Objective and subjective compliance: A norm-based explanation of ‘moral wiggle room’

Abstract

We propose a cognitive-dissonance model of norm compliance to identify conditions for selfishly biased information acquisition. The model distinguishes between: (i) objective norm compliers, for whom the right action is a function of the state of the world; (ii) subjective norm compliers, for whom it is a function of their belief. The former seek as much information as possible; the latter acquire only information that lowers, in expected terms, normative demands. The source of 'moral wiggle room' is not belief manipulation, but the coarseness of normative prescriptions under conditions of uncertainty. In a novel experimental setup, we find evidence for such strategic information uptake. Our results suggest that attempts to change behavior by subjecting individuals to norms can lead to biased information acquisition instead of compliance.JEL Classification: C91, D63, D83

Self-Image and Willful Ignorance in Social Decisions

“…Another idea is that social behavior is governed by different social norms than information acquisition (Spiekerman and Weiss, 2013). Again, we see self-signaling as compatible with such an explanation.…”

It's Not a Lie If You Believe It: Lying and Belief Distortion Under Norm-Uncertainty

“…fairness). If so, people will choose the interpretation that lowers the difference between what is normatively required and what one does (Spiekermann and Weiss, 2016).…”

Intention-Based Sharing

“…Relating our setup and hypotheses to studies allowing for "moral wiggle room" 13 and confirming aversion to appear "unfair" either by seeking for circumstances where own self-servingness is less transparent, e.g., by avoiding information about others' neediness, respectively about more generosity of other donors (Spiekermann and Weiss [21]), or to exploit such circumstances when confronting them (Dana et al [7] and Dana et al [22]). What remains intransparent for the needy recipient in our setup is how the actual offer came about: is it due to "object norm complying" (Spiekermann and Weiss [21]) in the form of y − i = y i = y + i or y e = 0 and y + i , respectively y o = 23 and y − i , or to adapting to another's intention in case of y + i > y − i ?…”

“…The figure also reveal that all offer types display a low single peak for YN and IG, whereas for UG this applies only to downward adjusting offers y − . 21 More interestingly, the figure reveals that in IG a large share (54%) of downward adjusted offer are at the minimum level (either zero or one). As far as response behavior is concerned, IG responders (with no veto power) state systematically lower acceptance thresholds (on average 2.315) than UG responders (on average 3.639) who claim nearly twice as much in treatment T1 (see Table 2, 4.685 respect to 2.593, WRST, p-value < 0.001).…”

“…What remains intransparent for the needy recipient in our setup is how the actual offer came about: is it due to "object norm complying" (Spiekermann and Weiss [21]) in the form of y − i = y i = y + i or y e = 0 and y + i , respectively y o = 23 and y − i , or to adapting to another's intention in case of y + i > y − i ? In our setup profiles (y i , y + i , y − i ) and which of the two offers y + i or y − i in case of y + i > y − i determined the actual offer remains hidden for recipients.…”