Brand, O, R., & O'Dea, C. J. (2022). Less of a man? Masculine honor beliefs influence perceptions of hypothetical sons (and their fathers) coming out as gay. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, 1-8. Abstract: Masculine Honor Beliefs comprise an ideology that it is acceptable for people (especially men) to defend their reputation through violent or aggressive measures. Previous research has shown that this ideology is associated with more disparagement of, and social distancing from, gay or effeminate men. However, little research has examined how men higher in masculine honor beliefs perceive their son coming out as gay, as well as how third- party observers perceive a father whose son comes out as gay. Across two studies (total N = 464) we examined the influence masculine honor beliefs had on a participants' levels of support or rejection toward their son coming out as gay in a hypothetical vignette scenario (Study 1) and how third-party observers perceived both the (hypothetical) father and son after the son came out (Study 2). Consistent with our hypotheses, higher levels of masculine honor beliefs were associated with more sexual prejudice, more negative perceptions of the sons who came out as gay in the vignettes (and their fathers), and stronger expectations for the father to reject the son's identity. Further, fathers experienced significantly greater negative self-directed affect highlighting the importance of studying masculinity as a factor of negative attitudes toward gay men.
Chalmam, S. T., O'Dea, C. J., Renfroe, J., & Saucier, D. A. (2021). It's a man's job? An investigation of shifting (masculine) honor expectations for men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 1-10. Abstract: Research on masculine honor beliefs (MHB) has shown that MHB are associated with more positive perceptions of men who respond aggressively to threats and insults, but more negative perceptions of men who ignore threats and insults. Problematically, all previous theoretical research has assumed these expectations do not apply to women and, as such, no previous research has examined perceptions of women who confront an insulting or threatening individual. Across three studies (total N = 1024) we tested our Shifting Honor Expectations (SHE) hypothesis that women would be held to different expectations than men in response to insults and threats. Potentially surprising given the lack of extant literature on the topic, across three studies our results showed that, similarly to men, as a function of participants' MHB, women are perceived more positively when they respond aggressively to threats and insults. However, unlike men, women were generally not perceived more negatively when they chose not to aggress against an insulting stranger. We contend that better understanding the rewards and expectations associated with men and women engaging in aggressive responses to threats and insults (and how these expectations differ), can help explain extreme forms of violence in society and these implications are discussed.
Lawless, S. T., O'Dea, C. J., Miller, S. S., & Saucier, D. A. (2020). Is it really just a joke? Gender differences in perceptions of sexist humor. Humor, 1-25. Abstract: Benign violation theory suggests humor mocking normative values is funny if the humor is non-threatening. Research suggests sexism toward women (versus men) is particularly threatening due to inequalities in social power. In Study 1, we examined whether men and women differ in how amused and offended they were by sexist humor. We predicted men would perceive sexist humor as more funny and less offensive than women would. In Study 2, we examined whether perceptions of threat were related to perceptions of sexist jokes. We predicted women would perceive more threat than men from sexist humor, which would lead to lower amusement and greater perceived offensiveness. Across both studies, jokes targeting women were perceived to be less funny, more offensive, and more sexist than jokes targeting men. Additionally, greater perceptions of threat were related to greater perceptions of jokes as offensive and sexist. However, women were not more threatened than men by sexist jokes. While these findings were not entirely consistent with our hypotheses, our findings suggest disparagement humor targeting lower-status groups is perceived more negatively than disparagement humor targeting higher-status groups and these perceptions may be inextricably rooted in threat posed to lower-status groups.
McManus, J. L., Saucier, D. A., O'Dea, C. J., & Bernard, D. L. (2019). Aversive Affect Versus Racism as Predictors of Racial Discrimination in Helping. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41:4, 230-253. Abstract: We examined aversive affect and racism as predictors of differences in helping White versus Black targets. According to aversive racism theory, Whites may express egalitarian attitudes but experience discomfort in interracial interactions, producing discrimination. Participants completed racism measures and reported their likelihood of helping White or Black targets. Racism negligibly predicted discriminatory helping across studies. In Studies 2 and 3, participants experiencing aversive affect were less likely to help Black than White targets. Results demonstrate negative feelings, more so than racial biases, impacts discriminatory helping. We hope to inspire future research examining why White bystanders experience aversion in interracial helping.
Miller, S. S., O'Dea, C. J., Lawless, T. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2019). Savage or satire: Individual differences in perceptions of disparaging and subversive racial humor. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 28-41. Abstract: Subversive racial humor intends to confront and challenge racist beliefs to subvert traditional status hierarchies. However, because of its racial content, such humor can be misconstrued as disparaging. To understand why, we examined how individual differences relate to perceptions of disparaging and subversive racial humor. In three studies (Ns = 204, 134, and 200), college students and MTurk workers completed established measures of in- dividual differences in tendencies to perceive racial prejudice (Studies 1–3), motivations to suppress racial prejudice (Study 3), and modern racism (Study 3), and responded to examples of disparaging or subversive racial humor. General tendencies to perceive racial prejudice were associated with more negative reactions to disparaging humor (e.g., perceiving it as less funny and more racist) and more positive reactions to subversive humor (e.g., perceiving it as more funny and more antiracist). Individual differences in motivations to suppress racial prejudice showed similar patterns, and modern racism showed opposite patterns. In general, our findings suggest that although subversive racial humor can be misconstrued, believing racial prejudice is pervasive and problematic is associated with a greater understanding and appreciation of subversive racial humor, an in- creasingly prevalent social phenomenon that requires further empirical attention.
Miller, S. S., O'Dea, C. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2021). “I can’t breathe”: Lay conceptualizations of racism predict support for Black Lives Matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 173, 1-7. Abstract: We examined how individual differences in White individuals’ lay conceptualizations of racism are related to support for Black Lives Matter and protests against inequality. In our study, a more systemic conceptualization of racism, along with other individual differences (e.g., beliefs about racial discrimination and White privilege, self- presentational concerns about appearing racist) significantly predicted greater support for the Black Lives Matter movement and specific actions (e.g., protesting, political pressure) used to bringing about racial equality. Further, these ideologies predicted support for both White people and People of Color working to address the issue, highlighting the strength people perceive in allies against inequality. However, those who reject these beliefs may seek to limit the methods by which individuals affected by racial inequality are permitted to use in challenging that inequality.
O'Dea, C. J., Martens, A. L., & Saucier, D. A. (2018). Hitting below the belt: Masculine honor beliefs and perceptions of unfair fighting behavior. WILEY: Aggressive Behavior, 45, 229-244. Abstract: We examined the effect of masculine honor beliefs on perceptions of unfair fighting behavior. We proposed competing hypotheses about the nature of this relationship. Our Reputation by Any Means Hypothesis predicted masculine honor beliefs would be positively related to perceptions of unfair fighting behavior as permissible because they increase the likelihood of success. Conversely, our Reputation by Honorable Means Hypothesis predicted masculine honor beliefs would be negatively related to perceptions of unfair fighting behavior as permissible due to the importance of demonstrating masculinity through socially acceptable means (e.g., hitting above the belt). Across three studies, our results were generally consistent with the Reputation by Any Means Hypothesis. Individuals higher in masculine honor beliefs reporting greater perceptions of the fighting behavior as permissible, indicating they believe it is important, when involved in a physical fight, to win and to do so by any means necessary.
O'Dea, C. J., Miller, S. S., Andres, E. B., Ray, M. H., Till, D. F., & Saucier, D. A. (2015). Out of bounds: factors affecting the perceived offensiveness of racial slurs. Language Sciences, 52, 155-164. Abstract: Racial slurs are terms used primarily to disparage individuals belonging to the targeted social group. In two studies, we manipulated racial slurs (“nigger”, “nigga”) used by White individuals toward Black individuals in different situations (between friends versus between strangers) to assess different levels of perceived offensiveness in White third party observers. Consistent with our hypotheses, in Study 1 we found that the use of racial slurs between friends was perceived to be less offensive than between strangers, and “nigga” was perceived to be less offensive than “nigger”. In Study 2 we replicated these results, and extended them by finding that ratings of offensiveness, consistent with hypotheses, were correlated with individual differences relating to the justification and suppression of prejudice. Our findings suggest that observers’ reactions to racial slurs depend on the context in which the slur is used and perceivers’ beliefs about the social appropriateness of expressing prejudice.
O'Dea, C. J., Rapp, S., Brand, O. R., & Greco-Henderson, D. (2022). “Act Like a Real Man!” A Novel Examination of How Socializing Others to Masculine Honor-Based Norms Bolsters Men’s Reputations. Psychology of Men and Masculinities, 1-11. Abstract: Masculine honor beliefs describe an ideology whereby people have the expectation that men should be protectors of their family and partner. Previous research has shown that men who adhere to these expectations have their social reputations bolstered while men who do not adhere have their social reputations diminished. We examined how United States-based English-speaking participants (n = 247; 114 men, 126 women, 2 gender nonbinary, 5 did not report) would perceive a man who was confronted (or not) by a bystander for behaving in honor-consistent versus honor-inconsistent ways. We predicted (although our findings did not support) that participants’ own perceptions of the man as honorable would be exacerbated when the man was confronted. Instead, consistent with previous research, participants’ perceptions of the man were bolstered when he behaved in honor-consistent and diminished when he behaved in honor-inconsistent ways, but this was not affected by how a bystander responded (confronting him or not). Most notably, we also examined how participants perceived the bystander and showed that if a bystander fails to enforce and socialize traditional honor expectations (i.e., confronting a man behaving in honor-inconsistent ways), his own honor can be minimized similarly to if he, himself, had failed to act in honor-consistent ways.
O'Dea, C. J., Chalman, S. T., Castro Bueno, A. M., & Saucier D. A. (2018). Conditional aggression: Perceptions of male violence in response to threat and provocation. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 132-141. Abstract: Masculine honor ideology refers to beliefs dictating men should defend against threats, often through violent responses. Research has shown masculine honor beliefs are associated with more positive perceptions of men who defend against threat and less positive perceptions of men who do not defend against threat. Across four studies, we extended these findings by examining whether, as a function of masculine honor beliefs, men are perceived more positively simply for being violent, or if their reputations are only enhanced when they respond violently to real threats. Further, we examined whether situational factors (size of the opponent, outcome of the fight, and whether their goal was achieved) affected perceptions of men as a function of masculine honor beliefs. Our results showed that as perceivers' masculine honor beliefs increase, they perceive men more positively when they confront threats, and when they win their fight, but not when they behave violently in general.
O'Dea, C. J., Castro Bueno, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2017). Fight or flight: Perceptions of men who confront versus ignore threats to themselves and others. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 345-351. Abstract: Masculine Honor (MH) describes a set of cultural beliefs by which men are expected to defend against threats, even if this defense requires the use of physical violence (e.g., Cohen & Nisbett, 1994). Previous research has identified what constitutes a threat and how MH moderates perceptions of these threats. However, little research has examined perceptions of men who confront versus fail to confront a threat to their masculinity. In two studies (N = 267) we examined whether MH moderated the relationship between whether a man confronted or walked away from a threat directed at himself (Study 1) and a threat directed at his significant other (Study 2) and per- ceptions of the man as manly (e.g., strong) and non-manly (e.g., weak). MH was associated with manly percep- tions of men who choose to fight and non-manly perceptions of men who choose to walk away from threats. These results are consistent with previous research on MH which predicts that men should respond to threats or insults that are directed at them. And to do so, violence is sometimes necessary. Thus, individuals' adherence to MH predicts how they perceive violence as a tool for defending against threats and building and maintaining masculine reputations.
O'Dea, C. J., Castro Bueno, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2018). Social vigilantism and the extremity, superiority, and defense of attitudes toward climate change. Personality and Indivdual Differences. Abstract: Public polarization toward the issue of climate change has increased in recent years. SV is the extent to which individuals believe their opinions are superior to others' and should be impressed onto others. We assert social vigilantism (SV) may provide important explanation of attitudes toward, as well as the resistance to and per- ceptions of those who challenge individuals' attitudes toward, climate change.' SV has been previously shown to predict more extreme attitudes toward climate change and other political issues. We found SV predicted the extremity, strength, and superiority of attitudes toward climate change, and resistance to attitude challenges (Study 1). We then manipulated whether an individual agreed or disagreed with the participant in a vignette and measured participants' perceptions of the other individual. We found higher levels of SV were associated with more positive perceptions of the other individual (Study 2). Interestingly, this finding was independent of whether the other individual agreed with or disagreed with the participant. This may be because the other individual was still discussing political issues, providing participants the opportunity to impress their own be- liefs. These findings may indicate future discussions about climate change, while contentious and sometimes hostile, may inspire respect, even for opposing viewpoints.
O'Dea, C. J., Jardin, E., & Saucier, D. A. (2022). The Masculinity-Based Model of Aggressive Retaliation in Society (MARS). Psychology of Men and Masculinities, 22:3, 160-172. Abstract: Recent researchers have highlighted the need for research on deadly shootings and other forms of aggression in society. To provide a theoretical roadmap for future research in this area, we have brought together social- psychological, anthropological, sociological, and neuro-biological literature. We present a theoretical model we have labeled the Masculinity-based model of Aggressive Retaliation in Society (MARS). Masculine honor cultural ideologies foster a norm that young men should swiftly and decisively respond against threats to their masculinity. We contend that better understanding how these top-down expectations that are placed on young men interact with bottom-up processes such as hormones, brain area activation, and brain area connectivity will help explain the risk factors behind extreme forms of retaliatory aggression including shootings in modern society, and why the vast majority of these heinous crimes are committed by young men. These predictors have been established in the literature individually as causes of violence and aggression, but we contend that these may function as additive risk factors and their deadly combination that may lead to retaliatory aggression as a perceived last resort for affected boys and young men.
O'Dea, C. J., Martens, A. L., & Saucier, D. A. (2018). Hitting below the belt: Masculine honor beliefs and perceptions of unfair fighting behavior. WILEY: Aggressive Behavior, 45, 229-244. Abstract: We examined the effect of masculine honor beliefs on perceptions of unfair fighting behavior. We proposed competing hypotheses about the nature of this relationship. Our Reputation by Any Means Hypothesis predicted masculine honor beliefs would be positively related to perceptions of unfair fighting behavior as permissible because they increase the likelihood of success. Conversely, our Reputation by Honorable Means Hypothesis predicted masculine honor beliefs would be negatively related to perceptions of unfair fighting behavior as permissible due to the importance of demonstrating masculinity through socially acceptable means (e.g., hitting above the belt). Across three studies, our results were generally consistent with the Reputation by Any Means Hypothesis. Individuals higher in masculine honor beliefs reporting greater perceptions of the fighting behavior as permissible, indicating they believe it is important, when involved in a physical fight, to win and to do so by any means necessary.
O'Dea, C. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2020). Perceptions of Racial Slurs Used by Black Individuals Toward White Individuals: Derogation or Affiliation? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39:5-6, 678-700. Abstract: Research suggests that racial slurs may be “reclaimed” by the targeted group to convey affiliation rather than derogation. Although it is most common in intragroup uses (e.g., “nigga” by a Black individual toward another Black individual), intergroup examples of slur reappropriation (e.g., “nigga” by a Black individual toward a White individual) are also common. However, majority and minority group members’ perceptions of intergroup slur reappropriation remain untested. We examined White (Study 1) and Black (Study 2) individuals’ perceptions of the reappropriated terms, “nigga” and “nigger” compared with a control term chosen to be a non-race- related, neutral term (“buddy”), a nonracial derogative term (“asshole”) and a White racial slur (“cracker”) used by a Black individual toward a White individual. We found that the intergroup use of reappropriated slurs was perceived quite positively by both White and Black individuals. Our findings have important implications for research on intergroup relations and the reappropriation of slurs.
O'Dea, C. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2017). Negative emotions versus target descriptions: Examining perceptions of racial slurs as expressive and descriptive. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 20:6, 813-830. Abstract: There is a debate about whether racial slurs operate primarily as descriptives (of the ethnicity of targets) or expressives (of negative emotions toward targets). In three studies (overall N = 471), we examined whether different racial slurs used in different situations led to slurs being perceived as descriptive versus expressive, and whether this distinction was related to the perceived offensiveness of the slurs. Our results showed the descriptive and expressive natures of racial slurs are directly related to their perceived offensiveness. Specifically, as the perceived offensiveness of slurs increase in intensity, the slurs are perceived as more negatively expressive, more descriptive, less positively expressive, and comparatively less descriptive and more expressive.
O'Dea, C. J., Smith, B. N., & Saucier, D. A. (2021). Referencing Race=Racist? Examining Perceptions of References to a Target’s Race as Offensive. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40:4, 459-481. Abstract: We examined majority group members’ perceptions of racial slurs, compared to what we have labeled as combination terms. These combination terms possess the same semantic and pragmatic linguistic functions as racial slurs, functioning to express negative emotion toward, and to describe, a target. Across three studies (total N=943) racial slurs were not perceived as significantly different from combination terms. We then examined whether participants higher in social dominance beliefs reported greater perceived justification for using combination terms over racial slurs because of their lack of historical denigration of marginalized groups that racial slurs have. Participants, even those higher in socially dominant attitudes, did not perceive greater justification for the use of combination terms than racial slurs. Indeed, an important implication is that race-marking, an understudied area of social psychology, paired with general derogative terms produces terms which may function similarly to racial slurs, but, fortunately, are also similarly vilified in modern society.
Saucier, D. A., Jones, T. L., Lawless, T. J., Martens, A. L., O'Dea, C. J., Prokhorets, S., & Stratmoen, E. (2022). Teaching a Seminar on How to Teach Seminars in Psychology. College Teaching. Abstract: Teaching is a skill that can and should be taught in graduate education. Fortunately, many departments offer some teacher training for their graduate students to prepare them to teach introductory and other survey courses. What is apparently still lacking is training for graduate students to teach upper-level seminar-style classes. Therefore, we designed and implemented a graduate-level seminar on teaching seminars in psychology wherein course-takers developed tangible resources (e.g., syllabi) to empower them to effectively (and autonomously) teach seminar-style courses. We believe our course provides an excellent model for departments interested in further enhancing the teacher training of their graduate students.
Saucier, D. A., Miller, S. S., Martens, A. L., O'Dea, C. J., & Jones, T. L. (2018). Individual differences explain regional differences in honor-related outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 91-97. Abstract: Much research has been devoted to the investigation of both the culture of honor residing in the American South and the individual difference ideologies that stem from this culture. The purpose of our study was to investigate the ability of individual differences in masculine honor beliefs (Saucier et al., 2016) to explain the regional differences that Southern and Northern men showed on the original measures of honor-related outcomes em- ployed by the seminal scholars in culture of honor research (e.g., Cohen & Nisbett, 1994; Nisbett, 1993). Consistent with hypotheses, our results replicate regional differences in honor-related responses, but also show that individual differences in masculine honor beliefs mediate these regional differences. Thus, our research extends the notion of cultures of honor beyond their regional boundaries, and highlights the value in con- ceptualizing honor as a psychological individual difference factor.
Saucier, D. A., O'Dea, C. J., & Strain, M. L. (2016). The Bad, the Good, the Misunderstood: The Social Effects of Racial Humor. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2:1, 75-85. Abstract: Racial humor has long been a part of American culture, but its potential for varied interpretation leads to a wide range of possible effects, which have only recently become an area of investigation in psychological research. The literature on racial and disparaging humor, and particularly its conceptualization according to the “sword and shield metaphor” (Rappoport, 2005), points to 3 possibilities that vary in terms of intention and perception and have the potential to affect the outcomes associated with racial humor. When racial humor is antisocial in intention (i.e., used as a sword) and perceived as such, it may reinforce the social hierarchy and stereotypes about the individuals it targets, potentially loosening societal norms that discourage expressions of prejudice. When racial humor is prosocial in intention (i.e., used as a shield) and perceived as such, it may serve to challenge and protect against prejudice and create affiliation between members of groups who may be affected by social inequality. Finally, some prosocially motivated ethnic humor may be misperceived as antisocial, presenting the possibility of unintentionally (and ironically) reinforcing the status quo rather than subverting it. Despite this wide range of potential outcomes, we maintain that humor’s inherently social and ambiguous nature presents a hopeful opportunity for the discussion and possible reduction of prejudice—as long as the humor itself is embedded in a discussion that raises awareness of the issues it addresses. Equally important is the need for those who use such humor to understand its potential to be bad, good, or misunderstood.
Saucier, D. A., O'Dea, C. J., & Stratmoen, E. (2018). Hard Targets: Masculine Honor Beliefs and Motivations for Muscularity. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 19:4, 547-559. Abstract: Individual differences in masculine honor beliefs are related to men’s aggressive responses to threats and insults. We predicted individual differences in masculine honor beliefs would be associated with greater drives to achieve muscularity as a way for men to become hard targets who repel threats. Across 3 studies we found higher levels of endorsement of masculine honor beliefs were associated with greater degrees of muscularity concerns (Studies 1 and 2) and greater beliefs that men lift weights to provide a means for defense against threats and to intimidate others (Study 2). Furthermore, we found levels of men’s endorsement of masculine honor beliefs are palpable, such that observers can reliably predict these levels after a brief social interaction (Study 3). Thus, the beliefs that men must protect themselves, their reputations, their families, and their property against threat and insult, with physical aggression if necessary, may compel men to make themselves hard targets who ward off those who would otherwise threaten, insult, or challenge them without having to fight.
Saucier, D. A., Strain, M. L., O'Dea, C. J., Sanborn, M., & Martens, A. (2020). Don’t laugh it off: Gender differences in perceptions of women’s responses to men’s use of sexist humor. Humor Abstract: Across two studies, we examined how the reaction of a woman who was targeted by potentially disparaging sexist jokes by a male joke-teller affected men’s and women’s perceptions of the jokes, the woman who was told the jokes, and the male joke-teller. Participants viewed videos in which a man told sexist jokes to a woman who responded with amusement, offense, ambiguity, or nonverbal disapproval. We found that the woman’s reaction to the sexist humor affected the perceptions of both the male joke-teller and the woman. Our results suggest that expressing nonverbal disapproval may be an effective way to produce negative perceptions of a man telling sexist jokes (Study 1) and may increase positive perceptions of a woman who confronts them (Study 2). Further, expressing verbal offense may be an increasingly acceptable way of confronting sexist jokes, perhaps due to recent cultural shifts in perceptions of confronting sexism more generally (Study 2). Our findings offer reason to be optimistic about changing norms with regard to confronting sexist humor.
Saucier, D. A., Till, D. F., Miller, S. S., O'Dea, C. J., & Andres E. (2015). Slurs against masculinity: masculine honor beliefs and men’s reactions to slurs. Language Sciences, 52, 108-120. Abstract: We examined the manifestation and effects of slurs against men and masculinity. In Study 1, we created a taxonomy of slurs against men and masculinity. In Study 2, we established that men may respond with physical aggression when targeted by these slurs. In Study 3, we demonstrated that slurs in different categories of our taxonomy produce varying levels of perceived offensiveness and likelihoods of aggressive responses. Finally, in Study 4, we showed that men’s masculine honor beliefs are associated with their perceptions of slurs as offensive and the ratings of their likelihood of responding physically, especially for slurs that directly challenge their masculinity. These findings extend the extant literature that has examined the content of and reactions to slurs and physically aggressive responses to provocation, as well as that which has examined conceptualizations of masculine honor from both cultural and individual difference perspectives.
Saucier, D. A., Webster, R. J., McManus, J. L., Sonnentag, T. L., O'Dea, C. J., & Strain, M. L. (2018). Individual Differences in Masculine Honor Beliefs Predict Attitudes Toward Aggressive Security Measures, War, and Peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24:1, 112-116. Abstract: We hypothesized that individual differences in masculine honor beliefs (MHBs) would predict partici- pants’ views of the world and the potential for evil and good among the people in it, as well as their attitudes toward war, peace, and aggressive security policies. Participants’ levels of MHBs were positively associated with their support for war and aggressive security policies (Studies 1 and 2), as well as beliefs in pure evil and perceptions of the world as a competitive jungle (Study 2), and they were negatively associated with their support for peacemaking (Study 2) even after controlling for participants’ levels of social desirability, conservatism, and trait aggression (Study 1); sex (Studies 1 and 2); and beliefs in pure evil and pure good (Study 2). We contend that individual differences in MHB are important for understanding how individuals perceive their worlds as places in which the potential and capacity for violence are needed to maintain safety and security.
Schiffer, A. A., O'Dea, C. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2021). Moral decision-making and support for safety procedures amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences. Abstract: Given that individual differences influence virus-mitigating behaviors and the COVID-19 pandemic posed new moral dilemmas for individuals to resolve, across three studies (N = 704), we assessed how masculine honor beliefs (MHB), beliefs in pure good (BPG), evil (BPE), and the dark triad (DT) influence COVID-19 moral decision-making. Specifically, we analyzed moral decision-making at the microlevel (i.e., individual- and familial-level; Study 1), in decisions with (hypothetical) life-or-death consequences (Study 2), and at the mac- rolevel (i.e., nationwide virus-mitigation efforts; Study 3). In all studies, participants completed the four indi- vidual difference scales and rated their pandemic attitudes on Likert-type agreement scales, and resolved various moral dilemmas in Studies 2 and 3. Consistent with our hypotheses, individuals reported more virus-mitigation efforts in order to protect their families than themselves. In terms of hypothetical life-or-death and nationwide decisions, MHB, BPE, and the DT predicted more confidence and social motivations, whereas BPG predicted more distress. This research has implications for moral decision-making at varying degrees of severity during the COVID-19 pandemic.