Moral hypocrisy on the basis of construal level: to be a utilitarian personal decision maker or to be a moral advisor?

Wei Xiao; Qing Wu; Qun Yang; Liang Zhou; Yuan Jiang; Jiaxi Zhang; Danmin Miao; Jiaxi Peng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117540

Moral hypocrisy on the basis of construal level: to be a utilitarian personal decision maker or to be a moral advisor?

PLoS One. 2015 Feb 17;10(2):e0117540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117540. eCollection 2015.

Authors

Wei Xiao¹, Qing Wu², Qun Yang¹, Liang Zhou¹, Yuan Jiang³, Jiaxi Zhang¹, Danmin Miao¹, Jiaxi Peng¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
² Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China; Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Office of Basic Education Department, Chongqing Communication Institute, Chongqing, China.
³ Astronaut Scientific Research Training Center of China, Beijing, China.

Abstract

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 (F1, 752 = 6.46, p = .011), saving number (F1, 752 = 35.81, p < .001), and problem situation type (F1, 752 = 330.55, p < .001) were all significant. The interaction of the problem situation and saving number (F1, 752 = 1.01, p = .31), and social distance and saving number (F1, 752 = 0.85, p = .36), and interaction of the three independent factors (F1, 752 = 0.47, p = .49) were not significant. However, the interaction of social distance and problem situation (F1, 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.

Publication types

Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adolescent
Adult
Decision Making*
Ethical Theory*
Female
Humans
Interpersonal Relations*
Male
Morals*
Problem Solving*
Psychological Distance
Young Adult

Grants and funding

This study was supported by the Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, where it was conducted, and the authors received no external funding. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.