Agreeing with moral disengagement statements: an experimental study with young adults
Abstract How do individuals react to statements that condone acts of corruption and violence? This article contributes to the understanding of how people respond to discourses related to antisocial practices by examining how (1) information about the person who made the statement, and (2) the use of additional information as justification for the antisocial statement affect individuals' agreement with this type of discourse. Relying on moral disengagement theory, we present an experimental study conducted with 487 high school students that assesses the level of agreement with statements made by Brazilian politicians that illustrate different mechanisms of moral disengagement. While overall results indicate low levels of agreement with these statements, comparisons across experimental groups suggest that providing case-based arguments as justification increases agreement with statements in favor of violence but reduces agreement with statements that condone acts of corruption.