Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Polish Psychological Bulletin

The Journal of Committee for Psychological Sciences of Polish Academy of Sciences

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.185
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.258

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1641-7844
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 47, Issue 3

Issues

When Dishonesty Leads to Trust: Moral Judgments Biased by Self-interest are Truly Believed

Konrad Bocian
  • Corresponding author
  • SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Sopot, Department of Psychology, Sopot Campus, Polna 16/20, 81-745 Sopot, Poland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Wieslaw Baryla / Bogdan Wojciszke
Published Online: 2016-10-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2016-0043

Abstract

Research has shown that cheating is perceived as immoral when it serves the cheater’s interests, though it can be seen as moral when it serves the interests of the perceiver. However, are such biased moral judgments real, or are they merely lip service? To answer the question of whether biased moral judgments actually inform behavior, the authors asked participants to observe a confederate who either cheated for money or did not cheat, which benefited either the confederate alone or both the confederate and the participating observer. Then, participants evaluated the confederate and, finally, played a one shot trust game with her. Cheating influenced moral judgments and decreased behavioral trust, but this only occurred when self-interest was not involved. When self-interest was involved, participants showed no significant differences in trust levels, independent of whether the confederate had cheated or not. Implications for the dual process theory in moral psychology are discussed.

Keywords: moral judgments; self-interest bias; cheating; trust

References

  • Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. A. (1999). Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 525-537. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baumard, N. (2010). Has punishment played a role in the evolution of cooperation? Mind and Society, 9, 171-192. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bell, R., Schain, C., & Echterhoff, G. (2014). How selfi sh is memory for cheaters? Evidence for moral and egoistic biases. Cognition, 132, 437-442. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122-142. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014a). Self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 898-909. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014b). Unawareness of self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ behavior. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45(4), 411-417. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cislak, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Agency and communion are inferred from actions serving interests of self or others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1103-1110. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216-235. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of classical theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233-239. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 322-323. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2008). The psychology of meta-ethics: Exploring objectivism. Cognition, 106, 1339-1366. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar

  • Levine, E., Schweitzer, M. (2014). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88-106. dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2266091Google Scholar

  • McCool, G., & Graybow, M. (March 13, 2009). Madoff pleads guilty, is jailed for $65 billion fraud. Reuters. Retrieved in August 1, 2014 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/13/us-madoff-idUSTRE52A5JK20090313Google Scholar

  • Rand, D., Greene, J., & Nowak, M. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427-430. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Schulz, J., Fischbacher, U., Thoni, C., Utikal, V. (2014). Affect and fairness: dictator games under cognitive load. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 77-87. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Stone, J. (2011). Consistency as a basis for behavioral interventions. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency. A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 326-347). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

  • Suzuki, A., Honma, Y., & Suga, S. (2013). Indelible distrust: Bias towards cheaters reveled as high persistence against extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1901-1913. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the fl exibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18, 689-690. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2008). The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1334-1338. doi:CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weisel, O., Shalvi, S. (2015). The collaborative roots of corruption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 10651-10656. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-10-20

Published in Print: 2016-09-01


Citation Information: Polish Psychological Bulletin, Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 366–372, ISSN (Online) 1641-7844, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2016-0043.

Export Citation

© Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee for Psychological Sciences. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in