Double Standards in Moral Judgments Within Intimate Relationships: A Multifaceted Perspective

Authors

  • Shuchen Yao Department of Psychology, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China
  • Da Dong Department of Psychology, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China 0000-0003-2007-7761
  • Liping Yang Department of Psychology, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China 0009-0009-3232-4169
  • Yating Yin Department of Psychology, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China 0009-0007-7290-3793
10.5281/zenodo.NEWISSUE01

Abstract

In this opinion piece, we delve into the role of intimate relationships in shaping moral judgment, highlighting the notable disparity between appraisals of intimate others and strangers in instances of ethical transgressions. It contends that the double standard observed in these scenarios reflect the intricate interplay between human emotions and the adaptable nature of moral evaluation within different contexts. Drawing on the field of moral psychology, the analysis introduces pivotal theoretical frameworks, including moral reasoning, moral intuition, the hypotheses of moral universalism and moral favoritism, the dual-process theory of moral judgment, and a person-centered perspective on moral assessment. We center on pluralistic factors that influence moral judgment within intimate relationships, including emotion, cognition, value, perception of harm, perspective, and power dynamics. A notable incongruity is identified between the professed moral duties of people and their protective actions toward loved ones, with individuals frequently acting to defend intimate others despite holding conflicting moral principles. Besides, we conclude by exploring the repercussions of these double standards for modern legal systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Archard D. Moral partiality. Midwest. Midwest Studies In Philosophy 1995; 20: 129–141.

Barrouillet P. Dual-process theories and cognitive development: Advances and challenges. Developmental Review 2011; 31: 79–85.

Bastian B, Denson T F & Haslam N. The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e61842.

Batson C D, Batson J G, Slingsby J K, Harrell K L, Peekna H M, & Todd R M. Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1991; 61: 413–426.

Crockett M J. How formal models can illuminate mechanisms of moral judgment and decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2016; 25: 85–90.

Dyer R L, Pizarro D A, & Ariely D. They had it coming: The relationship between perpetrator-blame and victim-blame. Social Cognition 2022; 40: 503–527.

Forbes R C, & Stellar J E. When the ones we love misbehave: Exploring moral processes within intimate bonds. American Psychological Association 2021; 122: 16–33.

Gino F, & Galinsky A D. Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 2012; 119: 15–26.

Graham J, Haidt J, Koleva S, Motyl M, Iyer R, Wojcik S P, et al. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2013; 47: 55–130.

Greene J D, & Haidt J. How (and where) does moral judgment works? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002; 6: 517–523.

Greene J D, Nystrom L E, Engell A D, Darley J M, & Cohen J D. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 2004; 44: 389–400.

Greene J D, Sommerville R B, Nystrom L E, Darley J M, & Cohen J D. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 2001; 293: 2105–2108.

Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 2001; 108: 814–34.

Haidt J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. London: Vintage, 2013.

Hinkle B. Decriminalizing domestic violence: A balanced policy approach to intimate partner violence. Journal of Children and Poverty 2019; 25: 71–73.

Huebner B, Dwyer S, & Hauser M. The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2009; 13: 1–6.

Hughes J, Creech J L, & Strosser G L. Attributions about morally unreliable characters: Relationship closeness affects moral judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2016; 38: 173–184.

Hughes J S. In a moral dilemma, choose the one you love: Impartial actors are seen as less moral than partial ones. British Journal of Social Psychology 2017; 56: 561–577.

Klinger E, Albaum A, & Hetherington M. Factors influencing the severity of moral judgments. Journal of Social Psychology 1964; 63: 319–326.

Kohlberg L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Eds.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (pp. 347–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1969.

Malle B F. Moral judgments. Annual Review of Psychology 2021; 72: 293–318.

Murphy F C, Wilde G, Ogden N, Barnard P J, & Calder A J. Short article: Assessing the automaticity of moral processing: Efficient coding of moral information during narrative comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009; 62: 41–49.

Niese Z A, Eibach R P, & Libby L K. Picturing yourself: A social-cognitive process model to integrate third-person imagery effects. Journal Of Cognitive Psychology 2022; 34: 24–44.

Paxton J M, & Greene J D. Moral reasoning: Hints and allegations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2010; 2: 511–527.

Piaget J. The Moral Judgment of the Child. Free Press, 1965.

Piazza J, Sousa P, Rottman J, & Syropoulos S. Which appraisals are foundational to moral judgment? Harm, injustice, and beyond. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2018; 10: 903–913.

Schünemann B, Wang X, & Du P. Research on the role of victims in the criminal system. Crime Science 2001; 118–126.

Soter L K, Berg M K, Gelman S A, & Kross E. What we would (but shouldn’t) do for those we love: Universalism versus partiality in responding to others’ moral transgressions. Cognition 2021; 217: 104886.

Uhlmann E L, Pizarro D A, & Diermeier D. A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015; 10: 72–81.

Wang X, Chen Z, Poon K, & Jiang T. Perceiving a lack of social justice: Lower class individuals apply higher moral standards to others. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2020; 12: 186–193.

Weiss A, & Burgmer P. Other-serving double standards: People show moral hypercrisy in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2021; 38: 3198–3218.

Xie X, & Luo Y. Emotional factors in moral judgments: A perspective on cognitive neuroscience. Advances in Psychological Science 2009; 17: 1250–1256.

Zhan Y, Xiao X, Li J, Liu L, Chen J, Fan W, et al. Interpersonal relationship modulates the behavioral and neural responses during moral decision-making. Neuroscience Letters 2018; 672: 15–21.

Zhan Z, & Wu B. Ubiquitous harm: Moral judgment in the perspective of the theory of dyadic morality. Advances in Psychological Science 2019; 27: 13.

Published

01.10.2025

How to Cite

Yao, S., Dong, D., Yang, L., & Yin, Y. (2025). Double Standards in Moral Judgments Within Intimate Relationships: A Multifaceted Perspective. Journal of NeuroPhilosophy, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.NEWISSUE01

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2025): Full-text PDFs will be added to the articles soon

Section

Opinion and Perspectives

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Shuchen Yao, Da Dong, Liping Yang, Yating Yin

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors continue to hold copyright with no restrictions. 

 

Most read articles by the same author(s)