The effect of moral valence on causal judgment (Study 3)

The influence of moral valence on causal judgment refers to a judgmental asymmetry observed in (fictitious) jurors when assessing the primary cause of an incident (i.e., causal selection), depending on their evaluation (positive, negative) of the agent involved (i.e., for the same act, a negatively evaluated agent is then more likely to be considered the main cause of the event, relative to a positively evaluated agent). The effect of moral valence on causal judgment has been replicated in a large number of studies (e.g., Alicke, 1992; Alicke et al., 2008; Alicke et al., 2011; Lagnado & Channon, 2008; Rogers et al., 2019). Goulette and Verkampt's (2023) study replicated this effect for situations where the link between the agent and the harm is strong, but also for situations where the link is weak. This held true when the causal judgment task was closed and focused on the agent. In addition, several studies have reported that the perceived causality attributed to an agent may be influenced by evaluation of the moral character of the victim (Alicke et al., 2008; Dyer et al., 2022; Kanekar et Vaz, 1988; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006). Numerous studies have linked the effect of blaming a victim to the belief in a just word (Gravelin et al., 2019). However, no study has examined the association between belief in a just word theory (BJW) and causal judgment by manipulating the moral character of both the agent and victim in ambiguous causal situations.
The purpose of the present project is to examine the effect of moral valence by measuring the level of belief in a just world of participants through a study manipulating agent's motivations (blameworthy, laudable), causal link (deviant causal link, preempted causal link) and victim moral character (pleasant, unpleasant).