‘It’s not just immoral!’: The role of moral disengagement and incivility in dehumanising the transgressor of immoral behaviour

People who engage in immoral behaviour are often dehumanised. However, they also tend to justify their actions to convince themselves or others that their misconduct is morally acceptable. In this paper, we examine whether moral disengagement mechanisms influence the extent to which a transgressor is perceived as fully human. Further, we assess whether this perception varies based on specific characteristics of the immoral behaviour, such as incivility. To answer these research questions, we conducted two studies with online participants from Spain. In Study 1, participants (N = 302) evaluated a set of 63 behaviours. For every behaviour, they assessed the extent to which it violated each moral foundation from moral foundations theory, its level of incivility, and its potential to elicit dehumanisation. A correlation analysis showed that only the care and purity foundations, along with incivility, were associated with dehumanisation. These results allowed us to select behaviours that varied in incivility for Study 2. In Study 2 (N = 402), we tested the effectiveness of moral disengagement mechanisms employed by the transgressor depending on the level of incivility of the immoral behaviour. To this end, we employed a 3 (moral disengagement mechanisms: moral justification vs. displacement of responsibility vs. distortion of consequences) x 2 (incivility: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. The variance analyses showed that using moral justification or displacement of responsibility led to the least amount of dehumanisation, while distortion of consequences resulted in the highest level of dehumanisation. Additionally, immoral behaviours that were high in incivility led to greater dehumanisation than those that were low in incivility, regardless of the moral disengagement mechanism. Overall, our research highlights the significance of different moral disengagement mechanisms and civility as key factors that affect how bystanders perceive the humanness of moral transgressors.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2025-05-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322212
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

‘It’s not just immoral!’: The role of moral disengagement and incivility in dehumanising the transgressor of immoral behaviour

Ramón Rodríguez‐Torres, Armando Rodríguez Pérez, Verónica Betancor, Sofía Moreno-Gata
1 links
PLoS ONE
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
article

‘It’s not just immoral!’: The role of moral disengagement and incivility in dehumanising the transgressor of immoral behaviour

Ramón Rodríguez‐Torres, Armando Rodríguez Pérez, Verónica Betancor, Sofía Moreno-Gata
article en

Abstract

People who engage in immoral behaviour are often dehumanised. However, they also tend to justify their actions to convince themselves or others that their misconduct is morally acceptable. In this paper, we examine whether moral disengagement mechanisms influence the extent to which a transgressor is perceived as fully human. Further, we assess whether this perception varies based on specific characteristics of the immoral behaviour, such as incivility. To answer these research questions, we conducted two studies with online participants from Spain. In Study 1, participants (N = 302) evaluated a set of 63 behaviours. For every behaviour, they assessed the extent to which it violated each moral foundation from moral foundations theory, its level of incivility, and its potential to elicit dehumanisation. A correlation analysis showed that only the care and purity foundations, along with incivility, were associated with dehumanisation. These results allowed us to select behaviours that varied in incivility for Study 2. In Study 2 (N = 402), we tested the effectiveness of moral disengagement mechanisms employed by the transgressor depending on the level of incivility of the immoral behaviour. To this end, we employed a 3 (moral disengagement mechanisms: moral justification vs. displacement of responsibility vs. distortion of consequences) x 2 (incivility: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. The variance analyses showed that using moral justification or displacement of responsibility led to the least amount of dehumanisation, while distortion of consequences resulted in the highest level of dehumanisation. Additionally, immoral behaviours that were high in incivility led to greater dehumanisation than those that were low in incivility, regardless of the moral disengagement mechanism. Overall, our research highlights the significance of different moral disengagement mechanisms and civility as key factors that affect how bystanders perceive the humanness of moral transgressors.

PLoS ONEVol. 20(5)
Universidad de La Laguna (ES)
Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 91%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.