The current work tests whether the dispositional tendency to compare oneself to others—social comparison orientation (SCO)—impacts decisions in moral dilemmas. Past research offers two competing predictions for how SCO impacts moral decision making: (a) SCO increases deontological judgments because people high in SCO care especially about social norms versus (b) SCO decreases deontological judgments because people high in SCO are competitive and thus unconcerned about causing harm to others. Four studies (two preregistered) find consistent support that SCO decreases deontological decisions. This relationship was robust in employing conventional (Study 1) and process dissociation (Studies 2–4) dilemma analytic techniques. Furthermore, we find that psychopathy uniquely mediates decreased deontological decisions among people high in SCO (Study 4). These results indicate that high-SCO people make fewer deontological decisions because they are less concerned with causing harm. Overall, the current research suggests that there is a dark side to making social comparisons.
BartelsD. M.PizarroD. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121, 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.010
4.
BogaertsT.PandelaereM. (2013). Less is more: Why some domains are more positional than others. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.08.005
5.
BogartL. M.BenotschE. G.PavlovicJ. D. (2004). Feeling superior but threatened: The relation of narcissism to social comparison. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2601_4
6.
BoschA. Z.BuunkA. P.SieroF. W.ParkJ. H. (2010). Why some women can feel more, and others less, attractive after exposure to attractive targets: The role of social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.654
7.
BostynD. H.RoetsA. (2017). An asymmetric moral conformity effect: Subjects conform to deontological but not consequentialist majorities. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671999
8.
ByrdN.ConwayP. (2019). Not all who ponder count costs: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, but logical reflection predicts both deontological and utilitarian tendencies. Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007
9.
ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031021
10.
ConwayP.Goldstein-GreenwoodJ.PolacekD.GreeneJ. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018
11.
ConwayP.VelasquezK.ReynoldsC.ForstmannM.LoveE. (2020). Affect, deliberation, rules, and sentiment: Clarifying different orientations towards moral dilemma decision-making [Manuscript submitted for publication].
DavisM. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
14.
DjeriouatH.TrémolièreB. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality and utilitarian moral judgment: The mediating role of Honesty/Humility and Harm/Care. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.026
15.
EverettJ. A. C.PizarroD. A.CrockettM. J. (2016). Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 772–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000165
FiedlerK.HarrisC.SchottM. (2018). Unwarranted inferences from statistical mediation tests—An analysis of articles published in 2015. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.008
18.
FleischmannA.LammersJ.ConwayP.GalinskyA. D. (2019). Paradoxical effects of power on moral thinking: Why power both increases and decreases deontological and utilitarian moral decisions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617744022
19.
FootP. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.
FriesdorfR.ConwayP.GawronskiB. (2015). Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215575731
22.
Gamez-DjokicM.MoldenD. (2016). Beyond affective influences on deontological moral judgment: The role of motivations for prevention in the moral condemnation of harm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1522–1537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216665094
23.
GaoY.TangS. (2013). Psychopathic personality and utilitarian moral judgment in college students. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.012
24.
GawronskiB.ArmstrongJ.ConwayP.FriesdorfR.HütterM. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 343–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086
25.
GerberJ. P.WheelerL.SulsJ. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000127
26.
GibbonsF. X.BuunkB. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129
GlennA. L.IyerR.GrahamJ.KolevaS.HaidtJ. (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy?Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.384
GreeneJ. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 322–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004
31.
GreeneJ. D. (2014). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics, 124, 695–726. https://doi.org/10.1086/675875
32.
GreeneJ. D.MorelliS. A.LowenbergK.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004
33.
GreeneJ. D.NystromL. E.EngellA. D.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
34.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
35.
HaidtJ. (2003). The moral emotions. In DavidsonR. J.SchererK. R.GoldsmithH. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford University Press.
36.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
37.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
38.
JonesD. N.PaulhusD. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
39.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A. C.EarpB. D.CaviolaL.FaberN. S.CrockettM. J.SavulescuJ. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125, 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000093
40.
KahaneG.EverettJ. A. C.EarpB. D.FariasM.SavulescuJ. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
41.
KantI. (1959). Foundation of the metaphysics of morals (BeckL. W., Trans.). Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1785)
42.
KohlbergL. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In GoslinD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Rand McNally.
43.
KörnerA.VolkS. (2014). Concrete and abstract ways to deontology: Cognitive capacity moderates construal level effects on moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Pshoyclogy, 55, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.002
LammersJ.StapelD. A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015437
46.
LangeJ.CrusiusJ.HagemeyerB. (2016). The evil queen’s dilemma: Linking narcissistic admiration and rivalry to benign and malicious envy. European Journal of Personality, 30, 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2047
47.
LiZ.XiaS.WuX.ChenZ. (2018). Analytical thinking style leads to more utilitarian moral judgments: An exploration with a process-dissociation approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.046
48.
LucasB. J.GalinskyA. D. (2015). Is utilitarianism risky? How the same antecedents and mechanism produce both utilitarianand risky choices. Perspectiveson Psychological Science,10(4), 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615583130
49.
MarangesH. M.ReynoldsT.BaumeisterR. F.ConwayP. (2019). The relation between self-control and moral judgment [Manuscript submitted for publication].
50.
McPhetresJ.ConwayP.HughesJ. S.ZuckermanM. (2018). Reflecting on God’s will: Reflective processing contributes to religious peoples’ deontological dilemma responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.013
51.
MillJ. S. (1861/1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press.
52.
MoninB. (2007). Holier than me? Threatening social comparison in the moral domain. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 20, 53–68.
53.
MooreA. B.ClarkB. A.KaneM. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19, 549–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02122.x
54.
NeffK. D.VonkR. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x
PatilI. (2015). Trait psychopathy and utilitarian moral judgement: The mediating role of action aversion. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1004334
58.
PatilI.SilaniG. (2014). Reduced empathic concern leads to utilitarian moral judgments in trait alexithymia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00501
59.
PatilI.ZucchelliM. M.KoolW.CampbellS.FornasierF.CalòM.SilaniG.CikaraM.CushmanF. (2020). Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000281
PennycookG.CheyneJ. A.KoehlerD. J.FugelsangJ. A. (2016). Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition?Behavior Research Methods, 48, 341–348. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0576-1
62.
PiazzaJ.LandyJ. F. (2013). “Lean not on your own understanding”: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority and non-utilitarian moral judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 639–661.
63.
PizarroD. A. (2000). Nothing more than feelings? The role of emotions in moral judgment. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00135
64.
PizarroD. A.TannenbaumD. (2012). Bringing character back: How the motivation to evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 91–108). American Psychological Association.
65.
PlettiC.LottoL.BuodoG.SarloM. (2017). It’s immoral, but I’d do it! Psychopathy traits affect decision-making in sacrificial dilemmas and in everyday moral situations. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12205
66.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
67.
RentzschK.GrossJ. J. (2015). Who turns green with envy? Conceptual and empirical perspectives on dispositional envy. European Journal of Personality, 29, 530–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2012
68.
ReynoldsC. J.ConwayP. (2018). Not just bad actions: Affective concern for bad outcomes contributes to moral condemnation of harm in moral dilemmas. Emotion, 18, 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000413
69.
ReynoldsC. J.KnightenK. R.ConwayP. (2019). Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is deontological? Completing moral dilemmas in front of mirrors increases deontological but not utilitarian response tendencies. Cognition, 192, 103993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.005
70.
RomS. C.ConwayP. (2018). The strategic moral self: Self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.08.003
71.
RomS. C.WeissA.ConwayP. (2017). Judging those who judge: Perceivers infer the roles of affect and cognition underpinning others’ moral dilemma responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.007
72.
RoyzmanE. B.LandyJ. F.LeemanR. F. (2015). Are thoughtful people more utilitarian? CRT as a unique predictor of moral minimalism in the dilemmatic context. Cognitive Science, 39, 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12136
73.
SchneiderS. M.SchuppJ. (2014). Individual differences in social comparison and its consequences for life satisfaction: Introducing a short scale of the Iowa–Netherlands comparison orientation measure. Social Indicators Research, 115, 767–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0227-1
74.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
75.
SoibelA.FongK.MullinJ. B.JenkinsG.MarR. A. (2012). Is self-monitoring related to social comparison? It depends how you ask. Individual Differences Research, 10, 193–201.
Van der ZeeK.OldersmaF.BuunkB. P.BosD. (1998). Social comparison preferences among cancer patients as related to neuroticism and social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.801
78.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
79.
VosgerauJ.SimonsohnU.NelsonL. D.SimmonsJ. P. (2018). Don’t trust internal meta-analysis. http://datacolada.org/73
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
