Berman, J Z and Kupor, D (2020) Moral choice when harming is unavoidable. Psychological Science, 31 (10). pp. 1294-1301. ISSN 0956-7976
Abstract
Past research suggests that actors seek to minimize harm often at the cost of maximizing social welfare. However, this prior research has confounded a desire to minimize the negative impact caused by one’s actions (harm aversion) with a desire to avoid causing any harm whatsoever (harm avoidance). Across six studies (N = 2,152), we demonstrate that these two motives are distinct. Specifically, we find that when decision-makers can completely avoid committing a harmful act they strongly prefer to do so. However, harming often cannot be avoided, and decision-makers must choose between committing less harm for less benefit or committing more harm for more benefit. In these cases, harm aversion diminishes substantially, and decision-makers become increasingly willing to commit greater harm to obtain greater benefits. Thus, value-tradeoffs that decision-makers refuse to accept when it is possible to completely avoid committing harm can suddenly become desirable when some harm must be committed.
More Details
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Subject Areas: | Marketing |
Additional Information: |
© 2020 Association for Psychological Science. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications |
Date Deposited: | 02 Jun 2020 09:22 |
Date of first compliant deposit: | 15 May 2020 |
Subjects: |
Choice Value analysis |
Last Modified: | 05 Nov 2024 04:51 |
URI: | https://lbsresearch.london.edu/id/eprint/1407 |