Le Pargneux, A., & Cushman, F. (2024).
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Advance online publication.
Abstract
For contractualist accounts of morality, actions are moral if they correspond to what rational or reasonable agents would agree to do, were they to negotiate explicitly. This, in turn, often depends on each party’s bargaining power, which varies with each party’s stakes in the potential agreement and available alternatives in case of disagreement. If there is an asymmetry, with one party enjoying higher bargaining power than another, this party can usually get a better deal, as often happens in real negotiations. A strong test of contractualist accounts of morality, then, is whether moral judgments do take bargaining power into account. We explore this in five preregistered experiments (n = 3,025; U.S.-based Prolific participants). We construct scenarios depicting everyday social interactions between two parties in which one of them can perform a mutually beneficial but unpleasant action. We find that the same actions (asking the other to perform the unpleasant action or explicitly refusing to do it) are perceived as less morally appropriate when performed by the party with lower bargaining power, as compared to the party with higher bargaining power. In other words, participants tend to give more moral leeway to parties with better bargaining positions and to hold disadvantaged parties to stricter moral standards. This effect appears to depend only on the relative bargaining power of each party but not on the magnitude of the bargaining power asymmetry between them. We discuss implications for contractualist theories of moral cognition and the emergence and persistence of unfair norms and inequality.
Public Significance Statement
Many social interactions involve opportunities for mutual benefit. By engaging in negotiation—sometimes explicitly, but often tacitly—we decide what each party should do and enter arrangements that we anticipate will be advantageous for everyone involved. Contractualist theories of morality insist on the fundamental role played by such bargaining procedures in determining what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior. But the outcome of a negotiation often depends on each party’s bargaining power and their relative positions if an agreement cannot be reached. And situations in which each party enjoys equal bargaining power are rare. Here, we investigate the influence of bargaining power on our moral judgments. Consistent with contractualist accounts, we find that moral judgments take bargaining power considerations into account, to the benefit of the powerful party, and that parties with lower bargaining power are held to stricter moral standards.
Here are some thoughts:
This research provides insights into how people perceive fairness and morality in social interactions, which is fundamental to understanding human behavior and relationships. Mental health professionals often deal with clients struggling with interpersonal conflicts, and recognizing the role of bargaining power in these situations can help them better analyze and address these issues.
Secondly, the findings suggest that people tend to give more moral leeway to those with higher bargaining power and hold disadvantaged individuals to stricter moral standards. This knowledge is essential for therapists working with clients from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, as it can help them recognize and address potential biases in their own judgments and those of their clients.
Furthermore, the research implications regarding the emergence and persistence of inequality are particularly relevant for mental health professionals. Understanding how moral intuitions may contribute to the perpetuation of unfair norms and outcomes can help therapists develop more effective strategies for addressing issues related to social inequality and its impact on mental health.
Lastly, the findings highlight the complexity of moral cognition and decision-making processes. This knowledge can enhance therapists' ability to help clients explore their own moral reasoning and decision-making patterns, potentially leading to more insightful and effective therapeutic interventions.
