, D. L., and Schofield, J. W. (1989). Issue salience, perceived efficacy and perceived risk: A study of the origins of anti-nuclear war activity.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19: 805–827.
Hoffman, M. L. (1989). Empathic emotions and justice in society.Soc. Justice Res. 3: 238–312.
Lerner, M. J. (1980).The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion, Plenum Press, New York.
Lifton, R. J. (1982). Is Hiroshima our text? In Lifton, R. J., and Falke, R. (eds.),Indefensible Weapons: The Political and Psychological Case Against Nuclearism, Basic Books, New York, pp. 38–47.
Macmurray, J. (1961).Persons in Relation, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ.
Montada, L., and Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged.Soc. Justice Res. 3: 313–344.
Sherif, C. W. (1980). Social values, attitudes, and the involvement of the self. In Howe, H. E., Jr., and Page, M. M. (eds.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1979, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 1–64.
Tyler, T. R., and McGraw, K. M. (1983). The threat of nuclear war: Risk interpretation and behavioral response.J. Soc. Issues 39: 25–40.
Werner, P. D., and Roy, P. J. (1985). Measuring activism regarding the nuclear arms race.J. Pers. Assess. 49(2).