Just
A Lack of Material Resources Causes Harsher Moral Judgments
Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau
Psychological Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
In the research presented here, we tested the idea that a lack of material resources (e.g., low income) causes people to make harsher moral judgments because a lack of material resources is associated with a lower ability to cope with the effects of others' harmful behavior. Consistent with this idea, results from a large cross-cultural survey (Study 1) showed that both a chronic (due to low income) and a situational (due to inflation) lack of material resources were associated with harsher moral judgments. The effect of inflation was stronger for low-income individuals, whom inflation renders relatively more vulnerable. In a follow-up experiment (Study 2), we manipulated whether participants perceived themselves as lacking material resources by employing different anchors on the scale they used to report their income. The manipulation led participants in the material-resources-lacking condition to make harsher judgments of harmful, but not of nonharmful, transgressions, and this effect was explained by a sense of vulnerability. Alternative explanations were excluded. These results demonstrate a functional and contextually situated nature of moral psychology.
----------------------
Representative Evidence on Lying Costs
Johannes Abeler, Anke Becker & Armin Falk
Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming
Abstract:
A central assumption in economics is that people misreport their private information if this is to their material benefit. Several recent models depart from this assumption and posit that some people do not lie or at least do not lie maximally. These models invoke many different underlying motives including intrinsic lying costs, altruism, efficiency concerns, or conditional cooperation. To provide an empirically-validated microfoundation for these models, it is crucial to understand the relevance of the different potential motives. We measure the extent of lying costs among a representative sample of the German population by calling them at home. In our setup, participants have a clear monetary incentive to misreport, misreporting cannot be detected, reputational concerns are negligible and altruism, efficiency concerns or conditional cooperation cannot play a role. Yet, we find that aggregate reporting behavior is close to the expected truthful distribution suggesting that lying costs are large and widespread. Further lab experiments show that this result is not driven by the mode of communication.
----------------------
Brian Lucas & Robert Livingston
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, July 2014, Pages 1-4
Abstract:
The current research explores the relationship between feeling socially connected and decision-making in high-conflict moral dilemmas. High-conflict moral dilemmas pit utilitarian outcomes, where one person is directly harmed to save five others, against people's social intuitions and values, e.g. "Do not harm others." Drawing on sociality motivation research, we predict that feeling socially connected increases utilitarian choices in high-conflict moral dilemmas. We support this prediction in three studies. Our studies manipulated social connection, independent of the dilemma context, using live social interactions (Studies 1-2) and a recall task (Study 3). Across studies, those induced to feel social connection made more utilitarian choices in a high-conflict moral dilemma.
----------------------
"Just think about it"? Cognitive complexity and moral choice
Celia Moore & Ann Tenbrunsel
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, March 2014, Pages 138-149
Abstract:
In this paper, we question the simplicity of the common prescription that more thinking leads to better moral choices. In three studies, we discover that the relationship between how complexly one reasons before making a decision with moral consequences is related to the outcome of that decision in a curvilinear way. Using two different moral decisions and both measuring and manipulating the level of cognitive complexity employed by the decision maker, we find that decisions made after reasoning with low and high levels of cognitive complexity are less moral than those made after reasoning at moderate levels of complexity. These results suggest that the best moral decisions are those that have been reasoned through "just enough". Further, and at least as important, they illustrate the need to expand our study of ethical behavior beyond simple effects, and to gain a deeper understanding of the thought processes of individuals faced with moral choices.
----------------------
Jooa Julia Lee, Yunkyu Sohn & James Fowler
PLoS ONE, December 2013
Abstract:
Cognitive scientists, behavior geneticists, and political scientists have identified several ways in which emotions influence political attitudes, and psychologists have shown that emotion regulation can have an important causal effect on physiology, cognition, and subjective experience. However, no work to date explores the possibility that emotion regulation may shape political ideology and attitudes toward policies. Here, we conduct four studies that investigate the role of a particular emotion regulation strategy - reappraisal in particular. Two observational studies show that individual differences in emotion regulation styles predict variation in political orientations and support for conservative policies. In the third study, we experimentally induce disgust as the target emotion to be regulated and show that use of reappraisal reduces the experience of disgust, thereby decreasing moral concerns associated with conservatism. In the final experimental study, we show that use of reappraisal successfully attenuates the relationship between trait-level disgust sensitivity and support for conservative policies. Our findings provide the first evidence of a critical link between emotion regulation and political attitudes.
----------------------
Loren Lomasky
Social Philosophy and Policy, January 2013, Pages 177-200
Abstract:
Eating meat appeals, but the cost is measured in millions of slaughtered animals. This has convinced many that vegetarianism is morally superior to a carnivorous diet. Increasingly, those who take pleasure in consuming animals find it a guilty pleasure. Are they correct? That depends on the magnitude of harm done to food animals but also on what sort of a good, if any, meat eating affords people. This essay aims to estimate both variables and concludes that standard arguments for moral vegetarianism are significantly misplaced. That is because the contribution of meat eating to lives of excellence is underestimated and overall harms to animals consequent on practices of meat eating are overestimated. The answer to the question posed in the title is, therefore, "No."
----------------------
Out, Damned Spot: Can the "Macbeth Effect" Be Replicated?
Brian Earp et al.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, January/February 2014, Pages 91-98
Abstract:
Zhong and Liljenquist (2006) reported evidence of a "Macbeth Effect" in social psychology: a threat to people's moral purity leads them to seek, literally, to cleanse themselves. In an attempt to build upon these findings, we conducted a series of direct replications of Study 2 from Z&L's seminal report. We used Z&L's original materials and methods, investigated samples that were more representative of the general population, investigated samples from different countries and cultures, and substantially increased the power of our statistical tests. Despite multiple good-faith efforts, however, we were unable to detect a "Macbeth Effect" in any of our experiments. We discuss these findings in the context of recent concerns about replicability in the field of experimental social psychology.
----------------------
Steffen Keck
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, May 2014, Pages 1-10
Abstract:
Groups and individuals were compared for their willingness to incur financial costs in order to punish dishonest behavior by others. Study 1 demonstrated that dishonesty was punished more often by groups than by individuals and that groups' higher willingness to punish dishonesty was mediated by stronger negative affect. Study 2 provided evidence that the increase in negative affect in groups was driven by exposure to other group members' negative feelings and opinions during group discussions. Overall, the results suggest that being part of a group increases negative emotions toward dishonest others and leads to a greater willingness to engage in costly punishment.
----------------------
What Money Can't Buy: The Psychology of Financial Overcompensation
Tessa Haesevoets et al.
Journal of Economic Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
When a financial damage has been inflicted, perpetrators can satisfy victims' outcome related concerns by providing a financial compensation. Few studies have investigated, however, whether overcompensation (i.e., compensation that is greater than the damage suffered) is more beneficial than equal compensation (i.e., compensation that covers the exact damage suffered). The results of four studies show that overcompensation offers no effects in addition to the impact of equal compensation, and that it even provokes negative outcomes. More specifically, overcompensation is attributed to occur because of a lower level of moral orientation on the part of the perpetrator (Study 2 through 4), leads to less favorable perceptions of the perpetrator (Study 2 and 4), and lower levels of trust in the perpetrator (Study 3 and 4) than equal compensation. No significant differences between overcompensation and equal compensation appeared for relationship preservation and cooperation (Study 4). These results show that while overcompensation may rebuild cooperation (albeit not more effectively than equal compensation), it does so at a monetary and relational cost that limits its effectiveness as a tool to promote true interpersonal trust. The present studies thus show that a large financial compensation does not provide any surplus value in terms of psychological outcomes and relationship continuation, even though such compensation best satisfies a victim's economic needs.
----------------------
Smug Alert! Exploring self-licensing behaviour in a cheating game
Sophie Clot, Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez
Economics Letters, forthcoming
Abstract:
We test experimentally a prediction of the 'moral credit model', in which committing a virtuous act creates moral credits that can license immoral behaviour in a succeeding decision. We use a basic cheating experiment that was either preceded by a virtuous deed or not in a developing country context. We found that people who previously achieved a good deed cheat more. Gender and origin are also significant explicative variables for cheating.
----------------------
Moritz Susewind & Erik Hoelzl
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
In this paper, we investigate the role of different perspectives people take on their past moral and nonmoral behavior. Across two experiments, we show that when people focus on progress toward personal goals, past moral behavior leads to less future moral striving compared to past nonmoral behavior. However, when people focus on commitment toward personal goals, past moral behavior tends to lead to more future moral striving compared to past nonmoral behavior. Our results integrate seemingly contradictive empirical evidence from past research, relying on the overarching theoretical framework of goal regulation theory.
----------------------
Honesty in managerial reporting: How competition affects the benefits and costs of lying
Philipp Schreck
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, forthcoming
Abstract:
Although research on honesty in managerial reporting has provided important evidence for the idea that competition can restrict the relevance of honesty preferences, why exactly competition has this effect remains largely unexplored. This paper suggests that different aspects of competition independently affect honesty in managerial reporting: economic competition affects the economic benefits of lying, while rivalry diminishes the moral costs of lying. Based on recent findings from social psychology and experimental economics on a gender gap in competitiveness, the study further hypothesizes that the effects of competition on honesty differ across gender. A laboratory experiment was conducted, in which participants had to report cost information in a participative budgeting context under different competitive and non-competitive conditions. Results indicate that an individual's willingness to report honestly decreases significantly when rivalry is introduced, even if the economic benefits of lying remain constant. In contrast, economic competition only diminished the salience of honesty preferences of male participants in the experiment. In conclusion, corporate managers who wish to take advantage of the positive effects of competition, such as increased motivation and efficiency in capital allocation processes, should not only focus on its economic effects but also be aware of its potential negative impact.
----------------------
Russell Johnson, Klodiana Lanaj & Christopher Barnes
Journal of Applied Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
The justice literature has paid considerable attention to the beneficial effects of fair behaviors for recipients of such behaviors. It is possible, however, that exhibiting fair behaviors may come at a cost for actors. In this article, we integrate ego depletion theory with organizational justice research in order to examine the consequences of justice behaviors for actors. We used an experience-sampling method in a sample of managerial employees to examine the relations of performing procedural justice and interpersonal justice behaviors with subsequent changes in actors' regulatory resources. Our results indicate that procedural justice behaviors are draining, whereas interpersonal justice behaviors are replenishing for actors. Depletion, in turn, adversely affected the performance of citizenship behavior, and depletion mediated relations of justice behavior with citizenship. Furthermore, 2 traits that impact self-regulatory skills - extraversion and neuroticism - moderated the replenishing effects of engaging in interpersonal justice behaviors. We conclude by discussing implications and avenues for future research.
----------------------
Cheating more for less: Upward social comparisons motivate the poorly compensated to cheat
Leslie John, George Loewenstein & Scott Rick
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, March 2014, Pages 101-109
Abstract:
Intuitively, people should cheat more when cheating is more lucrative, but we find that the effect of performance-based pay-rates on dishonesty depends on how readily people can compare their pay-rate to that of others. In Experiment 1, participants were paid 5 cents or 25 cents per self-reported point in a trivia task, and half were aware that they could have received the alternative pay-rate. Lower pay-rates increased cheating when the prospect of a higher pay-rate was salient. Experiment 2 illustrates that this effect is driven by the ease with which poorly compensated participants can compare their pay to that of others who earn a higher pay-rate. Our results suggest that low pay-rates are, in and of themselves, unlikely to promote dishonesty. Instead, it is the salience of upward social comparisons that encourages the poorly compensated to cheat.
----------------------
Heralding the Authoritarian? Orientation Toward Authority in Early Childhood
Michal Reifen Tagar et al.
Psychological Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
In the research reported here, we examined whether individual differences in authoritarianism have expressions in early childhood. We expected that young children would be more responsive to cues of deviance and status to the extent that their parents endorsed authoritarian values. Using a sample of 43 preschoolers and their parents, we found support for both expectations. Children of parents high in authoritarianism trusted adults who adhered to convention (vs. adults who did not) more than did children of parents low in authoritarianism. Furthermore, compared with children of parents low in authoritarianism, children of parents high in authoritarianism gave greater weight to a status-based "adult = reliable" heuristic in trusting an ambiguously conventional adult. Findings were consistent using two different measures of parents' authoritarian values. These findings demonstrate that children's trust-related behaviors vary reliably with their parents' orientations toward authority and convention, and suggest that individual differences in authoritarianism express themselves well before early adulthood.
----------------------
Marieke Adriaanse et al.
European Journal of Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Numerous studies have been conducted to demonstrate that behaviours are frequently activated unconsciously. The present studies investigate the downstream psychological consequences of such unconscious behaviour activation, building on work on the explanatory vacuum and post-priming misattribution. It was hypothesized that unconsciously activated behaviours trigger a negative affective response if the behaviour violates a personal standard and that this negative affect subsequently motivates people to confabulate a reason for the behaviour. Results provided evidence for this mediated moderation model. Study 1 showed that participants who were primed to act less prosocially indeed reported increased levels of negative affect and, as a result, were inclined to confabulate a reason for their behaviour. Study 2 replicated these findings in the domain of eating and provided evidence for the moderating role of personal standards as well as the entire mediated moderation model. These findings have relevant theoretical implications as they add to the modest number of studies that demonstrate that the effect of unconscious priming may extend well beyond performing the primed behaviour itself to influence subsequent affect and attribution processes.
----------------------
Seeing is believing: Communication modality, anger, and support for action on behalf of out-groups
Demis Glasford
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, November 2013, Pages 2223-2230
Abstract:
Relatively few studies have investigated the impact of communication modality (e.g., video vs. print) on political action intentions, as well as what motivates external observers to act when both the victim and perpetrator of injustice are out-group members. The present research experimentally investigated the influence of communication modality of an injustice (text vs. video), where all parties were out-group members, on observers' sympathy, anger, social cohesion to victims, and political action intentions. Participants reported greater intentions to politically act in the video condition, relative to print, which was explained by increased anger in the video condition. In addition, both sympathy and anger were positively related to social cohesion to the out-group, but only anger was associated with political action intentions.