Cargando…

Moral Hypocrisy on the Basis of Construal Level: To Be a Utilitarian Personal Decision Maker or to Be a Moral Advisor?

BACKGROUND: People encounter various moral issues that involve making decisions for others by giving advice. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the characteristics of providing suggestions for oneself versus providing suggestions for others in ethical decision-making and the differences between them...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiao, Wei, Wu, Qing, Yang, Qun, Zhou, Liang, Jiang, Yuan, Zhang, Jiaxi, Miao, Danmin, Peng, Jiaxi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25689521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117540
_version_ 1782357699202121728
author Xiao, Wei
Wu, Qing
Yang, Qun
Zhou, Liang
Jiang, Yuan
Zhang, Jiaxi
Miao, Danmin
Peng, Jiaxi
author_facet Xiao, Wei
Wu, Qing
Yang, Qun
Zhou, Liang
Jiang, Yuan
Zhang, Jiaxi
Miao, Danmin
Peng, Jiaxi
author_sort Xiao, Wei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: People encounter various moral issues that involve making decisions for others by giving advice. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the characteristics of providing suggestions for oneself versus providing suggestions for others in ethical decision-making and the differences between them based on Construal Level Theory (CLT). METHODS: A total of 768 undergraduate students from three universities in China were randomly assigned to eight groups on the basis of a grid of two Construal Levels (self or others) by two different numbers of people saved (5 people or 15 people) by two problem situations (trolley problem vs. footbridge problem). The investigation examined participants’ decisions to opt to take action or refrain from action that would have the consequence of saving more people. RESULTS: The main effects of Construal Level (F(1, 752) = 6.46, p = .011), saving number (F(1, 752) = 35.81, p < .001), and problem situation type (F(1, 752) = 330.55, p < .001) were all significant. The interaction of the problem situation and saving number (F(1, 752) = 1.01, p = .31), and social distance and saving number (F(1, 752) = 0.85, p = .36), and interaction of the three independent factors (F(1, 752) = 0.47, p = .49) were not significant. However, the interaction of social distance and problem situation (F(1, 752) = 9.46, p = .002) was significant. Results indicated the participants utilized a component of utilitarian reasoning in the decision-making, and their behaviors appeared more utilitarian at low Construal Levels (CLs) compared to high. CONCLUSION: CLs, saving numbers, and problem situation significantly affected moral decision-making and exhibited significant interaction. Making decisions for oneself (low-construal) rather than giving advice to others (high-construal) was one important factor that determined whether the people were utilitarian or not. Utilitarian considerations are more relevant in impersonal dilemmas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4331369
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43313692015-02-24 Moral Hypocrisy on the Basis of Construal Level: To Be a Utilitarian Personal Decision Maker or to Be a Moral Advisor? Xiao, Wei Wu, Qing Yang, Qun Zhou, Liang Jiang, Yuan Zhang, Jiaxi Miao, Danmin Peng, Jiaxi PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: People encounter various moral issues that involve making decisions for others by giving advice. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the characteristics of providing suggestions for oneself versus providing suggestions for others in ethical decision-making and the differences between them based on Construal Level Theory (CLT). METHODS: A total of 768 undergraduate students from three universities in China were randomly assigned to eight groups on the basis of a grid of two Construal Levels (self or others) by two different numbers of people saved (5 people or 15 people) by two problem situations (trolley problem vs. footbridge problem). The investigation examined participants’ decisions to opt to take action or refrain from action that would have the consequence of saving more people. RESULTS: The main effects of Construal Level (F(1, 752) = 6.46, p = .011), saving number (F(1, 752) = 35.81, p < .001), and problem situation type (F(1, 752) = 330.55, p < .001) were all significant. The interaction of the problem situation and saving number (F(1, 752) = 1.01, p = .31), and social distance and saving number (F(1, 752) = 0.85, p = .36), and interaction of the three independent factors (F(1, 752) = 0.47, p = .49) were not significant. However, the interaction of social distance and problem situation (F(1, 752) = 9.46, p = .002) was significant. Results indicated the participants utilized a component of utilitarian reasoning in the decision-making, and their behaviors appeared more utilitarian at low Construal Levels (CLs) compared to high. CONCLUSION: CLs, saving numbers, and problem situation significantly affected moral decision-making and exhibited significant interaction. Making decisions for oneself (low-construal) rather than giving advice to others (high-construal) was one important factor that determined whether the people were utilitarian or not. Utilitarian considerations are more relevant in impersonal dilemmas. Public Library of Science 2015-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4331369/ /pubmed/25689521 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117540 Text en © 2015 Xiao et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Xiao, Wei
Wu, Qing
Yang, Qun
Zhou, Liang
Jiang, Yuan
Zhang, Jiaxi
Miao, Danmin
Peng, Jiaxi
Moral Hypocrisy on the Basis of Construal Level: To Be a Utilitarian Personal Decision Maker or to Be a Moral Advisor?
title Moral Hypocrisy on the Basis of Construal Level: To Be a Utilitarian Personal Decision Maker or to Be a Moral Advisor?
title_full Moral Hypocrisy on the Basis of Construal Level: To Be a Utilitarian Personal Decision Maker or to Be a Moral Advisor?
title_fullStr Moral Hypocrisy on the Basis of Construal Level: To Be a Utilitarian Personal Decision Maker or to Be a Moral Advisor?
title_full_unstemmed Moral Hypocrisy on the Basis of Construal Level: To Be a Utilitarian Personal Decision Maker or to Be a Moral Advisor?
title_short Moral Hypocrisy on the Basis of Construal Level: To Be a Utilitarian Personal Decision Maker or to Be a Moral Advisor?
title_sort moral hypocrisy on the basis of construal level: to be a utilitarian personal decision maker or to be a moral advisor?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25689521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117540
work_keys_str_mv AT xiaowei moralhypocrisyonthebasisofconstrualleveltobeautilitarianpersonaldecisionmakerortobeamoraladvisor
AT wuqing moralhypocrisyonthebasisofconstrualleveltobeautilitarianpersonaldecisionmakerortobeamoraladvisor
AT yangqun moralhypocrisyonthebasisofconstrualleveltobeautilitarianpersonaldecisionmakerortobeamoraladvisor
AT zhouliang moralhypocrisyonthebasisofconstrualleveltobeautilitarianpersonaldecisionmakerortobeamoraladvisor
AT jiangyuan moralhypocrisyonthebasisofconstrualleveltobeautilitarianpersonaldecisionmakerortobeamoraladvisor
AT zhangjiaxi moralhypocrisyonthebasisofconstrualleveltobeautilitarianpersonaldecisionmakerortobeamoraladvisor
AT miaodanmin moralhypocrisyonthebasisofconstrualleveltobeautilitarianpersonaldecisionmakerortobeamoraladvisor
AT pengjiaxi moralhypocrisyonthebasisofconstrualleveltobeautilitarianpersonaldecisionmakerortobeamoraladvisor