| The decision preferences of individuals when making moral decision have been a hot topic in the moral research.Zlatev et al.(2020)proposed a moral threshold model,which pointed out the existence of two aspects of behavioral preferences when individuals make moral decision-making compared to self decision-making:(1)Worst outcome avoidance hypothesis.When people are making moral-decisions,they are more likely to choose the option that does not result in the worst outcome.(2)Diminished upside sensitivity hypothesis.After people have avoided the worst outcome,the individual is less sensitive to other options that offer greater benefits.Researchers have conducted empirical tests around both hypotheses of the model.However,existing studies disagree on the results of the Diminished upside sensitivity hypothesis:Zlatev et al.(2020)found that individuals appeared to be less sensitive to potentially greater benefits,but Xiao et al.(2021)found that individuals were still sensitive to potentially greater benefits.By comparison,we find that the decision benefit amount used in the Zlatev et al.(2020)study is much smaller than the proportion of GNP per capita set by Xiao et al.(2021),and we propose that the decision benefit amount affects the validity of the hypothesis of diminished upward sensitivity.Study 1 was designed by 2(decision benefit amount: high vs.low)× 2(decision benefit object: charity vs.self)between-subjects(n = 1145),tested the effect of decision benefit amount on the diminished upward sensitivity hypothesis in moral threshold model through.The results showed that under the low decision benefit amount condition,the self benefit group was significantly more sensitive to the size of the potential benefit than the charity-benefit group,the upward sensitivity attenuation hypothesis was valid.In the high decision benefit amount condition,the upward sensitivity attenuation hypothesis of the moral threshold model did not hold.Study 2 explored whether socioeconomic status was an influential factor in upward sensitivity at high benefit levels,which had three two-factor between-subjects experiments.Experiment 2a was a 2(socioeconomic status: high vs.low)× 2(decision benefit recipient: charity vs.self)between-subjects experimental design(n= 2097).The study results indicate that the sensitivity to the potential benefits’ magnitude in the self benefit group was not significantly different from the sensitivity in the charity benefit group on both high and low socioeconomic status conditions.Therefore,the hypothesis of diminished upward sensitivity did not hold.Experiment 2b involved group manipulation using the classical objective socioeconomic status questionnaire(n =1356),and the results showed that no upward sensitivity attenuation was present in moral decision-making for individuals in high and low-objective socioeconomic status conditions.Experiment 2c examined the effect of subjective socioeconomic status on the diminished upward sensitivity hypothesis(n = 746),and the results demonstrated that reduced upward sensitivity was not present in moral decision-making for both high and low SES conditions.The following conclusions were drawn from the above experimental results:(1)The hypothesis of diminished upward sensitivity in the moral threshold model is influenced by the amount of benefit in the decision context.Under the condition of high benefit level,the upward sensitivity of individuals will not be weakened.(2)An individual’s socioeconomic status does not have an effect on an individual’s diminished upside sensitivity.This study initially verified that there may be adaptive boundaries for individuals’ diminished upside sensitivity when making ethical behavior decisions by manipulating the amount of decision benefit.This helps to further clarify the scope of application of the hypothesis of diminished upward sensitivity in the moral threshold model and deepen the theoretical understanding of the moral threshold model. |
PDF Full Text Request