Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs.

Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity-variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity-estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs-indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.

Moral paragons, but crummy friends: The case of snitching.

Loyalty to friends is an important moral value, but does that mean snitching on friends is considered immoral? Across six preregistered studies, we examine how loyalty obligations impact people's moral evaluations of snitching (i.e., turning in others who commit transgressions). In vignette and incentivized partner choice paradigms, we find that witnesses who snitch (vs. do not snitch) are seen as more moral and as better leaders (Studies 1-6), regardless of whether they snitch on a friend or an acquaintance (Studies 1-3). We find that a willingness to turn in one's friends increases perceived morality, while an unwillingness to do so diminishes it, with the latter effect exhibiting a stronger impact than the former (Study 2). Our experiments also demonstrate that snitches receive less moral credit when snitching on nonmoral (vs. moral) transgressions (Study 3) and when snitching aligns with self-interest (Study 4). We demonstrate that although snitching is often seen as morally right, turning in transgressors entails important reputational trade-offs: Snitching makes one appear disloyal and a bad friend but boosts perceptions of morality and leadership. This reveals a context in which what is loyal is no longer considered moral. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

How Much Is Enough? The Relationship Between Prosocial Effort and Moral Character Judgments.

The amount of effort required to bring about a prosocial outcome can vary from low-handing a stranger the wallet she just dropped-to high-spending days tracking down the owner of a lost wallet. The goal of the current research is to characterize the relationship between prosocial effort and moral character judgments. Does more prosocial effort always lead to rosier moral character judgments? Across four studies (N = 1,658), we find that moral character judgments increase with prosocial effort to a point and then plateau. We find evidence that this pattern is produced, in part, by descriptive and prescriptive norms: exceeding descriptive norms increases moral character judgments, but exceeding prescriptive norms has the opposite effect, which leads to a tapering off of moral character judgments at higher levels of effort.

A longer shortlist increases the consideration of female candidates in male-dominant domains.

Making it onto the shortlist is often a crucial early step toward professional advancement. For under-represented candidates, one barrier to making the shortlist is the prevalence of informal recruitment practices (for example, colleague recommendations). The current research investigates informal shortlists generated in male-dominant domains (for example, technology executives) and tests a theory-driven intervention to increase the consideration of female candidates. Across ten studies (N = 5,741) we asked individuals to generate an informal shortlist of candidates for a male-dominant role and then asked them to extend the list. We consistently found more female candidates in the extended (versus initial) list. This longer shortlist effect occurs because continued response generation promotes divergence from the category prototype (for example, male technology executives). Studies 3 and 4 supported this mechanism, and study 5 tested the effect of shortlist length on selection decisions. This longer shortlist intervention is a low-cost and simple way to support gender equity efforts.