社会决策中道德自我与自利偏好的权衡：基于自我概念维护理论和道德阈限模型

doi:10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.06.006

Psychological Research

2024, Vol. 17

Issue (1): 54-60 DOI: 10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.06.006

Applied Psychology Research

Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search

The tradeoff of moral self and self-interest preference in social decision making：An examination based on the theory of self-concept maintenance and the moral threshold model

WANG Xiuxin¹, LIU Yongfang²

1 School of Psychology, Qufu Normal University, Qufu 273165;
2 School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (0)

Download: PDF (996 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract This paper investigates how people balance their moral self and self-interest preferences when making social decisions, drawing on the theory of self-concept maintenance, the moral threshold model, and relevant research findings. It proposes that individuals seek a balance between self-interest preferences and moral self, thereby exhibiting a behavioral pattern characterized by minor transgressions and minor acts of kindness. While individuals may encounter threats to their moral self, the existence of a moral threshold enables them to maintain a high regard for their moral self. Future research can further work within this balancing framework to enhance and refine our understanding of social decision-making.

Key words： moral threshold moral self-evaluation moral self-threat

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	WANG Xiuxin
	LIU Yongfang

Cite this article:

WANG Xiuxin,LIU Yongfang. The tradeoff of moral self and self-interest preference in social decision making：An examination based on the theory of self-concept maintenance and the moral threshold model[J]. Psychological Research, 2024, 17(1): 54-60.

URL:

http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/EN/10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2023.06.006 OR http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/EN/Y2024/V17/I1/54

[1] 胡月星. (1991). 中国人性格的他人取向性探源.宁夏大学学报(社会科学版), (2), 67-71.
[2] 甘绍平. (2017). 常人道德的尺度.道德与文明, (3), 30-36.
[3] 高娟, 王鹏, 王晓田, 孙倩, 刘永芳. (2020). 得失情境下他人参照点及心理距离对自我-他人利益权衡的影响.心理学报, 52(5), 633-644.
[4] 李宏翰, 于娟. (2013). 道德自我受胁及其应对机制. 广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 49(1), 147-153.
[5] 申怡凡. (2022). 不同类型建议者在建议给出中的道德记忆偏差. 曲阜师范大学硕士学位论文.
[6] 苏彦捷, 张慧, 张康. (2012). 社会决策: 自我利益与他人利益的权衡.心理科学, 35(6), 1423-1428.
[7] 孙倩, 龙长权, 王修欣, 刘永芳. (2019). 公平或是利益?权力对分配公平感的影响.心理学报, 51(8), 958-968.
[8] 王修欣. (2020). 独裁者博弈中分配决策的有限道德自我约束. 华东师范大学博士学位论文.
[9] 王修欣, 申怡凡. (2022). 何以应对道德自我威胁?道德记忆偏差的视角. 心理科学进展, 30(7), 1604-1611.
[10] 杨小君, 张羽璇, 雷霞. (2016). 不道德行为产生后的道德自我评价.中国健康心理学杂志, 24(2), 235-239.
[11] 杨文登, 梁爽. (2022). 班杜拉的道德推脱理论综述.心理研究, 15(2), 121-125.
[12] 喻丰, 许丽颖. (2018). 道德差序圈:中国人的道德结构.南京师大学报(社会科学版), (6), 65-74.
[13] 占友龙, 肖啸, 谭千保, 李琎, 钟毅平. (2022). 声誉关注与社会距离对伤害困境中道德决策的影响: 来自行为与ERPs的证据.心理学报, 54(6), 613-627.
[14] 赵书松, 张旭. (2021). 中国文化情境下道德基础的内在结构与量表开发研究.管理学报, 18(10), 1473-1482.
[15] 周明洁, 李府桂, 穆蔚琦, 范为桥, 张建新, 张妙清. (2023). 外圆内方:中国人人际关系性的潜在剖面结构及其适应性. 心理学报, 55(3), 390-405.
[16] Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.
[17] Barkan R., Ayal S., & Dan A. (2015). Ethical dissonance, justifications, and moral behavior.Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 157-161.
[18] Barkan R., Ayal S., Gino F., & Ariely D. (2012). The pot calling the kettle black: Distancing response to ethical dissonance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 757-773.
[19] Barneron, M., & Yaniv, I. (2020). Advice-giving under conflict of interest: Context enhances self-serving behavior.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104046.
[20] Bonner J. M., Greenbaum R., L., & Quade M. J. (2017). Employee unethical behavior to shame as an indicator of self-image threat and exemplification as a form of self-image protection: The exacerbating role of supervisor bottom-line mentality.Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 1203-1221.
[21] Brown, J. D. (2012). Understanding the better than average effect: Motives (still) matter.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 209-219.
[22] Campbell, E. Q. (1964). The internalization of moral norms. Sociometry, 27(4), 391-412.
[23] Cohn A., Maréchal M. A., Tannenbaum D., Zünd C. L. (2019). Civic honesty around the globe.Science, 365, 70-73.
[24] Coleman J. S.(1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[25] Dana J., Weber R. A., & Kuang J. X. (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness.Economic Theory, 33(1), 67-80.
[26] Doran, R., & Larsen, S. (2016). The relative importance of social and personal norms in explaining intentions to choose eco-friendly travel options.International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 159-166.
[27] Dunning, D. (2007). Self-image motives and consumer behavior: How sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 237-249.
[28] Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study.Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583-610.
[29] Evans, A. M., & Van Beest, I. (2017). Gain-loss framing effects in dilemmas of trust and reciprocity.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 151-163.
[30] Handgraaf M. J. J., Van Dijk E., Vermunt R. C., Wilke H. A. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2008). Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus nopower in social decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1136-1149.
[31] Henrich J., Robert B., Samuel B., Colin C., Ernst F., Herbert G., & Richard M. (2001). In search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies.American Economic Review, 91 (2), 73-78.
[32] Isabel, T., & Hilbig, B. E. (2019). No gain without pain: The psychological costs of dishonesty.Journal of Economic Psychology, 71, 126-137.
[33] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
[34] Kim, S. H., & Seock, Y. (2019). The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and pro-environmentally friendly apparel product purchasing behavior: The mediating role of personal norms.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 83-90.
[35] Konow J., Saijo T., & Akai K. (2020). Equity versus equality: Spectators, stakeholders and groups.Journal of Economic Psychology, 77, 102171.
[36] Krieger H., Neighbors C., Lewis M. A., LaBrie J. W., Foster D. W., & Larimer M. E. (2016). Injunctive norms and alcohol consumption: A revised conceptualization.Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 40(5), 1083-1092.
[37] Mazar N., Amir O., & Ariely D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance.Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644.
[38] Neumann T., Schosser S., & Vogt B. (2017). Ultimatum bargaining over losses and gains: Anexperimental comparison.Social Science Research, 67, 49-58.
[39] Otto, P. E., & Bolle, F. (2015). Exploiting one’s power with a guilty conscience: An experimental investigation of self-serving biases.Journal of Economic Psychology, 51, 79-89.
[40] Rilling, J. K., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making.Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 23-48.
[41] Rothmund, T., & Baumert, A. (2014). Shame on me: Implicit assessment of negative moral self-evaluation in shame-proneness.Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(2), 195-202.
[42] Sawaoka T., Hughes B. L., & Ambady N. (2015). Power heightens sensitivity to unfairness against the self.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1023-1035.
[43] Saucet, C., & Villeval, M. C. (2019). Motivated memory in dictator games.Games and Economic Behavior, 117, 250-279.
[44] Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623-642.
[45] Schwartz S.H.(1977). Normative influence on altruism. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 221-279), New York, Academic Press.
[46] Sedikides C., Meek R., Alicke M. D., & Taylor S. (2014). Behind bars but above the bar: Prisoners consider themselves more prosocial than non-prisoners.British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(2), 396-403.
[47] Shalvi S., Gino F., Barkan R., & Ayal S. (2015). Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125-130.
[48] Shalvi S., Handgraaf M. J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2011). Ethical maneuvering: Why people avoid both major and minor lies. British Journal of Management, 22, S16-S27.
[49] Smith, A. (2000). The wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library.
[50] Tappin, B. M., & Mckay, R. T. (2017). The illusion of moral superiority.Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 623-631.
[51] Taylor S. G., Eisenbarth H., Sedikides C., & Alicke M. D. (2021). Explaining the better-than-average effect among prisoners.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(2), 90-106.
[52] Yang J., Gu R., Liu J., Deng K., Huang X., Luo Y., & Cui F. (2022). To blame or not? Modulating third-party punishment with the framing effect.Neuroscience Bulletin, 38, 533-547.
[53] Zlatev J. J., Kupor D. M., Laurin K., & Miller D. T. (2020). Being “good” or “good enough”: Prosocial risk and the structure of moral self-regard.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(2), 242-253.