Instructions and example of paper below

Justification Outline Example (Gap in Knowledge Review)

Immanual Kant (1785/1998), a deontologist, had a theory regarding how to be a moral

person. He suggested that to be moral one should always perform behaviors related to perfect

duties (being honest, being loyal) and one should occasionally perform behaviors pertaining to

imperfect duties (being friendly, charitable, and cooperative). Research in social psychology

suggests that Kant’s theory aligns with how perceivers attribute traits and make judgments about

other people’s behavior (Trafimow & Trafimow, 1999; Trafimow, Bromgard, Finlay, & Ketelaar,

2005). That is, stronger trait attributions arise from the performance of behaviors pertaining to

perfect rather than imperfect duties (Trafimow et al., 2005; Hughes & Trafimow, 2010). This has

been shown for negative or immoral behaviors such that dishonest behaviors are seen as more

indicative of a dishonest trait than unfriendly behaviors indicative of an unfriendly trait.

However, there is less evidence that trait inferences are stronger when an actor performs a moral

behavior pertaining to perfect compared to an imperfect duty. Further, it remains unclear how an

actor’s relationship to a target person affects trait and moral attributions, particularly for

behaviors pertaining to different moral duties.

One’s relationship with an interaction partner should influence the trait and moral

attribution. This idea is supported by evidence that moral attributions are stronger when an actor

harms a relationship partner compared to a co-worker or stranger (Hughes, Creech, & Strosser,

2016). Further, the mutualistic approach to morality (Baumard, Andre, & Sperber, 2013) suggests

that it was adaptive to enact moral behaviors toward those who were selected for mutually

beneficial relationships. This theory implies that there is a moral norm to treat relationship

partners differently than strangers. Evidence from young children also points to the possibility of

a moral norm. They behave as though they have a moral obligation to those in their ingroup but

not to those in the outgroup (Rhodes & Chalik, 2013).

If moral norms exist people should treat close others differently than less close others.

For example, people are honest and loyal to loved one’s because they value their relationships

and desire to maintain them. Enactment of perfect duties toward strangers represent motives that

are less central to one’s moral character (i.e., loyalty and honesty toward strangers is not

diagnostic) whereas enactment of imperfect duties toward strangers is expected to provide more

information about a person’s true moral character in part because it is not normative. This line of

reasoning was supported in a study (Hughes, 2015) whereby a charitable behavior (i.e., giving

someone money) was seen as more indicative of a charitable trait when enacted toward strangers

and co-workers compared to family and friends. Further in studies involving physical harm

toward a spouse versus a co-worker or stranger. In studies involving judgments about an actor,

Hughes and her colleagues (2016) found that harm toward a stranger or co-worker resulted in

lower moral character ratings compared to harm toward one’s spouse. This indicates that harm

toward close others (and harm may be thought of as a violation of a perfect duty) is more

diagnostic of one’s moral character than harm toward less close others.

In this literature review, the connection between attributions about moral duties, and

moral attributions about close versus non-close others will be elaborated upon. Further, I will

argue that this gap in the research should be explored.

References should appear on this page

Literature Review Outline:

• Discuss moral duties and the research on trait attribution. Demonstrate that perfect duties

have stronger attributional weight than imperfect duties.

• Discuss research on moral behavior and moral attributions about close versus non-close

interaction partners. Demonstrate with evidence that close others are treated differently

and that people make stronger attributions about immorality when close interaction

partners are harmed.

• Argue that additional research is needed and make suggestions for specific research

directions.