Moral hypocrisy and goal-framing

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siegwart Lindenberg ◽  
Linda Steg
Keyword(s):  
Moral Hypocrisy ◽  
Goal Framing

scholarly journals Moral hypocrisy and the hedonic shift: A goal-framing approach

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siegwart Lindenberg ◽  
Linda Steg ◽  
Marko Milovanovic ◽  
Anita Schipper
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Moral Obligation ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Situational Cues ◽  
Moral Hypocrisy ◽  
Goal Framing ◽  
Normative Consensus ◽  
Moral Stance ◽  
Do So ◽  
The Way

The most investigated form of moral hypocrisy is pragmatic hypocrisy in which people fake moral commitment for their own advantage. Yet there is also a different form of hypocrisy in which people take a moral stance with regard to norms they endorse without thereby also expressing a commitment to act morally. Rather they do it in order to feel good. We call this hedonic moral hypocrisy. In our research, we posit that this kind of hypocrisy comes about when people’s overarching goals are shifted in a hedonic direction, that is, in the direction of focusing on the way one feels, rather than on moral obligation. Hedonic shifts come about by cues in the environment. People are sometimes sincere when expressing a moral stance (i.e. they mean it and also act on it), and sometimes, when they are subject to a hedonic shift, they express a moral stance just to make them feel good. This also implies that they then decline to do things that make them feel bad, such as behaving morally when it takes unrewarded effort to do so. In two experimental studies, we find that there is such a thing as hedonic moral hypocrisy and that it is indeed brought about by hedonic shifts from cues in the environment. This seriously undermines the meaning of a normative consensus for norm conformity. Seemingly, for norm conformity without close social control, it is not enough that people endorse the same norms, they also have to be exposed to situational cues that counteract hedonic shifts. In the discussion, it is suggested that societal arrangements that foster the focus on the way one feels and nurture a chronic wish to make oneself feel better (for example, in the fun direction through advertisements and entertainment opportunities, or in the fear direction by populist politicians, social media, economic uncertainties, crises, or wars and displacements) are likely to increase hedonic hypocrisy in society.

The Heat of Economic Hardship: Empathy Gaps Induce Moral Hypocrisy

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eesha Sharma ◽  
Nina Mazar ◽  
Adam L. Alter ◽  
Dan Ariely
Keyword(s):  
Economic Hardship ◽  
Moral Hypocrisy

Effects of attribute and goal framing on automation reliance and compliance

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank C. Lacson ◽  
Douglas A. Wiegmann ◽  
Poornima Madhavan
Keyword(s):  
Goal Framing

Being good while doing bad: Motivated cognition and moral hypocrisy

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels van de Ven ◽  
Thomas Gilovich ◽  
Marcel Zeelenb
Keyword(s):  
Motivated Cognition ◽  
Moral Hypocrisy

Decision Aids for Generating Analytical Review Alternatives: The Impact of Goal Framing and Audit-Risk Level

2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Mueller ◽  
John C. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Information Search ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Goal Framing ◽  
Analytical Review ◽  
The Impact

An auditor generating potential explanations for an unusual variance in analytical review may utilize a decision aid, which provides many explanations. However, circumstances of budgetary constraints and limited cognitive load deter an auditor from using a lengthy list of explanations in an information search. A two-way between-subjects design was created to investigate the effects of two complementary approaches to trimming down the lengthy list on the number of remaining explanations carried forward into an information search. These two approaches, which represent the same goal (reducing the list) but framed differently, are found to result in a significantly different number of remaining explanations, in both low- and high-risk audit environments. The results of the study suggest that the extent to which an auditor narrows the lengthy list of explanations is important to the implementation of decision aids in analytical review.

Defending Virtuous Motivation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua May
Keyword(s):  
Framing Effects ◽  
Moral Behavior ◽  
Situational Factors ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Moral Hypocrisy ◽  
Debunking Arguments ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Mood Effects ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers remaining empirical challenges to the idea that we’re commonly motivated to do what’s right for the right reasons. Two key factors threaten to defeat claims to virtuous motivation, self-interest (egoism) and arbitrary situational factors (situationism). Both threats aim to identify defective influences on moral behavior that reveal us to be commonly motivated by the wrong reasons. However, there are limits to such wide-ranging skeptical arguments. Ultimately, like debunking arguments, defeater challenges succumb to a Defeater’s Dilemma: one can identify influences on many of our morally relevant behaviors that are either substantial or arbitrary, but not both. The science suggests a familiar trade-off in which substantial influences on many morally relevant actions are rarely defective. Arriving at this conclusion requires carefully scrutinizing a range of studies, including those on framing effects, dishonesty, implicit bias, mood effects, and moral hypocrisy (vs. integrity).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document