23 Pages Posted: 25 Jan 2017 Last revised: 2 Oct 2017
Date Written: October 2, 2017
Why do people make deontological decisions, although they often lead to overall unfavorable outcomes? One account is receiving considerable attention: deontological judgments may signal commitment to prosociality and thus may increase people's chances of being selected as social partners --- which carries obvious long-term benefits. Here we test this framework by experimentally exploring whether people making deontological judgments are expected to be more prosocial than those making consequentialist judgments and whether they are actually so. In line with previous studies, we identified deontological choices using the Trapdoor dilemma. Using economic games, we take two measures of general prosociality towards strangers: trustworthiness and altruism. Our results procure converging evidence for a perception gap according to which people making deontological choices are believed to be more prosocial towards strangers than those making consequentialist choices, but actually they are not so. These results show that deontological judgments are not universal, reliable signals of prosociality.
Keywords: deontology, consequentialism, altruism, trustworthiness, prosociality, moral dilemmas, economic games
JEL Classification: C70, C79, C90, C91, C92, D64, D70, D71, H41
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Capraro, Valerio and Sippel, Jonathan and Zhao, Bonan and Hornischer, Levin and Savary, Morgan and Terzopoulou, Zoi and Faucher, Pierre and Griffioen, Simone F, Are Kantians Better Social Partners? People Making Deontological Judgments Are Perceived to Be More Prosocial Than They Actually Are (October 2, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2905673 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2905673