Are Kantians Better Social Partners? People Making Deontological Judgments are Perceived to Be More Prosocial than They Actually are

Capraro, Valerio; Sippel, Jonathan; Zhao, Baoyu; Hornischer, Levin; Savary, Morgan; Terzopoulou, Zoi; Faucher, Pierre; Griffioen, Simone F.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2905673

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those espousing deontological decision-making are perceived as more trustworthy, likable, and warm compared to utilitarians, prompting greater willingness to cooperate with deontologists in interdependent tasks (Bostyn & Roets, 2017a; Everett et al, 2016; Kreps & Monin, 2014; Rom & Conway, 2018; Rom et al, 2017; Sacco et al, 2017). Given rules of reciprocal exchange requiring one’s behavior to be initially cooperative, deontologists may be perceived as more trustworthy and thereby more capable of establishing mutual prosocial behavior (Capraro et al, 2017; Jordan, Hoffman, Nowak, & Rand, 2016). In fact, wanting to appear prosocial motivates public deontological decision-making (Rom & Conway, 2018).…”

Section: Morality As An Interpersonal Cuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deontological and utilitarian moral decisions appear to have signaling functions in group living. Although extensive research indicates an adaptive utility in communicating either type of moral decision (Bostyn & Roets, 2017a, 2017b; Capraro et al, 2017; Everett, Pizarro, & Crockett, 2016; Robinson, Page-Gould, & Plaks, 2017; Rom & Conway, 2018; Rom, Weiss, & Conway, 2017; Sacco, Brown, Lustgraaf, & Hugenberg, 2017), research has not fully addressed how such signaling influences mate preferences. Affiliative signals from communicated morality may possess downstream cues facilitating optimal mate selection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate quality

Brown¹,

Sacco

2017

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deontological and utilitarian moral decisions have unique communicative functions within the context of group living. Deontology more strongly communicates prosocial intentions, fostering greater perceptions of trust and desirability in general affiliative contexts. This general trustworthiness may extend to perceptions of fidelity in romantic relationships, leading to perceptions of deontological persons as better long-term mates, relative to utilitarians. In two studies, participants indicated desirability of both deontologists and utilitarians in long-term mating (LTM) and short-term mating contexts. In Study 1 (n = 102), women perceived a deontological man as more interested in long-term bonds, more desirable for LTM, and less prone to infidelity, relative to a utilitarian man. However, utilitarian men were undesirable as short-term mates. Study 2 (n = 112) had both men and women rate opposite-sex targets’ desirability after learning of their moral decisions in a trolley problem. We replicated women’s preference for deontological men as long-term mates. Interestingly, both men and women reporting personal deontological motives were particularly sensitive to deontology communicating long-term desirability and fidelity, which could be a product of the general affiliative signal from deontology. Thus, one’s moral basis for decision-making, particularly deontologically motivated moral decisions, may communicate traits valuable in LTM contexts.

show abstract

Section: Morality As An Interpersonal Cuementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate quality

Brown¹,

Sacco

2017

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Gender differences in moral judgment and the evaluation of gender-specified moral agents

Capraro

Sippel

2017

Cogn Process

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether, and if so, how exactly gender differences are manifested in moral judgment has recently been at the center of much research on moral decision making. Previous research suggests that women are more deontological than men in personal, but not impersonal, moral dilemmas. However, typical personal and impersonal moral dilemmas differ along two dimensions: Personal dilemmas are more emotionally salient than impersonal ones and involve a violation of Kant's practical imperative that humans must never be used as a mere means, but only as ends. Thus, it remains unclear whether the reported gender difference is due to emotional salience or to the violation of the practical imperative. To answer this question, we explore gender differences in three moral dilemmas: a typical personal dilemma, a typical impersonal dilemma, and an intermediate dilemma, which is not as emotionally salient as typical personal moral dilemmas, but contains an equally strong violation of Kant's practical imperative. While we replicate the result that women tend to embrace deontological ethics more than men in personal, but not impersonal, dilemmas, we find no gender differences in the intermediate situation. This suggests that gender differences in these type of dilemmas are driven by emotional salience, and not by the violation of the practical imperative. Additionally, we also explore whether people think that women should behave differently than men in these dilemmas. Across all three dilemmas, we find no statistically significant differences about how people think men and women should behave.

show abstract

Trustors’ disregard for trustees deciding quickly or slowly in three experiments with time constraints

Cabrales

Espín

Kujal

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many decisions in the economic and social domain are made under time constraints, be it under time pressure or forced delay. Requiring individuals to decide quickly or slowly often elicit different responses. Time pressure has been associated with inefficiency in market settings and market regulation often requires individuals to delay their decisions via cooling-off periods. Yet, recent research suggests that people who make reflective decisions are met with distrust. If this extends to external time constraints, then forcing individuals to delay their decisions may be counterproductive in scenarios where trust considerations are important, such as in market and organizational design. In three Trust Game experiments (total number of participants = 1872), including within- and between-subjects designs, we test whether individuals trust (more) someone who is forced to respond quickly (intuitively) or slowly (reflectively). We find that trustors do not adjust their behavior (or their beliefs) to the trustee’s time conditions. This seems to be an appropriate response because time constraints do not affect trustees’ behavior, at least when the game decisions are binary (trust vs. don’t trust; reciprocate vs. don’t reciprocate) and therefore mistakes cannot explain choices. Thus, delayed decisions per se do not seem to elicit distrust.

show abstract

Are Kantians Better Social Partners? People Making Deontological Judgments are Perceived to Be More Prosocial than They Actually are

Cited by 4 publications

References 72 publications

Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate quality

Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate quality

Gender differences in moral judgment and the evaluation of gender-specified moral agents

Trustors’ disregard for trustees deciding quickly or slowly in three experiments with time constraints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About