Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/195769
Authors: 
Barron, Kai
Stüber, Robert
van Veldhuizen, Roel
Year of Publication: 
2019
Series/Report no.: 
WZB Discussion Paper SP II 2019-303
Abstract: 
A large body of evidence suggests that people are willing to sacrifice personal material gain in order to adhere to a moral motive such as fairness or truth-telling. Yet less is known about what happens when moral motives are in conflict. We hypothesize that in such situations, individuals engage in what we term ‘motivated motive selection’, choosing to adhere to the motive that most closely aligns with their personal interest. We test this hypothesis using a laboratory experiment that induces in subjects a conflict between two of the most-studied moral motives: fairness and truth-telling. Our experimental design has the attractive features of being both parsimonious and closely related to both the classic dictator and lying games, implying comparability with a wealth of benchmark evidence. In line with our hypothesis, our results suggest that participants are more likely to adhere to the motive that is more in line with their self-interest.
Subjects: 
Motivated reasoning
dictator game
lying game
motives
moral dilemma
JEL: 
C91
D01
D63
D90
Document Type: 
Working Paper
Social Media Mentions:

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.