道德意识使人们的公平判断两极分化。

IF 0.5 4区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS Social Choice and Welfare Pub Date : 2023-03-25 DOI:10.1007/s00355-023-01454-6
Michael Kurschilgen
{"title":"道德意识使人们的公平判断两极分化。","authors":"Michael Kurschilgen","doi":"10.1007/s00355-023-01454-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How does moral awareness affect people's fairness judgments? Using a simple model of identity utility, I predict that if individuals differ in their personal fairness ideals (equality versus efficiency), reflecting over what one thinks is right should not only make people's choices less selfish but also more polarized. On the other hand, people's desire for conforming with the behavior of their peers could help mitigate polarization. I test these conjectures in a laboratory experiment, in which participants can pursue different fairness ideals. I exogenously vary (i) whether participants are prompted to state their moral opinions behind the veil of ignorance, and (ii) whether they are informed about the behavior of their peers. I find that moral introspection makes choices more polarized, reflecting even more divergent moral opinions. The increase in polarization coincides largely with a widening of revealed gender differences as introspection makes men's choices more efficiency-oriented and women's more egalitarian. Disclosing the descriptive norm of the situation is not capable of mitigating the polarization.</p>","PeriodicalId":47663,"journal":{"name":"Social Choice and Welfare","volume":" ","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10039363/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moral awareness polarizes people's fairness judgments.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Kurschilgen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00355-023-01454-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How does moral awareness affect people's fairness judgments? Using a simple model of identity utility, I predict that if individuals differ in their personal fairness ideals (equality versus efficiency), reflecting over what one thinks is right should not only make people's choices less selfish but also more polarized. On the other hand, people's desire for conforming with the behavior of their peers could help mitigate polarization. I test these conjectures in a laboratory experiment, in which participants can pursue different fairness ideals. I exogenously vary (i) whether participants are prompted to state their moral opinions behind the veil of ignorance, and (ii) whether they are informed about the behavior of their peers. I find that moral introspection makes choices more polarized, reflecting even more divergent moral opinions. The increase in polarization coincides largely with a widening of revealed gender differences as introspection makes men's choices more efficiency-oriented and women's more egalitarian. Disclosing the descriptive norm of the situation is not capable of mitigating the polarization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Choice and Welfare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10039363/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Choice and Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-023-01454-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Choice and Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-023-01454-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

道德意识如何影响人们的公平判断?使用一个简单的身份效用模型,我预测,如果个人在个人公平理想(平等与效率)上存在差异,那么反思一个人认为什么是对的,不仅会使人们的选择不那么自私,而且会使人们的选择更加两极化。另一方面,人们希望与同伴的行为保持一致,这有助于缓解两极分化。我在一个实验室实验中验证了这些猜想,在这个实验中,参与者可以追求不同的公平理想。(1)参与者是否被提示在无知的面纱后面陈述他们的道德观点,以及(2)他们是否被告知同伴的行为。我发现道德内省使选择更加两极化,反映出更加不同的道德观点。两极分化的加剧在很大程度上与性别差异的扩大不谋而合,因为内省使男性的选择更注重效率,而女性的选择更注重平等。披露情况的描述性规范并不能缓解两极分化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Moral awareness polarizes people's fairness judgments.

How does moral awareness affect people's fairness judgments? Using a simple model of identity utility, I predict that if individuals differ in their personal fairness ideals (equality versus efficiency), reflecting over what one thinks is right should not only make people's choices less selfish but also more polarized. On the other hand, people's desire for conforming with the behavior of their peers could help mitigate polarization. I test these conjectures in a laboratory experiment, in which participants can pursue different fairness ideals. I exogenously vary (i) whether participants are prompted to state their moral opinions behind the veil of ignorance, and (ii) whether they are informed about the behavior of their peers. I find that moral introspection makes choices more polarized, reflecting even more divergent moral opinions. The increase in polarization coincides largely with a widening of revealed gender differences as introspection makes men's choices more efficiency-oriented and women's more egalitarian. Disclosing the descriptive norm of the situation is not capable of mitigating the polarization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Social Choice and Welfare explores all aspects, both normative and positive, of welfare economics, collective choice, and strategic interaction. Topics include but are not limited to: preference aggregation, welfare criteria, fairness, justice and equity, rights, inequality and poverty measurement, voting and elections, political games, coalition formation, public goods, mechanism design, networks, matching, optimal taxation, cost-benefit analysis, computational social choice, judgement aggregation, market design, behavioral welfare economics, subjective well-being studies and experimental investigations related to social choice and voting. As such, the journal is inter-disciplinary and cuts across the boundaries of economics, political science, philosophy, and mathematics. Articles on choice and order theory that include results that can be applied to the above topics are also included in the journal. While it emphasizes theory, the journal also publishes empirical work in the subject area reflecting cross-fertilizing between theoretical and empirical research. Readers will find original research articles, surveys, and book reviews.Officially cited as: Soc Choice Welf
期刊最新文献
Allocation without transfers: a welfare-maximizing mechanism under incomplete information Flexible representative democracy An axiomatic characterization of Split Cycle The character of non-manipulable collective choices between two alternatives Natural interviewing equilibria in matching settings
×
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