What did scholars do before the Internet?
- Jost, J.T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651-670.
The link to the paper on his website is broken, so I looked for it among the journals at the American Psychological Association. In addition to the link above, I happened upon some other papers:
- Reynolds, Scott J. A Neurocognitive Model of the Ethical Decision-Making Process: Implications for Study and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology. 91(4), Jul 2006, 737-748. [Neuroscience, meet business ethics; I call dibs on a neuroscience and legal ethics paper.]
- Reynolds, Scott J. Moral Awareness and Ethical Predispositions: Investigating the Role of Individual Differences in the Recognition of Moral Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology. 91(1), Jan 2006, 233-243.
- Krebs, Dennis L.; Denton, Kathy. Explanatory Limitations of Cognitive-Developmental Approaches to Morality. Psychological Review. 113(3), Jul 2006, 672-675.
Having been derailed from my original search, I returned to the Association of Psychological Science (APS) website. More fun reading falls under the trackpad:
- Mirror Neurons: How We Reflect on Behavior
- Everyday Problem Solving and Emotion: An Adult Developmental Perspective [PDF]
And look, they also have a blog, We’re Only Human. Posts range from the effect of smiley faces on global warming to the different ways we unconsciously dehumanize other people.
Following up on this, I clicked through to the APS journal, Psychological Science, for recent articles about moral emotions and moral intuitions. The first was a trolley-problem paper with a fun topic – correlating intuitions about ethics and causation – and a great title:
- Michael R. Waldmann & Jörn H. Dieterich. (2007) Throwing a Bomb on a Person Versus Throwing a Person on a Bomb: Intervention Myopia in Moral Intuitions Psychological Science 18 (3), 247–253.
We show that moral intuitions are influenced by the locus of the intervention in the underlying causal model. In moral dilemmas, judgments conforming to the prescriptions of utilitarianism are more likely when the intervention influences the path of the agent of harm (e.g., the trolley) than when the intervention influences the path of the potential patient (i.e., victim). [emphasis added]
Scrolling down the archive, up pops another article by Jost. How is that for circular internet searching?
From the abstract:
..system-justifying ideology appears to undercut the redistribution of social and economic resources by alleviating moral outrage.
- Cheryl J. Wakslak, John T. Jost, Tom R. Tyler, Emmeline S. Chen (2007) Moral Outrage Mediates the Dampening Effect of System Justification on Support for Redistributive Social Policies Psychological Science 18 (3), 247–253.
Now I have to go find out what “system-justifying ideology” means…