Deontological and Utilitarian Responses to Sacrificial Dilemmas Predict Disapproval of Sin Stocks

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Psychology Pub Date : 2020-11-16 DOI:10.31234/osf.io/m3nhx
Paweł Niszczota, Michał J. Białek, Paul Conway
{"title":"Deontological and Utilitarian Responses to Sacrificial Dilemmas Predict Disapproval of Sin Stocks","authors":"Paweł Niszczota, Michał J. Białek, Paul Conway","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/m3nhx","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Investors sometimes invest in so-called ‘sin’ stocks that cause social harm as a byproduct of doing business (e.g., tobacco companies). Two studies examined whether people who demonstrate moral concerns in sacrificial dilemmas approve less of investing in sin (but not conventional) stocks. We employed process dissociation to assess harm-rejection (deontological) and outcome-maximization (utilitarian) response tendencies independently. Study 1 (N=337) assessed moral approval of sin stocks (e.g., fur and gambling industries) and conventional stocks (e.g., water utilities and semiconductor producers). People scoring higher on deontological and utilitarian response tendencies disapproved of sin, but not conventional, stocks. Study 2 (N=402) replicated this effect for willingness to invest in companies abandoning (vs. retaining) socially responsible policies to maximize profits. These findings align with studies showing that people who care about morality demonstrate sensitivity to both deontological and utilitarian considerations, and clarify the psychology involved in morally questionable investment decisions.","PeriodicalId":47278,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychology","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/m3nhx","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Investors sometimes invest in so-called ‘sin’ stocks that cause social harm as a byproduct of doing business (e.g., tobacco companies). Two studies examined whether people who demonstrate moral concerns in sacrificial dilemmas approve less of investing in sin (but not conventional) stocks. We employed process dissociation to assess harm-rejection (deontological) and outcome-maximization (utilitarian) response tendencies independently. Study 1 (N=337) assessed moral approval of sin stocks (e.g., fur and gambling industries) and conventional stocks (e.g., water utilities and semiconductor producers). People scoring higher on deontological and utilitarian response tendencies disapproved of sin, but not conventional, stocks. Study 2 (N=402) replicated this effect for willingness to invest in companies abandoning (vs. retaining) socially responsible policies to maximize profits. These findings align with studies showing that people who care about morality demonstrate sensitivity to both deontological and utilitarian considerations, and clarify the psychology involved in morally questionable investment decisions.
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
对牺牲困境的义务论和功利主义反应预测不赞成罪恶股票
投资者有时会投资所谓的“罪恶”股票,这些股票作为做生意的副产品会造成社会危害(例如烟草公司)。两项研究调查了在牺牲困境中表现出道德关切的人是否更不赞成投资罪恶(而不是传统)股票。我们使用过程分离来独立评估伤害排斥(义务论)和结果最大化(功利主义)反应倾向。研究1 (N=337)评估了罪恶股票(如毛皮和博彩业)和传统股票(如水务公司和半导体生产商)的道德认可程度。在义务论和功利主义反应倾向上得分较高的人不赞成罪恶,但不赞成传统股票。研究2 (N=402)复制了这种效应,即愿意投资于放弃(相对于保留)社会责任政策以实现利润最大化的公司。这些发现与一些研究相一致,这些研究表明,关心道德的人对义务论和功利主义的考虑都很敏感,并阐明了道德上有问题的投资决策所涉及的心理学。
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
Social Psychology
Social Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Beyond the Mere Ownership and Endowment Effects How Emotions Induce Charitable Giving Refusing to Pay Taxes Verbs Are Associated With Agency Cynical, But Useful?
×
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