Moral judgment of economic behavior under risk in relation to moral emotions Tadeusz Tyszka Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management Tomasz Zaleskiewicz Warsaw School of Social Sciences and Humanities

Agenda 1. Reference to our previous study 2. Idea of the present study 3. Methodology 4. Results 5. Discussion

The basic idea Some economic decisions are associated not only with financial outcomes (gains/losses) but also with moral outcomes (negative/positive)

EXAMPLE Person A faces severe financial problems because he has been fired, has large debts and must provide for a big family. He finds a wallet on the street, containing a substantial sum of money. The owner’s name and address are in the wallet. On the other hand, person A can easily keep the wallet instead of returning it to the owner.

Our previous study Four economic scenarios that described people facing a moral conflict (wallet, safety, product, bribe) Participants asked to judge an immoral behavior Immoral behavior in two scenarios (bribe, product) blamed more then in two other scenarios (wallet, safety)

Our previous study Higher level of blame positively correlated with reaction time Higher level of blame  insensitivity to quantitative risk parameters (outcomes and probabilities)  deontological judgment Lower level of blame  high sensitivity to quantitative risk parameters  consequentialistic judgment

A new research question Where does this difference in moral judgment come from? Why do people behave as deontologists in some situations and as consequentialists in other situations?

A possible solution Immoral behavior can evoke different level of negative affect. People blame immoral behavior harsher when affect is stronger (Greene et al., 2001; Haidt, 2001; 2003; Kahneman & Sunstein, 2005) Violating some moral norms can evoke stronger negative affect than violating other moral norms

The hypothesis Violating the norm in those scenarios where moral judgments were consistent with the deontological position will evoke stronger negative emotions than violating the norm in scenarios where judgments were consistent with the consequentialist position

The four scenarios S1 introducing safety changes in a factory; S2 returning wallet found on a street; S3 selling a product that can be dangerous for consumers; S4 accepting a bribe

Part 1 – self-oriented moral emotions Participants asked to imagine that they were evolved in the scenarios and behaved in an immoral way P’s asked to evaluate how much guilt, shame or embarrassment they would feel (on a 100-point scale)

Part 2 – others-oriented moral emotions Participants asked to imagine that they observed immoral behaviors of other people P’s asked to evaluate how much anger, disgust and contempt they would feel (on a 100-point scale)

Part 1 – Results (self-oriented moral emotions) F(3,243) = ; p <.0001

Part 2 – Results (others-oriented moral emotions) F(3,252) = ; p <.0001

Discussion Violating moral norm when judgment consistent with deontological position (fast judgment, insensitivity to basic risk parameters)  stronger negative affect Violating moral norm when judgment consistent with consequentialistic position (slower judgment, insensitivity to basic risk parameters)  weaker negative affect

Discussion Deontological moral judgment might be affect-based and produced mainly by the affective system of thought (S. Epstein; The risk-as-feelings hypothesis) Consequentialistic moral judgment might be reason-based and produced mainly by the rational system of thought