IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gat/wpaper/1630.html

Antisocial Attitudes, Gender and Moral Judgments: An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Juergen Bracht

    (University of Aberdeen Business School, Department of Economics, Edward Wright Building, Dunbar Street, Aberdeen, AB24 3QY, Scotland)

  • Adam Zylbersztejn

    (Univ Lyon, Université Lyon 2, GATE L-SE UMR 5824, F-69342 Lyon, France)

Abstract

We study questionnaire responses to moral dilemmas hypothetical situations in which sacrificing one life may save many other lives. We demonstrate gender differences in moral judgments: male participants are more supportive of the sacrifice than female participants. We investigate the importance of the previously studied source of the endorsement of the sacrfice: antisocial attitudes. First, we elicit the individual proneness to spiteful behavior using an incentivized experimental game. We demonstrate that spitefulness can be sizable but it is not associated with gender. Second, we find that gender is associated with moral judgments even when we account for individual differences in antisocial attitudes. Our results suggest that the performance of many institutions (related to the distribution of wealth or punishment, for instance) may be affected by the gender of the decision-makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2016. "Antisocial Attitudes, Gender and Moral Judgments: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 1630, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
  • Handle: RePEc:gat:wpaper:1630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.gate.cnrs.fr/RePEc/2016/1630.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    2. David K. Levine, 1998. "Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiment," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(3), pages 593-622, July.
    3. Natalie Gold & Andrew M. Colman & Briony D. Pulford, 2014. "Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 65-76, January.
    4. Charness, Gary & Grosskopf, Brit, 2001. "Relative payoffs and happiness: an experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 301-328, July.
    5. Andrea L. Glenn & Spassena Koleva & Ravi Iyer & Jesse Graham & Peter H. Ditto, 2010. "Moral identity in psychopathy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(7), pages 497-505, December.
    6. Gold, Natalie & Pulford, Briony D. & Colman, Andrew M., 2015. "Do as I Say, Don’t Do as I Do: Differences in moral judgments do not translate into differences in decisions in real-life trolley problems," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 50-61.
    7. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Michael Koenigs & Liane Young & Ralph Adolphs & Daniel Tranel & Fiery Cushman & Marc Hauser & Antonio Damasio, 2007. "Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements," Nature, Nature, vol. 446(7138), pages 908-911, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luzuriaga, Miguel & Heras, Antonio & Kunze, Oliver, 2020. "Hurting Others versus Hurting Myself, a Dilemma for Our Autonomous Vehicle," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 7(1), pages 1-30, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2016. "Moral Judgments, Gender, and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study," Working Papers halshs-01382464, HAL.
    2. Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2018. "Moral judgments, gender, and antisocial preferences: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 389-406, October.
    3. Kajackaite, Agne & Sliwka, Dirk, 2020. "Prosocial managers, employee motivation, and the creation of shareholder value," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 217-235.
    4. Nana Adrian & Ann-Kathrin Crede & Jonas Gehrlein, 2019. "Market Interaction and the Focus on Consequences in Moral Decision Making," Diskussionsschriften dp1905, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    5. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    6. Sergio Barbosa & William Jiménez-Leal, 2017. "It’s not right but it’s permitted: Wording effects in moral judgement," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 308-313, May.
    7. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 1999. "Social preferences: Some simple tests and a new model," Economics Working Papers 441, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2000.
    8. Neckermann, Susanne & Yang, Xiaolan, 2017. "Understanding the (unexpected) consequences of unexpected recognition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 131-142.
    9. Leibbrandt, Andreas & López-Pérez, Raúl, 2012. "An exploration of third and second party punishment in ten simple games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 753-766.
    10. Christian Thoeni & Simon Gaechter, 2011. "Peer Effects and Social Preferences in Voluntary Cooperation," Discussion Papers 2011-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    11. Dulleck, Uwe & Johnston, David W. & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Sutter, Matthias, 2012. "The Good, the Bad and the Naive: Do Fair Prices Signal Good Types or Do They Induce Good Behaviour?," IZA Discussion Papers 6491, IZA Network @ LISER.
    12. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    13. Jauernig, Johanna & Uhl, Matthias & Luetge, Christoph, 2016. "Competition-induced punishment of winners and losers: Who is the target?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 13-25.
    14. Nicklisch, Andreas & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2012. "On the nature of reciprocity: Evidence from the ultimatum reciprocity measure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 892-905.
    15. Jeroen Ven & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Dishonesty under scrutiny," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 86-99, July.
    16. Christiane Bradler & Robert Dur & Susanne Neckermann & Arjan Non, 2013. "Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-038/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Dato, Simon & Nieken, Petra, 2014. "Gender differences in competition and sabotage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 64-80.
    18. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2013. "Peer Effects In Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms Or Social Preferences?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 548-573, June.
    19. Pikulina, Elena S. & Tergiman, Chloe, 2020. "Preferences for power," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    20. López-Pérez, Raúl, 2006. "Emotions Enforce Fairness Norms (a Simple Model of Strong Reciprocity)," Working Papers in Economic Theory 2006/11, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Department of Economic Analysis (Economic Theory and Economic History).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gat:wpaper:1630. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Béatrice HENRY (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gateefr.html .

    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.