IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0278677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moral luck in investment contexts: We consciously find unprofitable investments less moral

Author

Listed:
  • Raphael Max
  • Matthias Uhl

Abstract

Moral luck refers to whether an actor is morally praised or blamed for an action whose outcome they could not influence. In two studies, we investigated the behavioral importance of this phenomenon in the realm of investments, which has become increasingly subject to ethical evaluations. In our first online experiment, we examined whether people’s moral evaluation of an investment decision depended on its arbitrary outcome and whether their interpretation of the nature of the decision was driven by this outcome. Our results showed that profitable investments were considered more moral than unprofitable investments. Moreover, profitable investments were labeled “investments” instead of “speculation” or “gambling” more often than unprofitable ones. In our second study, we asked the subjects to assess investments independent of the outcome. After the outcome was announced, the subjects were given the opportunity to reflect and change their initial decision. The results show that people change the moral evaluation and label of investments when told that it had a bad outcome. This observation was stable across different investment contexts. These findings suggest that we must be careful with the increasing moralization of investment decisions and be sensitive to our cognitive biases.

Suggested Citation

  • Raphael Max & Matthias Uhl, 2023. "Moral luck in investment contexts: We consciously find unprofitable investments less moral," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0278677
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278677
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278677&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0278677?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0278677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.