Abstract
People often perceive their moral judgments as objective and unbiased, yet research indicates that positive interpersonal attitudes lead to more lenient moral character assessments. Here we investigate how likeability towards moral transgressors and the different moral rationalization strategies they may employ impact both the perceived severity of the immoral behavior and the attribution of humanity to the transgressor. In two studies, participants (N = 475) engaged in a 2 (likeability towards the transgressor: high vs. low) × 2 (moral rationalization: reconstruction of agency vs. reconstruction of morality) between-subjects experiment. Participants read information about an individual and an immoral action they engaged in and then evaluated the severity of the behavior and the degree of dehumanization of the transgressor. Results showed that feelings of likeability towards the transgressor, as well as rationalizing by reconstructing agency (compared to morality) reduced behavior severity and transgressor dehumanization. Moreover, likeability and the use of agency reconstruction by the transgressor showed an additive effect, as they combined to generate the most benevolent judgments. Recognizing the influence of these variables enhances our understanding of moral decision-making processes in interpersonal contexts.