Premium
Cheating: One common morality for gains and losses but two components of morality itself
Author(s) -
Markiewicz Łukasz,
Czupryna Marcin
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of behavioral decision making
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.136
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1099-0771
pISSN - 0894-3257
DOI - 10.1002/bdm.2151
Subject(s) - morality , cheating , prospect theory , framing (construction) , probabilistic logic , social psychology , lying , framing effect , context (archaeology) , psychology , function (biology) , loss aversion , subjective expected utility , asymmetry , economics , microeconomics , expected utility hypothesis , mathematical economics , epistemology , persuasion , mathematics , statistics , philosophy , structural engineering , engineering , biology , paleontology , quantum mechanics , evolutionary biology , radiology , medicine , physics
Previous studies show that decision makers (DMs) lie more to avoid a loss than achieve a gain. Two compelling mechanisms might explain this observation. One assumes that lying is a risky activity and relates to the shape of the monetary value function described by prospect theory, which assumes (a) increased risk taking for loss frames and (b) an asymmetry between the perceived values of losses and gains. The other relates to the importance of self‐esteem functions as expressed in self‐concept maintenance models, self‐esteem issues being weighed against monetary issues. This alternative explanation assumes that a loss frame serves as a factor lowering moral considerations. We report an experimental study presenting sets of lotteries to DMs, once in a moral context and once in a traditional probabilistic context. The results show that DMs take less risk when lotteries are presented in a moral context. It is also shown that DMs take more risk for losses than gains, this holding for both the moral and probabilistic contexts. This latter result suggests that loss/gain asymmetry can be completely explained by prospect theory factors, and framing makes no difference to the valuing of moral considerations.