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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |