Across four preregistered experiments on American adults (total N = 968), and five supplemental experiments (total N = 869), we examined four accounts that might explain people’s aversion to “dirty money” (i.e., money earned in immoral ways): (a) they think it is morally tainted, (b) they care about illicit ownership, (c) they do not wish to profit from moral transgressions, and (d) accepting dirty money might imply an endorsement of the immoral means by which the money was acquired. Participants were unwilling to accept or touch dirty money, but they were relatively willing to take dirty money when it is lost and found. Together these findings suggest that people’s aversion to dirty money stems from concerns about both moral taint and endorsing the way in which dirty money was acquired.
BlakeP. R.HarrisP. L. (2009). Children’s understanding of ownership transfers. Cognitive Development, 24, 133–145.
2.
CowanN.BelletierC.DohertyJ. M.JaroslawskaA. J.RhodesS.ForsbergA.Naveh BenjaminM.BarrouilletP.CamosV.LogieR. H. (2020). How do scientific views change? Notes from an extended adversarial collaboration. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 1011–1025.
3.
CrockettM. J.Kurth-NelsonZ.SiegelJ. Z.DayanP.DolanR. J. (2014). Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 17320–17325.
4.
CrockettM. J.SiegelJ. Z.Kurth-NelsonZ.DayanP.DolanR. J. (2017). Moral transgressions corrupt neural representations of value. Nature Neuroscience, 20, 879–885.
5.
DeScioliP.KarpoffR.De FreitasJ. (2017). Ownership dilemmas: The case of finders versus landowners. Cognitive Science, 41, 502–522.
6.
DunleaJ. P.HeiphetzL. (2021). Moral psychology as a necessary bridge between social cognition and law. Social Cognition, 39, 183–199.
7.
ElliottC. (2004). Six problems with pharma-funded bioethics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 35, 125–129.
8.
FedotovaN. O.RozinP. (2018). Contamination, association, or social communication: An examination of alternative accounts for contagion effects. Judgment and Decision Making, 13, 150–162.
9.
FeinbergJ. (1965). The expressive function of punishment. The Monist, 49, 397–423.
10.
FunkF.McGeerV.GollwitzerM. (2014). Get the message: Punishment is satisfying if the transgressor responds to its communicative intent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 986–997.
11.
GelmanS. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.
12.
GelmanS. A. (2013). Artifacts and essentialism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4, 449–463.
13.
GoodinR. E. (2013). Disgorging the fruits of historical wrongdoing. American Political Science Review, 107, 478–491.
HokH.MartinA.TrailZ.ShawA. (2020). When children treat condemnation as a signal: The costs and benefits of condemnation. Child Development, 91, 1439–1455.
16.
HuangJ. Y.AckermanJ. M.NewmanG. E. (2017). Catching (up with) magical contagion: A review of contagion effects in consumer contexts. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2, 430–443.
17.
ImasA.LoewensteinG.MorewedgeC. K. (2021). Mental money laundering: A motivated violation of fungibility. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(4), 2209–2233.
18.
InbarY.PizarroD. A.CushmanF. (2012). Benefitting from misfortune: When harmless actions are judged to be morally blameworthy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 52–62.
19.
JonesC. (2014). Dirty money. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12, 191–207.
20.
JordanJ. J.HoffmanM.NowakM. A.RandD. G. (2016). Uncalculating cooperation is used to signal trustworthiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 8658–8663.
21.
JordanJ. J.SommersR.BloomP.RandD. G. (2017). Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling. Psychological Science, 28, 356–368.
22.
KahnemanD. (2003). Experiences of collaborative research. American Psychologist, 58, 723–730.
23.
KardosP.CastanoE. (2012). Money doesn’t stink. Or does it? The effect of immorally acquiring money on its spending. Current Psychology, 31, 381–385.
24.
KupferT. R.Giner-SorollaR. (2021). Reputation management as an alternative explanation for the “contagiousness” of immorality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42, 130–139.
25.
LeeM.SulS.KimH. (2018). Social observation increases deontological judgments in moral dilemmas. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 611–621.
26.
LelieveldG. J.InbarY.Van DijkE. (2018). Explaining reluctance to benefit from others’ misfortune. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31, 662–672.
27.
LevavJ.McGrawA. P. (2009). Emotional accounting: How feelings about money influence consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 66–80.
28.
MellersB.HertwigR.KahnemanD. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12, 269–275.
29.
NewmanG. E.DiesendruckG.BloomP. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the valuation of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 215–228.
30.
PesowskiM. L.NancekivellS. E.TasimiA.FriedmanO. (2022). Ownership and value in childhood. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4, 161–183.
31.
RozinP.MillmanL.NemeroffC. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 703–712.
32.
RozinP.NemeroffC. J. (1990). The laws of sympathetic magic: A psychological analysis of similarity and contagion. In StiglerJ.HerdtG.ShwederR. A. (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 205–232). Cambridge University Press.
33.
RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320.
34.
SarinA.HoM. K.MartinJ. W.CushmanF. A. (2021). Punishment is organized around principles of communicative inference. Cognition, 208, Article 104544.
35.
ShawA.LiV.OlsonK. R. (2012). Children apply principles of physical ownership to ideas. Cognitive Science, 36, 1383–1403.
36.
SiegelJ. Z.van der PlasE.HeiseF.ClitheroJ. A.CrockettM. J. (2022). A computational account of how individuals resolve the dilemma of dirty money. Scientific Reports, 12, 1–13.
37.
StellarJ. E.WillerR. (2014). The corruption of value: Negative moral associations diminish the value of money. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 60–66.
38.
TasimiA.GelmanS. A. (2017). Dirty money: The role of moral history in economic judgments. Cognitive Science, 41, 523–544.
39.
TasimiA.GelmanS. A. (2021). A dollar is a dollar is a dollar, or is it? Insights from children’s reasoning about “dirty money.”Cognitive Science, 45, Article e12950.
40.
TasimiA.GrossJ. J. (2020). The dilemma of dirty money. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 41–46.
41.
UhlmannE. L.ZhuL. K. (2013). Money is essential: Ownership intuitions are linked to physical currency. Cognition, 127, 220–229.
42.
ZelizerV. A. (1994). The social meaning of money: Pin money, paychecks, poor relief, and other currencies. Basic Books.
Supplementary Material
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.
