Running head: CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING

Effect of Conscious Morality on Behavior Tyler Brown University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Fall 2012, PSY 331, Dr. OBrien

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING Abstract Jones and Ryan (1997) created a model of moral approbation in an attempt to link the gap

between moral judgment and moral action in business settings. This study utilizes concepts from that model in an attempt to determine whether ones conscious morality alone determines how one would act in a given situation. This experiment will force participants to examine their own concept of morality before making hypothetical decisions that are morally questionable.

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING Effect of Conscious Morality on Decision Making We are all faced with moral dilemmas throughout our lives. My early childhood was

spent around a man who was physically abusive and quick to act without stopping to question his own morality. I believe his actions in the past still impact me today. This is the reason the present study is focused on ethical behavior. If he had stopped to think about his own morality before acting, both of our lives could be different right now. In this study I want to examine how people behave when they are forced to consciously examine their own morality first. Imagine you are free from judgment. No ones eyes are on you. There are no consequences, no societal pressures, and no obligations to act for anyone else but yourself. You are left alone to your own devices. How would you act in such a world? Would morality still exist? Such a scenario may be rare, but opportunities do arise when people escape the reach of societal approval and only have their own morality to keep them in check. Jones & Ryan (1997) created a model that shows how people come to decisions of morality. They attempted to build off of previous models of ethics by creating a model of moral approbation (see Appendix A). Moral approbation is the desire for moral approval from oneself or others. Children show this early on when they seek the approval (or try avoiding disapproval) of their parents. As people develop, moral cues are acquired through extended family, peers, and social norms (Kohlberg, 1976). These cues are put in to practice with the moral approbation model, which attempts to link the gap between moral judgment and moral action (Jones & Ryan, 1997). The model consists of six parts labeled A-F which describe mostly subconscious factors that lead to a moral decision. The first part of the model, part A, includes four factors that begin the process of a moral decision. These factors include severity of consequence, moral certainty, degree of complicity, and extent of pressure. They can be described as how much trouble you

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING

can get in, whether the action is moral or immoral, how responsible you are in relation to others, and societal pressure, respectively. Part B develops from the previous four factors to form a level of responsibility one feels to take moral action. This is followed by part C, the anticipation of the action which will take place if the comfort threshold (part D) is met. Part E is the establishment of moral intent and part F is the actual engagement in moral behavior. This research also relies on the concept that people rely on the opinions of their referent groups when deciding how they will behave. A referent group is defined as the group of people that a person goes to for moral guidance or input. Referent groups can range from an entire society to just the individual himself or herself (Jones & Ryan, 1997). My research will focus on how an individual acts when societal approval is not a factor. Will the individual look towards his/her own morality when moral decisions need to be made? This paper will utilize the moral approbation model by only considering parts E and F along with an alternate path to reach the two parts. By removing severity of consequence, degree of complicity, and extent of pressure, only moral certainty remains. I have created a range of moral and legal hypothetical situations in hopes that moral certainty will not be a factor. In eliminating these four factors, one can go straight to making a moral judgment (Jones & Ryan, 1997). According to Bergman (2002) a moral identity is a specific kind of identity that revolves around the moral aspects of ones self. This acts as a self regulatory mechanism which determines the boundaries for individual behavior in moral situations. According to the consistency principle, the developed moral identity creates a need for an individual to be true to himself or herself by being consistent with his or her identity (Erikson, 1964). A strong moral identity encourages one to act in a moral manner (Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007).

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING The last study Aquino and Reed (2002) conducted in their paper was a comparison of moral identity and actual donation behavior. They predicted that people with higher moral identity would be more likely to not only donate, but donate in higher amounts. A high school food drive was conducted to study the link between moral identity and moral action. They were

to complete a moral identity self assessment 3 months prior to food donation opportunity. This 3 month gap allowed time for the self assessment to be an afterthought during the donation process. They found the strongest predictor of moral behavior was gender. Girls were 2.33 times more likely to donate than males. The only other predictor was the strength of internalized morality. For every unit increase of moral internalization, the odds of donation increased by 80% (Aquino & Reed, 2002). A major conclusion of the research done by Aquino and Reed (2002) was that moral identity is just one part of a persons social self-schema. Any one of a persons social identities can be the foundation for behavior, perception, and action. Some individuals consider their own morality to be the center of their self identity while others consider it to be peripheral. The study provided evidence for the relationship between the self importance of moral identity and the action taken. With this thought in mind, the present study attempts to temporarily place morality at the center of the participants self identity in one group and leave self identity untouched in the other group. Method Participants The participants are from an introductory psychology class taught at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Every student has an equal chance of signing up for this opportunity and thus random selection occurred.

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING Materials

Both groups met in room 330 in the Cartwright Center at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Questionnaires were used to determine the impact of conscious morality on the behavior of the participants. The majority of the questions used a Likert scale to record the level of agreement to morally questionable statements. They were provided with pens to complete the questionnaire. There was a folder for the participants to place the finished questionnaires and informed consent sheets. Procedure Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the two levels of the independent variable, moral consciousness. Each level was administered at different times. Those times were 2:15pm and 2:45pm on Monday November 26th as well as 2:15pm and 2:45pm on Wednesday November 28th. By selecting which time they wished to arrive, the participants engaged in random assignment. One group had morality brought into question initially, and the other had it brought into question at the very end of the questionnaire. This was done by asking the participants to respond to three questions. 1) To what degree is moral behavior a defining feature of your character? 2) How moral or ethical would you expect to be rated by your close family and friends? 3) If you have children, do you believe that you will effectively teach them valuable lessons about morality? Both groups were asked to state their level of agreement to hypothetical statements regarding morally questionable scenarios. This will either follow the questions of morality or precede it, depending on the group. Standard questions regarding sex, year in school, and whether they plan on majoring in psychology will be asked at the very end, regardless of the group.

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING When the participants entered the room they were asked to sit down and fill out the

questionnaire. The experimenter did not tell the participants the purpose of the study. Complete anonymity was assured in a written statement on the survey. Participants were instructed to turn the questionnaires into a folder at the opposite end of the room as the experimenter. This was an attempt to reassure participants that their answers were completely confidential. Once the participants were finished they were welcomed to leave. The data from both questionnaires was compared and analyzed to determine whether or not there was a significant difference between the two groups. It was expected that the level of agreement in the morally questionable statements would be much lower in the group that is forced to examine their own morality initially. Results The results of an independent samples t-test reveal a significant difference between presentation of morality and the overall level of agreement with morally questionable scenarios t(33) = -3.305, p = .002. In other words, when participants were forced to examine their morality initially, they agreed less with the hypothetical, morally questionable scenarios that followed (see Appendix B). Total Moral Score Overall Level of Agreement

40 30 20 10 0 Morality First Morality Last Total Moral Score

Presentation of Morality Manipulation

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING

Moral Consciousness Level of Agreement

6 4 2 0 Morality First Morality Last

* * *

Morally Questionable Scenarios

The results of an independent samples t-test show no significance between the gender of the participants and the overall level of agreement with the morally questionable scenarios, t(33) = -.363, p = .719. There were two individual significant differences, however. The first was in response to the question, If there is a certainty I will not get caught, I would copy off anothers test. The results of the independent samples t-test indicate that there is a significant difference between gender and the level of agreement with the aforementioned scenario, t(33) = 2.161, p = .038. Men had an average level of agreement of 4.08 out of 7.00 while women had an average of 2.91, meaning that men agreed more that they would cheat in that scenario. The second significant difference was in response to the question, If my boyfriend/girlfriend offered to pay for my movie ticket, I would not protest. The independent samples t-test also reveals a significant difference between the sex of the participants and the level of agreement to the previously mentioned scenario, t(33) = -3.547, p = .001. Women agreed at an average of 4.59

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING while men agreed at a level of 2.38, meaning men were more willing to protest in such a circumstance. Discussion My hypothesis was confirmed as I expected. It appears that moral decision making is

altered when one is forced to examine his or her own morality first. As Aquino and Reed (2002) found, people with higher moral identity are more inclined to do good, such as donate for example. I believe this study raised moral identity by putting it at the forefront of the participants self-schema. Even though people may have different levels of moral identity, I believe we all possess good inside of us. If we are able to focus on that good, similar to my study, I believe my results could reflect the population as a whole. The present study shows how simple the link between moral judgment and moral behavior really is. The moral approbation model created by Jones & Ryan (1997) is very insightful. With that said, it may be more complicated than necessary. I was able to bypass most of the factors in this model and get to what I believe is the heart of moral judgment, moral identity. We do not all perceive morality in the same way, as evident by my individual results for each hypothetical scenario. We all have a sense of right and wrong, however. When each of the participants was forced to examine their own morals initially, their level of agreement went down consistently for every scenario, significantly or insignificantly. A few difficulties occurred during this study. The first was obtaining an equal amount of participants. I originally reserved a room for one day and allowed participants to choose either a 2:15pm or 2:45pm study slot. There were 15 people that chose the first time slot while only 13 showed up and only 5 people chose the second time slot. This forced me to open two more slots, again at 2:15pm and 2:45pm, two days later. Doing so allowed me to almost even the numbers

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING

10

to 18 and 17 participants. There were 18 participants presented with morals first while the latter 17 participants were presented with morals last. Another problem that I was able to avoid was that my original manipulation of morality was not strong enough. Originally I planned on only having the statement, I would say that morally I am a good person. The responses were to be either yes or no. I was advised that this may not have the impact I desired. I followed that advice and asked three more insightful questions instead. Those questions again, were the ones pertaining to the degree of ones own moral behavior, how friends and family would rate ones ethics, and how effectively one would teach their children about lessons of morality. The present study went according to plan, but there are ways that it can be improved. The first would be to obtain equal numbers of males and females. Men and women were fairly consistent in their levels of agreements with the presented scenarios. Had their numbers been equal, there would be less room to question if those results actually reflect society as a whole. Of the two scenarios that men and women did differ on, one could be eliminated from the study. That scenario being, If my boyfriend/girlfriend offered to pay for my movie ticket, I would not protest. Again, males were likely to protest whereas females were not likely to protest. These results could have more to do with gender roles and less to do with moral implication. If this is the case, there is no need for this question to be a part of the study. The other scenario was, If there is a certainty I will not get caught, I would copy off anothers test. Even though men were more likely to cheat than women, there was an overall decrease in agreement with the scenario in the groups presented with morality first. There is then no reason to remove the question from this study.

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING

11

There are practical applications of this research study to the real world. Given it may be difficult for one to examine ones own morality without an outside influence; this research could be a stepping stone for further research. Benefits of examining ones morals are evident in this study. If future research could make these benefits attainable or even known to the general public, then maybe levels of household abuse, for example, may decrease. Growing up, I did not have the luxury of such knowledge. Had it been available, my path in life could have been a lot smoother. The results of this study may benefit other children living in hostile environments. If an abusive mother or father examines their own morality before acting, those children may be able to sleep easier at night. Household abuse is one of many examples. In any situation when a moral dilemma is present, an individual can examine his or her own morality and act in accordance. This study is of importance because it provides a way for people to stop and think before they act. Even though it sounds as simple as telling someone, think before you act, it is not. Individuals are encouraged to look inside themselves and examine the kind of person they are. This does not only pertain to a circumstance the individual may face at a given moment, this pertains to all circumstances. Understandably it is not likely for individuals to constantly examine their own morals. If they are able to recognize a moral dilemma and then reflect on their own morals, a lot of problems can be avoided. Hopefully this research gives clarity to all those who need it and will help make the world a better place.

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING References Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440. Bergman, R. (2002). Why be moral? A conceptual model from developmental psychology. Human Development, 45(2), 104-124. Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility: Lectures on the ethical implications of psychoanalytic insight. New York, NY US: W W. Norton & Co. Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. (1997). The link between ethical judgment and action in organizations: A moral approbation approach. Organization Science, 8(6), 663-680.

12

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp.31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610-1624.

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING Appendix A

13

Jones & Ryans Moral Approbation Model (1997)

CONSCIOUS MORALITY & DECISION MAKING Appendix B Hypothetical Scenario Questions:

14

1) If I saw a $50 bill drop on the ground, I would keep it rather than finding the person who dropped it. (No one else sees it drop or sees you pick it up). 2) If I knew for a fact there were no cops around, I would speed at least 80 mph on the interstate. 3) I am under 21 years old. I would use a fake I.D. to get into the bars. 4) If a family member calls and I do not feel like talking, I will not answer. 5) If there is a certainty I will not get caught, I would copy off anothers test. 6) If a friend wanted to borrow my vehicle once to get to work, I would say no. 7) If a waiter accidentally gave me more than I ordered without charge, I would not correct the mistake. 8) If my boyfriend/girlfriend offered to pay for my movie ticket, I would not protest. 9) I would break a promise to a friend if my best friend asked me to do so. Morality Manipulation: 1) To what degree is moral behavior a defining feature of your character? 2) How moral or ethical would you expect to be rated by your close family and friends? 3) If you have children, do you believe that you will effectively teach them valuable lessons about morality? All 12 of the previous scenarios/questions were answered using a seven point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 7