Citation

Paruzel-Czachura M, Dobrowolska M. Med. Pr. 2018; 69(3): 261-267.

Affiliation

Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland (University College of Social Sciences and Philologies)

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Panstwowy Zaklad Wydawnictw Lekarskich)

DOI

10.13075/mp.5893.00659

PMID

29886726

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to verify the hypothesis that additional information about the perpetrator responsible for the death of subordinates at the workplace may influence the assessment of morality. The article contains the results of an empirical study conducted among young adult working Silesians (N = 262), who were asked to evaluate the morality of the person responsible for the decision, in line with which miners had started working on 6th October 2014. On that day miners died following an explosion in the "Mysłowice-Wesoła" methane mine in the Polish Silesia region. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study explored the stories' method (from the moral psychology domain) as well as a short questionnaire. The respondents received information about the behavior of the perpetrator as well as emotions (socially desirable and undesirable) and (socially desirable and undesirable) views in the form of brief descriptions (stories). They were asked to evaluate the perpetrator's morality.

RESULTS: The socially desirable views of the evaluated perpetrator (lack of acceptance for the situation) and the socially desirable emotions (guilt) significantly increased the level of morality according to participants. A single piece of information about the socially desirable emotions didn't significantly increase the perceived level of perpetrator's morality; neither did a single piece of information about socially desirable views.

CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate the important role of additional information about emotions and views of the perpetrator in the process of assessing morality. It is worthwhile to implement the practical implications of this study in similar crisis situations at the workplace. Med Pr 2018;69(3):261-267.

This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.

Language: en

Keywords

moral incoherence; moral coherence; moral judgments; moral psychology; morality; mining