Resource Constraints Lead to Biased Attention but Decrease Unethical Behavior

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2402
Caroline K. Børsting, Christian T. Elbæk, Panagiotis Mitkidis, Guy Hochman
{"title":"Resource Constraints Lead to Biased Attention but Decrease Unethical Behavior","authors":"Caroline K. Børsting,&nbsp;Christian T. Elbæk,&nbsp;Panagiotis Mitkidis,&nbsp;Guy Hochman","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Subjective experiences of resource scarcity can make individuals short-term oriented, capture attention, and trigger feelings of unfairness. However, the impact of scarcity on information processing and ethical decision-making remains poorly understood. This eye-tracking study explored how acute financial scarcity affects selective information search and ethical decision-making in an economic task with competing incentives (<i>N</i> = 60, 12,000 observations). Results revealed that participants experiencing financial scarcity displayed a strong attentional bias towards financially tempting information, although they ultimately did not behave more unethically. These findings might reveal a “moral boundary” dictating when attentional biases translate into decision-making. Our results contribute to understanding how individuals in scarcity contexts process and prioritize information in ethical decision-making, helping organizations and policymakers combat stereotypes surrounding resource-deprived individuals, and design evidence-based policy interventions promoting ethical behavior in financially scarce situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2402","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2402","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Subjective experiences of resource scarcity can make individuals short-term oriented, capture attention, and trigger feelings of unfairness. However, the impact of scarcity on information processing and ethical decision-making remains poorly understood. This eye-tracking study explored how acute financial scarcity affects selective information search and ethical decision-making in an economic task with competing incentives (N = 60, 12,000 observations). Results revealed that participants experiencing financial scarcity displayed a strong attentional bias towards financially tempting information, although they ultimately did not behave more unethically. These findings might reveal a “moral boundary” dictating when attentional biases translate into decision-making. Our results contribute to understanding how individuals in scarcity contexts process and prioritize information in ethical decision-making, helping organizations and policymakers combat stereotypes surrounding resource-deprived individuals, and design evidence-based policy interventions promoting ethical behavior in financially scarce situations.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
资源限制会导致注意力偏差,但会减少不道德行为
资源稀缺的主观体验会使个体产生短期导向、吸引注意力并引发不公平感。然而,人们对稀缺性对信息处理和道德决策的影响仍然知之甚少。这项眼动追踪研究探讨了在一项具有竞争激励的经济任务中,严重的经济稀缺性如何影响选择性信息搜索和道德决策(N = 60,12,000 个观察结果)。研究结果表明,经历过金融稀缺的参与者会对金融诱惑信息表现出强烈的注意偏向,尽管他们最终并没有做出更多不道德的行为。这些发现可能揭示了一种 "道德边界",它决定了注意偏差何时转化为决策。我们的研究结果有助于人们了解在经济匮乏的情况下,个体如何在道德决策中处理信息并确定信息的优先次序,帮助组织和政策制定者消除对资源匮乏个体的刻板印象,并设计基于证据的政策干预措施,促进在经济匮乏情况下的道德行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Do We Use Relatively Bad (Algorithmic) Advice? The Effects of Performance Feedback and Advice Representation on Advice Usage Evaluation of Extended Decision Outcomes Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice Dynamics of Reliance on Algorithmic Advice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1