Resumo
Como indivíduos reagem a declarações que aceitam atos de corrupção e violência? Este artigo contribui para a compreensão de como indivíduos respondem a discursos de práticas antissociais ao examinar como (1) a informação sobre o emissor da frase e (2) o uso de dados adicionais como justificativa para a afirmação antissocial afetam sua concordância com este tipo de discurso. Utilizando-se da teoria de desengajamento moral, apresenta-se um estudo experimental conduzido com 487 estudantes de Ensino Médio, o qual avalia o grau de concordância com declarações feitas por políticos brasileiros que representam diferentes tipos de desengajamento moral. Enquanto os resultados gerais apontam um nível baixo de concordância com as declarações, as comparações entre os grupos experimentais sugerem que o uso de argumentos baseados em casos como justificação aumenta a concordância com afirmações em favor de violência, mas reduz a concordância com afirmações que aceitam atos de corrupção.
Palavras-chave
Adolescente; Cognição; Corrupção; Desenvolvimento moral; Política; Psicologia social
Note: The y-axis in each of the six graphs presents the percentage of the 149 respondents randomly assigned to the “Synthesis” experimental group who (dis)agree with statement. The five bars in each graph represent the response options in the following order: “completely disagree”, “somewhat disagree”, “neither agree nor disagree”, “somewhat agree”, and “completely agree.”
Note: The filled triangle, filled circle, and empty circle represent the average predicted probability of a “Completely disagree” for conditions “Politicians”, “Media”, and “Synthesis”, respectively, while holding all other regression predictors at their means. The dashed lines indicate the confidence interval around the estimates with an alpha-level of 0.05. For the entire regression results and significance of beta predictors, see the online appendix H at<
Note: The filled triangle, filled circle, and empty circle represent the average predicted probability of a “Completely disagree” for conditions “Politicians”, “Media”, and “Synthesis”, respectively, while holding all other regression predictors at their means. “AF” in the figure stands for Armed Forces. The dashed lines indicate the confidence interval around the estimates with an alpha-level of 0.05. The number of high confidence respondents in the experimental conditions were 62 (Politicians), 60 (Media) and 66 (Synthesis), and lower level of confidence: 95 (Politicians), 91 (Media) and 75 (Synthesis). For the entire regression results and significance of beta predictors, see the online appendix J at<
Note: The filled triangle, filled circle, and empty circle represent the average predicted probability of a “Completely disagree” for conditions “Politicians”, “Media”, and “Synthesis”, respectively, while holding all other regression predictors at their means. The dashed lines indicate the confidence interval around the estimates with an alpha-level of 0.05. The number of high religiosity respondents in the experimental conditions were 71 (Politicians), 72 (Media) and 54 (Synthesis), and lower religiosity: 80 (Politicians), 91 (Media) and 89 (Synthesis). For the entire regression results and significance of beta predictors, see the online appendix J at<