Home / Summaries / Decision making / moral-torture-support

Groups as imperfection decision makers - Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012). Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence

Q: What is their hypothesis? Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012).

they predicted: people with stronger moral convictions would be more resistant to majority influence than people with weaker moral conviction. for people with strong moral convictions , need for acceptance and need to be correct should be relatively weak. Moral convictions work as a fact. If you are not acted to your believes you are feeling guilty. you are not pleased with yourselves. they also predicted that social support is a key factor in reducing conformity.

Q: What was the experiment? Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012).

sample and design : 170 participants all oposed to torture devided over two conditions: (social support and no social support) procedure: participants had to give their opinion (online) about torture, after fictious group members had given their opinion first. They gave their opinion three times. prime dependent measure: change in relative support or opposition to torture. prime predictor (independent variable): strenght of moral conviction. They included three indices of attitude strenght as controlvariables: attitude certainly, attitude importance, religious convictions

5 important questions on Groups as imperfection decision makers - Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012). Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence

Why this research? Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012).

In 2009 52% of the Americans believed that torture is justified when irrogating suspected terrorists. this is a growing number in the US. The authors ask themselves? what factors affect people's resist or conform to majority influence.

What is the research question? Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012).

What role does moral conviction plays in resisting in a small group of peers expressing support for torture?

What is their hypothesis? Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012).

they predicted: people with stronger moral convictions would be more resistant to majority influence than people with weaker moral conviction.
for people with strong moral convictions , need for acceptance and need to be correct should be relatively weak. Moral convictions work as a fact. If you are not acted to your believes you are feeling guilty. you are not pleased with yourselves.

they also predicted that social support is a key factor in reducing conformity.

What was the experiment? Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012).

sample and design: 170 participants all oposed to torture devided over two conditions: (social support and no social support)
procedure: participants had to give their opinion (online) about torture, after fictious group members had given their opinion first. They gave their opinion three times.
prime dependent measure: change in relative support or opposition to torture.
prime predictor (independent variable): strenght of moral conviction.
They included three indices of attitude strenght as controlvariables: attitude certainly, attitude importance, religious convictions

What were the results? Aramovich, Lytle & Skitka (2012).

participants reported less opposition to torture to their groups ans in private than they originally did.
participants were influenced by majority opinion even after group attraction.
moral conviction predicted resistance to majority influence and conformity, both in public and private.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Decision making

View summary