↓ Skip to main content

Two-Faced Morality: Distrust Promotes Divergent Moral Standards for the Self Versus Others

Overview of attention for article published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Two-Faced Morality: Distrust Promotes Divergent Moral Standards for the Self Versus Others
Published in
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, May 2018
DOI 10.1177/0146167218775693
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexa Weiss, Pascal Burgmer, Thomas Mussweiler

Abstract

People do not trust hypocrites, because they preach water, but drink wine. The current research shows that, ironically, when we distrust, we become moral hypocrites ourselves. We argue that experiencing distrust alerts us to the possibility that others may intent to exploit us, and that such looming exploitation differentially affects moral standards for the self versus others. Four studies ( N = 1,225) examined this possibility and its underlying motivational dynamic. Study 1 established a relationship between dispositional distrust and flexible, self-serving moral cognition. In Studies 2 and 3, participants experiencing distrust (vs. trust) endorsed more lenient moral standards for themselves than for others. Study 4 explored the role of the motivation to avoid exploitation in these effects. Specifically, participants' dispositional victim sensitivity moderated the effect of distrust on hypocrisy. Together, these findings suggest that individuals who distrust and fear to be exploited show self-serving, and hence untrustworthy, moral cognition themselves.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 23 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 40%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 25 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,492,899
of 25,880,422 outputs
Outputs from Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
#1,224
of 2,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,691
of 347,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
#24
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,880,422 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.