Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 85, Issue 3–4, pp 389–406 | Cite as

Moral judgments, gender, and antisocial preferences: an experimental study

  • Juergen Bracht
  • Adam Zylbersztejn
Article

Abstract

We study questionnaire responses to situations in which sacrificing one life may save many other lives. We demonstrate gender differences in moral judgments: males are more supportive of the sacrifice than females. We investigate a source of the endorsement of the sacrifice: antisocial preferences. First, we measure individual proneness to spiteful behavior, using an experimental game with monetary stakes. We demonstrate that spitefulness can be sizable—a fifth of our participants behave spitefully—but it is not associated with gender. Second, we find that gender is consistently associated with responses even when we account for individual differences in the propensity to spitefulness.

Keywords

Moral dilemma Moral judgments Experiment Gender Antisocial preferences Individual differences 

References

  1. Abbink, K., & Herrmann, B. (2011). The moral costs of nastiness. Economic Inquiry, 49(2), 631–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbink, K., Masclet, D., & Mirza, D. (2018). Inequality and inter-group conflicts: Experimental evidence. Social Choice and Welfare, 50(3), 387–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbink, K., & Sadrieh, A. (2009). The pleasure of being nasty. Economics Letters, 105(3), 306–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adleberg, T., Thompson, M., & Nahmias, E. (2015). Do men and women have different philosophical intuitions? Further Data, Philosophical Psychology, 28, 615–641.Google Scholar
  5. Alda, A. et al. (1983). Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen (Television Series Episode). In B. Metcalfe (producer), M*A*S*H, Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox Television.Google Scholar
  6. Alexander, J., & Weinberg, J. (2007). Analytic epistemology and experimental philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 2, 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banerjee, K., Huebner, B., & Hauser, M. D. (2010). Intuitive moral judgments are robust across demographic variation in gender, education, politics, and religion: a large-scale web-based study. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10, 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron, J. (1992). The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 63, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartels, D. M. (2008). Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition, 108, 381–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121, 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bartling, B., Fehr, E., Marechal, M. A., & Schunk, D. (2009). Egalitarianism and competitiveness. American Economic Review, 99, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14, 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourget, D., & Chalmers, D. J. (2014). What do philosophers believe? Philosophical Studies, 170, 465–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Büchner, S., Coricelli, G., & Greiner, B. (2007). Self-centered and other-regarding behavior in the solidarity game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckwalter, W., & Stich, S. (2014). Gender and Philosophical Intuition. In J. Knobe & S. Nichols (Eds.), Experimental Philosophy (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cason, T., & Mui, V.-L. (1998). Social influence in the sequential dictator game. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 248–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charness, G., & Grosskopf, B. (2001). Relative payoffs and happiness: an experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 45, 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Charness, G., Masclet, D., & Villeval, M. C. (2011). The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, 60, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Choe, S. Y., & Min, K. H. (2011). Who makes utilitarian judgments? The influences of emotions on utilitarian judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 580–592.Google Scholar
  20. Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D., & Robbins, T. W. (2010). Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(40), 17433–17438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economics Literature, 47, 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Simulating murder: The aversion to harmful action. Emotion, 12(1), 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisman, R., Kariv, S., & Markovits, D. (2007). Individual preferences for giving. American Economic Review, 97, 1858–1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foot, D. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.Google Scholar
  26. Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLoS One, 8(4), e60418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glenn, A. L., Spassena, K., Iyer, R., Graham, J., & Ditto, P. H. (2010). Moral identity in psychopathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 497–505.Google Scholar
  28. Gold, N., Colman, A., & Pulford, B. (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 65–76.Google Scholar
  29. Gold, N., Colman, A., & Pulford, B. (2015). Do as i say, don’t do as i do: Differences in moral judgments do not translate into differences in decisions in real-life trolley problems. Journal of Economic Psychology, 47, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgement. Science, 293, 2105–2108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greiner, B., (2004). An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments, University of Cologne, Working Paper Series in Economics No. 10, 79–93.Google Scholar
  32. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Harsanyi, J. C. (1976). Essays on ethics, social behavior, and scientific explanation (Vol. 12). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hauser, M., Cushman, F., Young, L., Kang-Xing Jin, R., & Mikhail, J. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind and Language, 22, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hsu, M., Anen, C., & Quartz, S. (2008). The right and the good: Distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science, 320, 1092–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Isaac, R. M., & Walker, J. M. (1988). Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contribution mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kerschbamer, R. (2015). The geometry of distributional preferences and a non-parametric identification approach: The equality equivalence test. European Economic Review, 76, 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kimbrough, E. O., & Reiss, J. P. (2012). Measuring the distribution of spitefulness. PLoS One, 7(8), e41812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., et al. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446, 908–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levine, D. K. (1998). Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1, 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. Hedonic consequences of social comparison: A contrast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1141–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcus, D. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mercer, S. H., & Norris, A. L. (2014). The psychology of spite and the measurement of spitefulness. Psychological assessment, 26(2), 563–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marshal, F. (director), Alive (motion picture), Los Angeles , CA, United States, Paramount Pictures.Google Scholar
  46. McKelvey, R., & Palfrey, T. (1992). An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica, 60, 803–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771–781.Google Scholar
  48. Nishimura, N., Cason, T. N., Saijo, T., & Ikeda, Y. (2011). Spite and reciprocity in auctions. Games, 2(3), 365–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Petrinovich, L., & O’Neill, P. (1996). Influence of wording and framing effects on moral intuitions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petrinovich, L., O’Neill, P., & Jorgensen, M. J. (1993). An empirical study of moral intuitions: toward an evolutionary ethics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Regan, T. (1983). The case of animal rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 81, 1068–1095.Google Scholar
  53. Saver, J., & Damasio, A. R. (1991). Preserved access and processing of social knowledge in a patient with acquired sociopathy due to ventromedial frontal damage. Neuropsychologia, 29, 1241–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Selten, R. (1967). Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des Eingeschränkt Rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. In H. Sauermann (Ed.), Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung (pp. 136–168). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  55. Seyedsayamdost, H. (2015). On gender and philosophical intuition: Failure of replication and other negative results. Philosophical Psychology, 28, 642–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94, 1395–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomson, J. J. (1986). Rights, restitution, and risks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Unger, P. (1996). Living high and letting die: Our illusion of innocence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vossler, C. A. (2013). Analyzing repeated-game economics experiments: robust standard errors for panel data with serial correlation. In John A. List & Michael K. Price (Eds.), Handbook on experimental economics and the environment (pp. 89–112). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zamzow, J. L. & Nichols, S. (2009). Variations in Ethical Intuitions, In E. Sosa, & E. Villanueva (eds.), Metaethics, Wiley Periodicals Inc., 368–388.Google Scholar
  62. Zeiliger, R., (2000). A presentation of Regate, internet-based software for experimental economics. http://regate-ng.gate.cnrs.fr/sferriol/.r
  63. Zeigler-Hill, V., Noser, A. E., Roof, C., Vonk, J., & Marcus, D. K. (2015). Spitefulness and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zizzo, D. J. (2004). Inequality and procedural fairness in a money-burning and stealing experiment. In Frank Cowell (Ed.), Inequality, welfare and income distribution: Experimental approaches (pp. 215–247). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zizzo, D.J. & Oswald, A., (2001). Are people willing to pay to reduce others’ incomes? Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 39–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Aberdeen Business SchoolAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Univ Lyon, Université Lumière Lyon 2EcullyFrance

Personalised recommendations