IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v15y2020i2p182-192_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Do the right thing” for whom? An experiment on ingroup favouritism, group assorting and moral suasion

Author

Listed:
  • Bilancini, Ennio
  • Boncinelli, Leonardo
  • Capraro, Valerio
  • Celadin, Tatiana
  • Paolo, Roberto Di

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the effect of moral suasion on ingroup favouritism. We report a well-powered, pre-registered, two-stage 2x2 mixed-design experiment. In the first stage, groups are formed on the basis of how participants answer a set of questions, concerning non-morally relevant issues in one treatment (assorting on non-moral preferences), and morally relevant issues in another treatment (assorting on moral preferences). In the second stage, participants choose how to split a given amount of money between participants of their own group and participants of the other group, first in the baseline setting and then in a setting where they are told to do what they believe to be morally right (moral suasion). Our main results are: (i) in the baseline, participants tend to favour their own group to a greater extent when groups are assorted according to moral preferences, compared to when they are assorted according to non-moral preferences; (ii) the net effect of moral suasion is to decrease ingroup favouritism, but there is also a non-negligible proportion of participants for whom moral suasion increases ingroup favouritism; (iii) the effect of moral suasion is substantially stable across group assorting and four pre-registered individual characteristics (gender, political orientation, religiosity, pro-life vs pro-choice ethical convictions).

Suggested Citation

  • Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Capraro, Valerio & Celadin, Tatiana & Paolo, Roberto Di, 2020. "“Do the right thing” for whom? An experiment on ingroup favouritism, group assorting and moral suasion," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 182-192, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:2:p:182-192_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500007336/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:2:p:182-192_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.