Exploring the Effects of the Naturalistic Fallacy: Evidence That Genetic Explanations Increase the Acceptability of Killing and Male Promiscuity

Ibrahim Ismail, Andy Martens, Mark J. Landau, Jeff L Greenberg, David R. Weise

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The naturalistic fallacy is the erroneous belief that what is natural is morally acceptable. Two studies assessed whether people commit the naturalistic fallacy by testing whether genetic explanations for killing and male promiscuity, as compared to experiential explanations (i.e., learning/"nurture" explanations) increase acceptance of these behaviors. In Study 1, participants who read a genetic explanation for why people kill bugs viewed bug killing as more morally acceptable than participants who read an experiential explanation, although they did not reliably kill more bugs. In Study 2, men who read a genetic explanation for why men are more promiscuous than women reported decreased interest in long-term romantic commitment compared with men who read experiential explanations and women who read either explanation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)735-750
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume42
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Genetic Testing
Learning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Exploring the Effects of the Naturalistic Fallacy : Evidence That Genetic Explanations Increase the Acceptability of Killing and Male Promiscuity. / Ismail, Ibrahim; Martens, Andy; Landau, Mark J.; Greenberg, Jeff L; Weise, David R.

In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 3, 03.2012, p. 735-750.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{aaafd0a055724695bab9e45211b871e4,
title = "Exploring the Effects of the Naturalistic Fallacy: Evidence That Genetic Explanations Increase the Acceptability of Killing and Male Promiscuity",
abstract = "The naturalistic fallacy is the erroneous belief that what is natural is morally acceptable. Two studies assessed whether people commit the naturalistic fallacy by testing whether genetic explanations for killing and male promiscuity, as compared to experiential explanations (i.e., learning/{"}nurture{"} explanations) increase acceptance of these behaviors. In Study 1, participants who read a genetic explanation for why people kill bugs viewed bug killing as more morally acceptable than participants who read an experiential explanation, although they did not reliably kill more bugs. In Study 2, men who read a genetic explanation for why men are more promiscuous than women reported decreased interest in long-term romantic commitment compared with men who read experiential explanations and women who read either explanation.",
author = "Ibrahim Ismail and Andy Martens and Landau, {Mark J.} and Greenberg, {Jeff L} and Weise, {David R.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00815.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "735--750",
journal = "Journal of Applied Social Psychology",
issn = "0021-9029",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the Effects of the Naturalistic Fallacy

T2 - Evidence That Genetic Explanations Increase the Acceptability of Killing and Male Promiscuity

AU - Ismail, Ibrahim

AU - Martens, Andy

AU - Landau, Mark J.

AU - Greenberg, Jeff L

AU - Weise, David R.

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - The naturalistic fallacy is the erroneous belief that what is natural is morally acceptable. Two studies assessed whether people commit the naturalistic fallacy by testing whether genetic explanations for killing and male promiscuity, as compared to experiential explanations (i.e., learning/"nurture" explanations) increase acceptance of these behaviors. In Study 1, participants who read a genetic explanation for why people kill bugs viewed bug killing as more morally acceptable than participants who read an experiential explanation, although they did not reliably kill more bugs. In Study 2, men who read a genetic explanation for why men are more promiscuous than women reported decreased interest in long-term romantic commitment compared with men who read experiential explanations and women who read either explanation.

AB - The naturalistic fallacy is the erroneous belief that what is natural is morally acceptable. Two studies assessed whether people commit the naturalistic fallacy by testing whether genetic explanations for killing and male promiscuity, as compared to experiential explanations (i.e., learning/"nurture" explanations) increase acceptance of these behaviors. In Study 1, participants who read a genetic explanation for why people kill bugs viewed bug killing as more morally acceptable than participants who read an experiential explanation, although they did not reliably kill more bugs. In Study 2, men who read a genetic explanation for why men are more promiscuous than women reported decreased interest in long-term romantic commitment compared with men who read experiential explanations and women who read either explanation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858419535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858419535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00815.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00815.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84858419535

VL - 42

SP - 735

EP - 750

JO - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

SN - 0021-9029

IS - 3

ER -