Just
as optical illusions can fool the eye to present a distorted image of
reality, moral illusions can fool our decision-making ability, making us
more selfish.
This
is the conclusion of a newly presented doctoral thesis from Linköping
University. But the results also show that we are more likely to vote
for the good of all when taking part in democratic decisions.
“We
tend to use what we can call a ‘moral wiggle room’ to justify selfish
decisions. This means that we can act selfishly in certain situations,
without feeling that our actions are morally wrong,” says Kajsa Hansson,
newly promoted doctor in economics at Linköping University, with a
thesis entitled Moral Illusions.
In
the thesis, she examines several aspects of what she terms ‘moral
illusions’, and compares them to optical illusions. She concludes that
we can tweak our morals in some situations to increase self-benefit.
“Fairness
is in the eye of the beholder. But I have used a broad definition of
morality, and I don’t judge whether a certain type of fairness is good
or bad. Instead, I use the idea of whether a person experiences that
they are not living up to their own notion of good morality,” says Kajsa
Hansson.
Moral
illusions mainly arise in competitive situations when many people
compete for the same rewards. This is a consequence of psychological
mechanisms that cause us to assess fairness differently, depending on
whether we are successful or not. This is particularly the case when we
lack information about the fairness of the situation. When the brain
attempts to fill in missing information, it may create an image that
does not match reality – in the same way as occurs for an optical
illusion.
One
example is how we view losing. If we lose, we tend to blame it on that
the playing field was not level, or that the game was rigged. When we
win, in contrast, we explain this by our excellent playing skills. This
tendency may describe why successful people believe that the world is a
meritocracy, and that economic inequalities are thus fair.
Kajsa
Hansson has also investigated how we react to decisions when we can
avoid information that may encourage unselfish behaviour. In this case,
again, our morality can be tweaked, since we are reluctant to seek out
more information that risks giving us a bad conscience. Such information
may force us to act unselfishly.
There
is, however, one situation in which moral illusions do not play a role –
when decisions are taken democratically. This may be the case for
decisions taken by the national parliament, but it also applies in the
committees of clubs, companies, etc., where several people are involved
and take decisions collectively.
This
result contradicts the currently accepted theory, which says that we
become less moral when the responsibility for a decision is shared among
several people. This phenomenon is known as the “diffusion of
responsibility”.
“When
decisions are taken democratically, there is always someone else we can
blame, and previous studies have shown that we become more selfish when
the responsibility for a decision is spread among several people.
However, our results do not support the idea that people become less
moral when taking such decisions. In fact, quite the opposite,” says
Kajsa Hansson.
In the study,
Kajsa Hansson and her colleagues carried out three experiments in which
the participants must choose whether to donate or claim money. In some
experiments, the decision was a democratic one between several
participants; in others the participants acted individually. The results
showed that it was not possible to see any selfish behaviour. Indeed,
they showed that people tend to become more generous in this scenario.
“Our
results are actually very good news. They suggest that we possess the
insight that we take decisions for others, and we act collectively. We
can speculate that people realise that we can contribute more to the
common good when everyone contributes,” says Kajsa Hansson.
The
thesis considers decision-making in a broad perspective, and looks at
how morality affects it. Kajsa Hansson believes that it can help us
understand each other better.
“We may not always agree with everyone’s interpretations of reality, but we can understand where they come from.”
Funding: The thesis has been funded by the Lars Hierta Memorial Foundation and the Helge Ax:son Johnson Foundation.
About this psychology research news
Author: Anders Törneholm
Source: Linkoping University
Contact: Anders Törneholm – Linkoping University
Image: The image is in the public domain