Relatively Moral
People Are More Moral in Uncertain Environments
Yiting Chen & Songfa Zhong
Econometrica, March 2025, Pages 439-462
Abstract:
We conduct a series of experiments and document a robust behavioral pattern whereby people behave more morally in uncertain environments than degenerate deterministic ones. We show that this pattern is weakened when the moral implication of behavior is diminished or when uncertainty pertains to others rather than oneself. These findings are incompatible with standard models that respect dominance. We propose a mechanism based on the anxiety aspect of uncertain environments whereby people act morally as if their moral behavior can help deliver a better outcome. We further delve into the complexity aspect of uncertainty to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of these findings.
An illusion of unfairness in random coin flips
Rémy Furrer, Timothy Wilson & Daniel Gilbert
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Random procedures, such as coin flips, are used to settle disputes and allocate resources in a fair manner. Even though the outcome is random, we hypothesized that people would be sensitive to features of the process that make it seem unfair, that is, who gets to call heads or tails and flip the coin. In 11 studies (N = 5,925) participants competed against another participant for a positive or negative outcome, determined by a physical or virtual coin flip. The independent variable was who called heads or tails and flipped the coin: the participant or their opponent. When participants lost the flip, we found an illusion of unfairness: They reported that the process was less fair, were less pleased with their outcome, and found the other person less likable when their opponent flipped the coin. When participants won the flip, they thought it was less fair, and they felt guiltier when they had flipped the coin. We present evidence that these fairness judgments were based on both illusory procedural control (the person who flips the coin appears to have an unfair advantage by virtue of executing the flip before the outcome is known) and illusory outcome control (the belief that the flipper can influence the outcome of the flip). Further, the illusion of unfairness appears to be a quick, intuitive process that is not easily corrected. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on procedural justice.
Elevated Power Promotes Prosocial Behavior More Than Elevated Status
Britt Hadar et al.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, forthcoming
Abstract:
Power and status are fundamental elements of social hierarchy, yet their influence on prosocial behavior remains unclear. To distinguish between prosocial and self-serving motives, we focused on behaviors that provide no benefit to the actor’s status and may even harm it. We hypothesized that high power increases such behaviors compared to high status. In Studies 1a-2 (N = 824), participants in high-power roles were more likely to prevent harm or provide help at the expense of their reputation compared to those in high-status roles (Studies 1a-2), and those in low-power or low-status roles (Study 1a). In Study 3 (N = 150), greater perceived power was linked to increased anonymous resource allocation in a dictator game, while greater perceived status was linked to decreased allocation. Study 4 (N = 1,135) found that higher Twitter status was associated with delayed prosocial speaking up. These findings suggest that elevated power is more conducive to prosocial behavior than elevated status.
The Do-Gooder Dilemma: A Self/Other Asymmetry in the Shame and Embarrassment of Self-Reporting Good Deeds
Jerry Richardson et al.
Cornell Working Paper, January 2025
Abstract:
Recent research in which individuals are encouraged to share stories of their own charitable giving on social media suggests that such sharing facilitates perceptions of prosocial norms and increases charitable donations. However, we predicted that this sharing might also incur unforeseen hedonic costs, diminishing the “warm glow” of altruism. Across 5 preregistered experiments (N = 2840), participants reported that they would feel worse when reporting their own good deeds compared to their achievements, and substantially worse when sharing these stories on social media (compared to telling a friend or not sharing). In contrast, participants reported that others would feel better (i.e., less shame and embarrassment, more happiness and pride than they would feel) after reporting their own good deeds. These studies suggest that individuals believe that (1) reporting their own good deeds will leave them feeling worse, and (2) others will not suffer similar negative emotions.
After the Accident: Is There a Blame Bias Against the Airline?
Dwane Dean
Journal of Business Ethics, April 2025, Pages 841-853
Abstract:
Based on the deontological ethical perspective and concepts from blame psychology such as the defensive attribution hypothesis and culpable control, it is argued that people are predisposed to blame a transportation company when it is involved in an accident. This was tested in a scenario of an airline accident of uncertain cause, finding that respondents blamed the airline the most among a list of five blamable entities (pilots, mechanics-maintenance-inspectors, the weather, ground crew-air traffic control, and airline). Additionally, based on the virtue theory of ethics and the moral character perspective of blame psychology, it was hypothesized that manipulation of the virtue of the airline (mercenary versus altruistic) would result in less blame assigned to the altruistic airline in a quasi-experiment where the other factor was outcome of the accident (safe landing with a few injuries versus crash with many fatalities). However, the two factors significantly interacted in an unexpected way. The mercenary airline suffering a crash was blamed less than the altruistic airline that crashed, while the mercenary airline that safely landed was blamed more than the altruistic airline that safely landed. The managerial implications of blame bias toward the company are addressed.
The plurality effect: People are more dishonest toward group than individual targets
Hsuan-Che (Brad) Huang et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, July 2025
Abstract:
Prior research on the relationship between group versus individual targets and unethical behavior directed toward those targets is incomplete. Extending this line of research, the present paper examines whether individuals engage in more dishonest behaviors when interacting with a group (vs. an individual). Across six experiments and three supplemental studies (N = 2376), we found that individuals demonstrated more dishonesty toward groups as opposed to individual targets, which we label the plurality effect. This effect was observed across a variety of situations (both low-stakes and high-stakes contexts with real monetary payouts), including when providing advice to others with an incentive to be dishonest, in employment interviews, and in negotiations. Mediation tests revealed that participants experienced lower moral concern when the target was a group versus an individual, and this finding held after testing for alternative explanations. Group membership and collectivism jointly moderated the effect, such that the plurality effect was stronger for targets who are members of the decision makers outgroup (vs. ingroup) among decision makers with high (vs. low) collectivistic values.
Blindfolding, Perceptual Dehumanization and Tolerance for State-Sanctioned Killing: A Theory of Illegitimate Punishment
Katrina Fincher & Patrick Bergemann
European Journal of Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
The present work integrates cultural practices, perceptual psychology and social cognition to explore the psychological effects of blindfolding in state-sanctioned punishment. Across four studies, we demonstrate how the use of blindfolds -- a seemingly minor aspect of punishment rituals -- attenuates configural face processing, a change we argue alters social behaviour. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that blindfolds are associated with a tolerance for harsher punishments. Studies 3 and 4 explore the legitimacy of punitive action; findings from these studies suggest that blindfolding rituals hold the largest effect when the punishment would not be seen as legitimate. These results suggest that historically ingrained punitive rituals may subtly exploit psychological biases to shape public attitudes, offering insights into the psychological underpinnings of institutional legitimacy and societal compliance.
When Visual Communication Backfires: Reactance to Three Aspects of Imagery
Fabienne Bünzli et al.
Communication Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Although many persuasive messages include imagery, relatively little is known about the potential for the visual components to induce reactance. This research examined the effects of three message variations -- camera angle (low vs. eye-level), antithesis (vs. thesis) (i.e., the juxtaposition of contrasting images), and facial expression of emotion (anger vs. happiness) -- on reactance and subsequent persuasion. Two experiments (N = 240 and N = 259) using pro-environmental appeals found that variation in each of the visual features was associated with increased perception of threat to freedom, reactance and decreased persuasion. Political conservatives felt more threatened by any message than liberals, but were not differentially sensitive to image variations. This research opens the door for a programmatic analysis of imagery and reactance.