Asymmetric morality: Blame is more differentiated and more extreme than praise

Despite extensive recent investigations of moral judgments, little is known about how negative judgments like blame might differ from positive judgments like praise.Drawing on theory from both social and moral cognition, the present studies identify and test potential asymmetries in the extremity and differentiatedness of blame as compared to praise.The amplified blame hypothesis predicts that people will assign greater blame for negative behaviors than praise for positive behaviors.The differentiated blame hypothesis predicts that, as compared to praise judgments, blame judgments will more finely differentiate among distinct mental states that precede action, such as thoughts, desires, and intentions.A series of studies-using varied stimulus sets and samples-together provide robust support for the differentiated blame hypothesis and somewhat weaker support for the amplified blame hypotheses.These results illustrate systematic asymmetries between blame and praise, generally revealing that blame is more extreme and differentiated than praise.Together, the findings reflect the social costs and social regulatory function of moral judgments, suggesting that blame and praise are not mirror images and that blame might be more complex. Blame and praiseBlame has been studied extensively in the moral judgment literature, with the goal of clarifying the information elements that elicit blame, the psychological processes that generate these judgments, and the social consequences of blaming.This work has revealed that blame