IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/124120.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Disinformation, Benefit of Group Membership, and Conscience: An Economic Model

Author

Listed:
  • Harashima, Taiji

Abstract

Mutual trust and confidence are important to succeed not only in business but also in many other activities, which means that people do not necessarily behave totally selfishly, even in profit-maximizing activities. Non-selfish behaviors, in other words, behaviors induced by conscience and guilt, are particularly important to actualize the benefit of a group, team, organization, nation, or society as a whole. In this paper, I examine the role of conscience for the benefit of group membership and construct an economic model of conscience. Combining this model with a model of disinformation and mutual trust, I show that the level of conscience in an economy (society) is positively correlated with its efficiency and productivity. Furthermore, on the basis of this model, I discuss the political impact of conscience on, and argue that it will not be easy to establish, a democracy in a nation of low average conscience.

Suggested Citation

  • Harashima, Taiji, 2025. "Disinformation, Benefit of Group Membership, and Conscience: An Economic Model," MPRA Paper 124120, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:124120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/124120/1/MPRA_paper_124120.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rafael Di Tella & Ricardo Perez-Truglia & Andres Babino & Mariano Sigman, 2015. "Conveniently Upset: Avoiding Altruism by Distorting Beliefs about Others' Altruism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(11), pages 3416-3442, November.
    2. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    3. Harashima, Taiji, 2022. "Asymmetric Information and Ranked Information Are Equivalent in Making Information Utilization Heterogeneous," MPRA Paper 113576, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Christine L. Exley, 2016. "Excusing Selfishness in Charitable Giving: The Role of Risk," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(2), pages 587-628.
    5. Harashima, Taiji, 2024. "Disinformation and Mutual Trust: An Economic Model," MPRA Paper 121865, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Jason Dana & Roberto Weber & Jason Kuang, 2007. "Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 67-80, October.
    7. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Billur Aksoy & Silvana Krasteva, 2020. "When does less information translate into more giving to public goods?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1148-1177, December.
    2. Claire Rimbaud & Alice Soldà, 2024. "Avoiding the cost of your conscience: belief dependent preferences and information acquisition," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(3), pages 491-547, July.
    3. Claire Rimbaud & Alice Soldà, 2021. "Avoiding the Cost of your Conscience: Belief Dependent Preferences and Information Acquisition," Working Papers 2114, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    4. Michael Thaler, 2020. "Good News Is Not a Sufficient Condition for Motivated Reasoning," Papers 2012.01548, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    5. Stoetzer, Lasse S. & Zimmermann, Florian, 2024. "A note on motivated cognition and discriminatory beliefs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 554-562.
    6. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Xue, Nina, 2024. "Belief elicitation under competing motivations: Does it matter how you ask?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Ging-Jehli, Nadja R. & Schneider, Florian H. & Weber, Roberto A., 2020. "On self-serving strategic beliefs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 341-353.
    8. Bruttel, Lisa & Stolley, Florian, 2020. "Getting a yes. An experiment on the power of asking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. Mollerstrom, Johanna & Strulov-Shlain, Avner & Taubinsky, Dmitry, 2024. "The impact of group size on giving versus demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    10. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    11. Ellingsen, Tore & Mohlin, Erik, 2022. "A Model of Social Duties," Working Papers 2022:14, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    12. Zhang, Yinjunjie & Hoffmann, Manuel & Sara, Raisa & Eckel, Catherine, 2024. "Fairness preferences revisited," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 278-306.
    13. Lata Gangadharan & Philip J. Grossman & Nina Xue, 2022. "Stepping Stone: Identifying self-image concerns from motivated beliefs: Does it matter how and whom you ask?," Monash Economics Working Papers 2022-05, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    14. Thomas, Ranjeeta & Galizzi, Matteo M. & Moorhouse, Louisa & Nyamukapa, Constance & Hallett, Timothy B., 2024. "Do risk, time and prosocial preferences predict risky sexual behaviour of youths in a low-income, high-risk setting?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. Danae Arroyos-Calvera & Rebecca McDonald & Daniel Read & Bruce Rigal, 2020. "Unpacking moral wiggle room: Information preferences and not information itself predict generosity," Discussion Papers 20-19, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    16. Ellingsen, Tore & Mohlin, Erik, 2019. "Decency," Working Papers 2019:3, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    17. Vanessa Valero, 2022. "Redistribution and beliefs about the source of income inequality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 876-901, June.
    18. Heinicke, Franziska & König-Kersting, Christian & Schmidt, Robert, 2022. "Injunctive vs. descriptive social norms and reference group dependence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 199-218.
    19. Brownback, Andy & Kuhn, Michael A., 2019. "Understanding outcome bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 342-360.
    20. Jan Stoop, 2014. "From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 304-313, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    The benefit of group membership; Conscience; Democracy; Disinformation; Economic efficiency;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    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:pra:mprapa:124120. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.