Reason-Based Evaluations of Wrongdoing in Religious and Moral Narratives
Protestant, Roman Catholic, and non-religiously affiliated college students (N = 136) read narrative accounts of a wrongdoing which could be seen as violating both a rule and a relationship, in which the offended party was either God (religious narrative) or another person (moral narrative). They th...
| Authors: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
2001
|
| In: |
The international journal for the psychology of religion
Year: 2001, Volume: 11, Issue: 4, Pages: 259-276 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
| Summary: | Protestant, Roman Catholic, and non-religiously affiliated college students (N = 136) read narrative accounts of a wrongdoing which could be seen as violating both a rule and a relationship, in which the offended party was either God (religious narrative) or another person (moral narrative). They then rated the seriousness of the action and responded to open-ended questions designed to elicit their reasoning about the wrongdoing. Although participants evaluated the action in the religious narratives as somewhat more serious than in the moral narrative, they reasoned about religious and moral wrongdoings in similar ways. When asked to consider why the action was wrong, participants mentioned violating the rule most frequently; however, when asked what mattered most to the offended party, proportionately more participants mentioned the implications of violating a relationship. Reasoning was unrelated to gender or to religious affiliation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1532-7582 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The international journal for the psychology of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1207/S15327582IJPR1104_05 |