People may behave differently in a shared physical context due to the mere presence of others. The study examined whether individual moral judgments were subject to the confederate’s presence. Experiment 1 supported the hypothesis that the confederate’s presence, relative to the control group, increased deontological judgment, disapproving of sacrificing a person’s lifetime or interest for preserving the greater good of others. Experiment 2 investigated whether the results extend to mental space. The result revealed that simulating a positive interaction with the confederate significantly increased the preference for deontological judgments relative to the control group. However, the effect disappeared if the participants were required to simulate only the person from the scenario that did not include any additional background contexts. These results demonstrated that the confederate’s physical presence and simulated confederate’s presence always preferred deontological judgments over utilitarian judgments. The findings suggested that the asymmetric moral effect occurred in the physical realm and mental space.
AartsE.VerhageM.VeenvlietJ. V.DolanC. V.van der SluisS. (2014). A solution to dependency: Using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nature Neuroscience, 17(4), 491–496. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3648
2.
AmitE.GreeneJ. D. (2012). You see, the ends don't justify the means: Visual imagery and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 23(8), 861–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434965
3.
AnderssonP. A.ErlandssonA.VästfjällD.TinghögG. (2020). Prosocial and moral behavior under decision reveal in a public environment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 87, 101561. https://doi.10.1016/j.socec.2020.101561.
4.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
5.
BacchiniD.De AngelisG.DragoneM.EspositoC.AffusoG. (2021). Individual and environmental correlates of adolescents’ moral decision-making in moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 770891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.770891.
6.
BaronJ.MillerJ. G. (2000). Limiting the scope of moral obligations to help a cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(6), 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031006003
7.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015a). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
10.
BaumardN.AndréJ. B.SperberD. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002202
11.
BioccaF. (1997). Cyborg’s dilemma: Embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/CT.1997.617676
12.
BostynD. H.RoetsA. (2016). An asymmetric moral conformity effect: Subjects conform to deontological but not consequentialist majorities. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671999
13.
CarusoE. M.GinoF. (2011). Blind ethics: Closing one's eyes polarizes moral judgments and discourages dishonest behavior. Cognition, 118(2), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.008
14.
ChekrounP.BrauerM. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: The effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(6), 853–867. https://doi.10.1002/ejsp.126
15.
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
16.
EverettJ. A.PizarroD. A.CrockettM. J. (2016). Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 145(6), 772–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000165
17.
FootP. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5-15.
18.
FreundliebM.KovácsÁ. M.SebanzN. (2016). When do humans spontaneously adopt another’s visuospatial perspective?Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 42(3), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000153
19.
FreundliebM.KovácsÁ. M.SebanzN. (2018). Reading your mind while you are reading-evidence for spontaneous visuospatial perspective taking during a semantic categorization task. Psychological Science, 29(4), 614–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617740973
20.
FuX.Y.LuZ. Y.KouY. (2015). Effects of a stranger’s presence and behavior on moral hypocrisy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(8), 1058–1066. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.01058
21.
GaesserB.HornM.YoungL. (2015). When can imagining the self-increase willingness to help others? investigating whether the self-referential nature of episodic simulation fosters prosociality. Social Cognition, 33 (6), 562–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832927
22.
GaesserB.KeelerK.YoungL. (2018). Moral imagination: Facilitating prosocial decision-making through scene imagery and theory of mind. Cognition, 171, 180-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.11.004.
23.
GaesserB.SchacterD. L. (2014). Episodic simulation and episodic memory can increase intentions to help others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (12), 4415–4420. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402461111
24.
GaesserB.ShimuraY.CikaraM. (2020). Episodic simulation reduces intergroup bias in prosocial intentions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 683–705. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000194
25.
GalinskyA. D.MadduxW. W.GilinD.WhiteJ. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
26.
GenevskyA.VästfjällD.SlovicP.KnutsonB. (2013). Neural underpinnings of the identifiable victim effect: Affect shifts preferences for giving. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(43), 17188–17196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2348-13.2013
27.
GreeneJ. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004
28.
HusnuS.CrispR. J. (2010). Imagined intergroup contact: A new technique for encouraging greater inter–ethnic contact in Cyprus. Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 16(1), 97–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10781910903484776
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
31.
LanerM. R.BeninM. H.VentroneN. A. (2001). Bystander attitudes towards victims of violence: Who is worth helping?Deviant Behavior, 22(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396201750065793
MackoA. (2021). Contingencies of self-worth and the strength of deontological and utilitarian inclinations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 161(6), 664–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1860882
34.
MataA. (2019). Social metacognition in moral judgment: Decisional conflict promotes perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(6), 1061–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000170
35.
McDougallC. L.CheryL.TerranceC.WeatherlyJ. N . (2011). The effect of male confederate presence, betting, and accuracy of play on males’ gambling on blackjack. Psychological Record, 61(3), 411–424. https://doi.10.1007/BF03395769
36.
MilesE.CrispR. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, (1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510573
37.
MilinskiM. (2016). Reputation, a universal currency for human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 371(1687), 20150100. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0100
38.
NiedenthalP. M.BarsalouL. W.WinkielmanP.Krauth-GruberS.RicF. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 184–211. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1
39.
PiagetJ. (1948). The moral judgement of the child (1st American ed.). Glencoe, IL. Free Press.
40.
PolmanE.RuttanR. L. (2012). Effects of anger, guilt, and envy on moral hypocrisy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211422365
41.
RockenbachB.MilinskiM. (2011). To qualify as a social partner, humans hide severe punishment, although their observed cooperativeness is decisive. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(45), 18307–18312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108996108
42.
SaccoD. F.BrownM.LustgraafC. J. N.HugenbergK. (2017). The adaptive utility of deontology: Deontological moral decision–making fosters perceptions of trust and likeability. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0080-6
43.
SamiaS.KhanamM. (2018). Number of bystander, time pressure and gender effects on altruistic behavior. Dhaka University Journal of Biological Sciences, 27(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3329/dujbs.v27i1.46405
44.
SchacterD. L.AddisD. R.BucknerR. L. (2008). Episodic simulation of future events: Concepts, data, and applications. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 39-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.001.
StrijkersK.BertrandD.GraingerJ. (2015). Seeing the same words differently: The time course of automaticity and top-down intention in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(8), 1542–1551. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00797
UhlmannE. L.PizarroD. A.DiermeierD. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614556679
50.
ValdesoloP.DestenoD. (2008). The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1334–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.010
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
