The Ease of Recalling Past Moral Actions and
Its Influence on Future Moral Behaviour
The Difference Between Recalling Two and Twelve Moral Actions
Sara Maria Kwakman
The Ease of Recalling Past Moral Actions and
Its Influence on Future Moral Behaviour
The Difference Between Recalling Two and Twelve Moral Actions
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing Management
Master thesis
First supervisor Dr. Jing Wan
Second supervisor Dr. Marijke Leliveld
01-02-2016
Sara Maria Kwakman
1903233
Van Swinderenstraat 42a
9714 HG Groningen
+31(0)6 30701875
Table of contents
Introduction 5
Moral behaviour and moral licensing 6
Recalling 7
Ease of retrieving 8
The present study 9
Overview of studies 10 Pre-test 11 Participants 11 Procedure 11 Results 12 Discussion 14 Experiment 1 16 Participants 16 Procedure 17 Results 18 Discussion 19 General discussion 20
Limitations and future research 21
The Ease of Recalling Past Moral Actions and
Its Influence on Future Moral Behaviour
The Difference Between Recalling Two and Twelve Moral Actions
Sara Maria Kwakman
University of Groningen
Abstract
This study investigates the role of ease of retrieval in the domain of morality. This phenomenon has been studied before, however not yet linked to moral behaviour. The study investigates the effect of ease of recalling past moral actions on moral self-perception and, consequently, on future moral behaviour. The results of the study revealed that the ease of retrieval exists in the domain of morality. The easier participants experienced the recalling task, the higher they rated their moral self-perception. Furthermore, was intended to simulate the ease of retrieval by two different recalling conditions. Based on literature was expected that recalling two actions would be perceived as easy and recalling twelve actions as difficult. A pre-test tested the effect of recalling either two or twelve moral actions on the experienced difficulty by participants, and on how participants graded their moral self-perception. Experiment 1 tested the effect of recalling either two or twelve moral actions on participants’ future behaviour. No proof was found to infer that recalling two or twelve actions influenced moral self-perception differently. Moreover, recalling two or twelve past moral actions did not lead to different future moral behaviour. Therefore, it is concluded that the ease of retrieval exists in the domain of morality, but the recalling conditions of two and twelve actions did not simulate this ease of retrieval.
Keywords
Introduction
In daily life, individuals often alternate between egoistic and moral choices. Egoistic choices stimulate own welfare and moral choices particularly keep in mind the welfare of others. Morality is generally represented by an individual’s knowledge of social and culture norms, and by acting selflessly (Tangney, Stuewig & Mashek, 2007). It often involves altruism and concerns standards and beliefs about acting right and wrong. In the present study morality is defined as doing the right thing, and acting honest and desirable; the way society expects individuals to behave. Exemplars of moral behaviour are assisting elderly individuals, acting honestly, donating blood, avoiding negative behaviour, volunteering for a charity, or returning money to someone who accidentally dropped it. Individuals’ self-worth is cultivated to a large extent by acting morally (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Crocker & Knight, 2005). However, acting morally often conflicts with pursuing immediate self-interest. Therefore, individuals alternate between the choice for egoistic and moral behaviour.
Moral behaviour and moral licensing
Previous studies have indicated that self-worth is defined to a large extent by how moral an individual perceives oneself to be (Dunning, 2007). Moral behaviour leads to a high moral self-perception and, consequently, a positive self-worth. Most individuals have strong desires to act moral, although their moral behaviour is dynamic (Jordan, Mullen & Murnighan, 2011). Behavioural patterns are not created by stable and consistent actions. A possible explanation is the influence of past moral behaviour on moral self-perception and, as a result, on shaping one’s current moral conduct (Monin & Jordan, 2009). High moral self-perception is experienced as permission to act less morally, which, accordingly, leads to a reduction in future moral behaviour (Conway & Peetz, 2012). For instance, after choosing moral actions that mostly benefits other people, an individual feels licensed to choose an action that benefits one’s own self-interest (Cornelisson, Bashshur, Rode, & Le Menestrel, 2013). Therefore, after behaving morally, individuals are more inclined to act in morally questionable ways (Miller & Effron, 2010; Zhong, Liljenquist & Cain, 2009); this is called moral licensing. Moral licensing occurs when individuals allow themselves to perform negative behaviour after they performed positive behaviour (Merritt, Effron & Monin, 2010).
According to Sachdeva, Iliev and Medin (2009), moral licensing only occurs when individuals relate moral behaviour to themselves. In their study, participants were asked to write a story about themselves or someone they knew using either positive or negative traits. Afterwards they were given the opportunity to donate a part of their compensation to a charity. Participants who wrote about themselves with positive traits donated the least amount of money, whereas participants who wrote about themselves using negative traits donated the most, a way of compensating for their immoral feeling. However, no difference existed between participants who wrote about someone else and either used positive or negative traits. This strongly suggested that a particular action which influences individuals’ moral self-perception only applies if the action involves the individual instead of someone else. Furthermore, it indicated that high moral self-perception reduces the motivation to subsequently act morally (Sachdeva, Illiev, & Medin, 2009).
self-perception acquired by behaving morally favour a positive self-self-perception that creates licensing effects, leading individuals to engage in less morally behaviour (Brañas-Garza, Bucheli, Paz Espinosa, & García-Muñoz, 2013). Comparatively, if individuals experience threats to their moral selves, they consequently enhance their moral behaviour (Jordan et al., 2011).
Additionally, moral licensing does not have to occur consciously and intentionally. If individuals reduced their water usage in response to an environmental campaign, their electricity usage increased (Tiefenbeck, Staake, Roth & Sachs, 2013). Similarly, according to Davis (2008), energy efficient durable goods cost less to operate so consumers start using them more. Furthermore, when white individuals had supported Barack Obama before, they were more inclined to discriminate against black individuals afterwards (Effron, Cameron & Monin, 2009). The act of expressing support for a black presidential candidate made individuals felt licensed to discriminate, and they no longer felt the need to prove their lack of prejudice.
Overall, past studies agree on the fact that moral behaviour is a dynamic and unstable process. Past moral behaviour will lead to a high moral self-perception and may result in less moral behaviour in the future.
Recalling
theory, performing and recalling moral actions leads to a high moral self-perception. Consequently, it leads to compensating behaviour rather than consistency as a way of completing the moral self (Jordan et al., 2011).
Ease of retrieval
An important parameter of the influence of recalling past actions on moral self-perception might be the ease of retrieval. This concerns the ease or difficulty individuals experience when recalling a particular instance. Individuals use the amount of effort it took to retrieve an instance in which they displayed a particular characteristic, as an indicator of how representative that characteristic is of themselves (Schwarz et al., 1991). According to Aarts and Dijksterhuis (1999), the greater the subjective ease with which category examples come to mind, the greater the number of such exemplars thought to exist. Therefore, when it is difficult to recall past instances, individuals will think the information is relatively limited, while when generating is easy they think that the amount of information is comprehensive (Laham, 2013). This is also called the availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Certain actions seem happened frequently when they are easy to bring to mind, but rare when examples of such actions are hard to recall.
In their study, Schwarz et al. (1991) asked participants to recall either six or twelve instances of past assertive behaviour. The ease with which individuals could retrieve assertive behaviour was positively correlated with self-assessments of assertiveness. If participants had generated six instances of past assertive behaviour, they rated themselves higher for assertiveness than when participants had generated twelve instances. The difficulty they experienced with bringing twelve examples to mind, apparently suggested to them they might not be that assertive. Correspondingly, according to Aarts and Dijksterhuis (1999), instances are believed to be frequently present when they were easy to recall. Participants were asked to list either three or eight destinations where they had gone by bike in the last month. Subsequently, they had to assess the frequency of their bicycle use over the previous month. Participants who had the easy task of generating three destinations reported a greater frequency of their bicycle use than participants who had the difficult task of calling to mind eight instances. The subjective ease of recalling influenced the perceived amount of examples in the category.
1991). Furthermore, the less-is-more effect is observed in a number of studies (Schwarz, 2004). This means that the less instances are recalled, the more positive the effect is. For instance, British students liked Tony Blair more after generating a few rather than many favourable thoughts about him (Haddock, 2002), and German investors liked mutual funds more after listing only a few rather than many advantages they offer (Florack & Zoabi, 2003). For the present study this could mean that if participants recall a low number of moral actions this could have a positive influence on the feelings they have concerning their own moral behaviour.
The present study
To summarize, previous literature studied either moral behaviour, recalling past behaviour, or the ease of retrieval. The present study connects the already established results concerning the ease of retrieval to morality. This connection has already been made in other domains, but the domain of morality reveals opportunities to examine it further. Laham (2013) already indicated that future work should extend the known results about the ease of retrieval to moral behaviour. By studying this phenomenon, this study can contribute to both the theoretical knowledge and the practical knowledge in the field of marketing or psychology. In other domains the ease of retrieval is studied before but until now the link between moral behaviour and the ease of retrieval was an unexplored field. Therefore, the present study adds value to theory. The main practical contribution of this research is exploring moral behaviour, finding ways to stimulate it, and discovering how to counteract moral licensing. This knowledge can be used by, for instance, marketers when influencing individuals to make green or ethical choices when purchasing certain products.
This study investigates the effect of the ease of retrieval on self-perception and consequently on future behaviour in the domain of morality. Recalling a different number of moral instances from the past might lead to different influences on moral self-perception, depending on the ease or difficulty with which past instances are recalled. The subjective ease of recalling past instances can influence the perceived amount of examples in the category, thereby individuals’ moral self-perception, and consequently subsequent behaviour. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Overview of studies
In the present study, participants have to recall different numbers of moral behaviour. One condition contains a low number of recalls and the other condition contains a high number of recalls. Previous studies indicated that recalling a high number of instances of a characteristic has a negative effect on the perceived size of that specific characteristic, while recalling a low number of instances has the opposite effect on the perceived size. When participants will have difficulties with recalling moral actions, they might consequently think that moral actions in their past are quite rare. Individuals might assume they did not perform many moral actions before, since they had great difficulty recalling examples. When it is easy for participants to call to mind moral actions, they might infer that many moral examples exist in their past behaviour. Individuals might assume they performed many moral actions before, since it was rather easy for them to recall examples. Therefore, the ease with which individuals recall moral behaviour might be positively correlated with self-assessments of morality and a higher moral self-perception. Furthermore, this effect of the perceived size of moral instances in the past can also affect future moral behaviour. If the size of moral instances is perceived as large, it consequently leads to a high moral self-perception. And this high moral self-perception leads to a reduction in future moral behaviour since the obligation to prove oneself by moral behaviour declined.
Pre-test
The performed pre-test was a factorial between-subjects experiment with two conditions. It studied whether participants substantially perceived recalling a low number of actions as easy and recalling a high number of actions as difficult. Two actions were chosen to represent the condition with a low number of recalls, and twelve actions were chosen to represent the condition with a high number of recalls. Furthermore, the pre-test studied the grades with which participants rated their own moral behaviour. Higher grades were expected of participants who had to recall two actions compared to participants who had to recall twelve actions.
Participants
Participants are Dutch citizens across all ages. They were reached via email, Facebook, and snowball sampling. The goal was to have a minimum of sixty participants. Eventually, ninety-nine respondents started the survey and sixty respondents completed it. Thirty-nine participants started, but quitted the questionnaire before they finished. Of the sixty respondents who finished the questionnaire thirty-three participants received the questionnaire in which they had to recall two actions and twenty-seven participants had to recall twelve actions.
Of the sixty participants 30% (n=18) were male and 70% (n=42) were female. The mean age was 33 (M=33.42; SD=15.87) with a minimum of 20 years and a maximum of 67 years old. Furthermore, 5% (n=3) of the participants had an educational level of secondary vocational education; 30% (n=18) had an educational level of higher professional education; and the majority of 65% (n=39) had an academic educational level. Moreover, all participants had the Dutch nationality. Additionally, 50% (n=30) of the participants had an annual income less than €12,000; 13.3% (n=8) had an annual income between €12,000 and €23,999; 23.3% (n=14) had an annual income between €24,000 and €35,999; 6.7% (n=4) had an annual income between €36,000 and €47,999; and 6.7% (n=4) had an annual income between €48,000 and €60,000.
Procedure
socially desirable behaviour, in which you do not only think of yourself, but about others or society in particular’. Furthermore, participants were requested to write down as many actions as possible, while simultaneously beware these actions were true and relevant. If it was not feasible for participants to recall respectively two or twelve actions the residual boxes could remain blank. Additionally, participants were told that no right or wrong answers existed in the study and that the research was not about individuals’ morality.
Subsequently, multiple questions about behaviour were asked to get insights on how participants perceived their own behaviour. Participants had to mention how good or bad they felt about their own behaviour on a 10-point scale, ranging from very bad (1) to very good (10). Next, they had to give themselves a grade for their ethical behaviour from not ethical at all (1) to very ethical (10). Finally, they had to indicate how moral they perceive themselves ranging from very immoral (1) to very moral (10). Furthermore, participants had to mention the experienced difficulty when recalling the requested number of moral actions, ranging from very difficult (1) to very easy (10). This provided a direct measure of experienced ease of recall, and was necessary to discover the underlying feelings individuals had after recalling. Those underlying feelings were useful when interpreting the outcomes of Experiment 1.
Additionally, a couple of questions were asked about participants’ gender, age, level of education, nationality and level of income. These control questions were asked for the internal validity, to be able to test the influence of these factors on the outcomes of the research.
The complete questionnaire of the Pre-test can be found in appendix 3a.
Results
Difficulty of recalling
marginally influenced by the difficulty they experienced. The easier it was for participants to recall the requested amount of actions the higher was their moral self-perception (B=0.079, p=0.054).
In order to analyse whether or not the number of recalls influences the difficulty respondents experienced with recalling, an independent samples t-test was performed with the variables ‘condition’ and ‘difficulty of recalling’. The independent samples t-test was not significant, t(58)=1.101,
p=0.275. The average difficulty respondents experienced with recalling 2 actions (M=5.42, SD=2.15)
did not significantly differ from the difficulty respondents experienced with recalling 12 actions (M=4.78, SD=2.39).
Although the means per condition did not differ significantly, when studying the grades given for the difficulty of recalling individually, a noteworthy aspect was revealed. For both conditions a histogram was made, which can be found in appendices 1a and 1b. For the ‘2 condition’ this histogram was rather normally distributed, with a top of the number six. However, for the ‘12 condition’ large differences existed in the way individuals judged the difficulty of recalling. Figure 1b in appendix 1b shows that most participants gave a three, a five or an eight. When investigating the individual cases of the study, the differences in the difficulty rating were not caused by the amount of actions participants wrote down. Individuals who wrote down a high number of moral actions did not automatically rate the recalling task as easy, and individuals who recalled a low number of moral actions did not consequently rate the task as difficult. These outcomes showed that respondents had different feelings about the difficulty of recalling, and they did not feel as expected based on previous studies. This should be kept in mind when analysing the results of Experiment 1.
Additionally, a regression analysis was performed to see whether the number of actions participants wrote down influenced the difficulty they experienced by recalling. The regression analysis was not significant, R²=0.019, F(1,58)=1.103, p=0.298. The number of actions participants wrote down did not influence the experienced difficulty with recalling. If participants wrote down a high number of actions they did not automatically find the recalling task easier.
Moral self-perception
the three questions into one sum variable is allowed. The new made variable was called ‘moral self-perception’.
In order to analyse whether or not the number of recalls influences the individuals’ moral self-perception, an independent samples t-test was performed with the variables ‘condition’ and ‘moral self-perception’. The independent samples t-test was not significant, t(58)=1.002, p=0.321. The average moral self-perception of respondents of the ‘2 condition’ (M=7.51, SD=0.70) did not significantly differ from the average moral self-perception of respondents of the ’12 condition’ (M=7.69, SD=0.74).
Additionally, a regression analysis was performed to see whether the number of actions participants wrote down influenced their moral self-perception. The regression analysis was not significant,
R²=0.01, F(1,58)=0.563, p=0.456. The number of actions participants wrote down did not influence
their moral self-perception. If participants wrote down a high number of actions this did not automatically lead to a higher moral self-perception.
Control variables
Although the influence of these factors was assumed to be randomized out, the influence of the control variables is examined to see whether these demographic data affected the results of the pre-test. A correlation analysis showed that the variables ‘difficulty’ and ‘age’ did marginally correlate (r=0.233;
p=0.074). A regression analysis was performed and was marginally significant, R²=0.054, F(p1,58)=3.32, p=0.074. Participants’ age did marginally influence the difficulty individuals experienced with recalling.
The older the participants were the easier the found the recalling task (B=0.033, p=0.074). However, no correlation existed between ‘age’ and the ‘recalling condition’. The age of participants in the ‘2 condition’ (M=33.06; SD=16.03) did not significantly differ from the age of participants in the ‘12 condition’ (M=33.85; SD=15.98). Therefore, age did not influence the results of the recalling task on the difficulty participants experienced, since age was equally distributed across both conditions. Moreover, the age of participants did not influence their moral self-perception. Furthermore, no correlation existed between the variables ‘gender’, ‘education level’, and ‘income level’ and the variables ‘recalling condition’, ‘difficulty’ or ‘moral self-perception’.
Discussion
findings of previous literature and demonstrated that the ease of retrieval exists in the domain of morality.
However, between the two recalling conditions neither significant differences existed for the experienced difficulty nor for the moral self-perception. The expectation, based on previous studies, was that participants who had to recall twelve actions would find this task harder than individuals who only had to recall two actions. Schwarz et al. (1998) indicated, that retrieving many pieces of information is more difficult than retrieving only a few. However, the independent t-tests in this pre-test did not show significant proof for that claim. Participants from both conditions did not experienced a different difficulty with recalling. There was no evidence to assume that recalling either two or twelve moral actions influences the difficulty individuals experience with recalling. Two recalls were not perceived as easy, and twelve recalls were not perceived as difficult. Furthermore, participants who had to recall twelve moral actions felt approximately equal concerning their moral self-perception compared to participants of the condition with recalling two actions. Schwarz et al. (1991) indicated that individuals use the amount of effort it took to retrieve an instance in which they displayed a particular characteristic, as an indicator of how representative that characteristic is of themselves. The ease with which individuals would recall moral behaviour would be positively correlated with self-assessment of morality (Schwarz et al., 1991). However, since participants of the two conditions did not experience a different difficulty when recalling, an equal effect on participants’ moral self-perception was a logical consequence.
In case that the pre-test would have revealed significant results, Experiment 1 had been a logical continuation of this study. Since the pre-test and Experiment 1 were performed in the same time span, Experiment 1 could not be adjusted by the achieved insights of the pre-test. Because the pre-test did not give significant outcomes, no significant outcomes from Experiment 1 are expected.
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 was a factorial between-subjects experiment with two conditions. Experiment 1 studied whether participants of both conditions (i.e. two and twelve recalls) would donate substantially different amounts of money to a charity subsequently to the recalling task. Two actions were chosen to represent the condition with a low number of recalls, and twelve actions were chosen to represent the condition with a high number of recalls. Higher amounts of money were expected when participants recalled two actions compared to participants which recalled twelve actions.
Participants
Participants are Dutch citizens across all ages. They were reached via email, Facebook, and snowball sampling. The goal was to have a minimum of eighty participants. Eventually, one hundred sixty-six respondents started the survey and ninety-three respondents completed it. Seventy-three participants started, but quitted the questionnaire before they finished. Of the ninety-three respondents who finished the questionnaire fifty-two participants received the questionnaire in which they had to recall two actions and forty-one participants had to recall twelve actions.
Subsequently, four more participants were excluded from the research. They donated an excessively high amount of money in the donating task. It was considered highly improbable that individuals would donate such a high amount of money. Especially because their annual income was not in proportion to their donation. It was presumed that those participants made a mistake or did not take the donating task seriously. The amounts that were excluded were €1,000, 2 times €10,000 and €99,999,999,991. Furthermore, these amounts were outliers, since they were rather dissimilar compared the other donated amounts. Therefore, the participants who donated the high amounts of money were excluded from the study. This led to n=89.
Procedure
In Experiment 1 participants had to recall either two or twelve moral actions they performed in the past. They were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. The purpose of the study was not mentioned to the participants in advance. Furthermore, no examples of moral behaviour were given to stimulate participants to think for themselves without being pushed in a certain direction. Instead, the definition of moral behaviour as used in this study was given: ‘moral behaviour is good, honest and socially desirable behaviour, in which you do not only think of yourself, but about others or society in particular’. Furthermore, participants were requested to write down as many actions as possible, while simultaneously beware these actions were true and relevant. If it was not feasible for participants to recall respectively two or twelve actions the residual boxes could remain blank. Additionally, participants were told that no right or wrong answers exist in the study and that the research is not about individuals’ morality.
After the recalling task a short Latin text (appendix 2) followed. Participants had to count how many times the letter ‘i’ appeared in this text. The purpose of this part was to distract individuals from the actual research. Essential for this part was easiness, neutrality and a short length. Participants were told that the task was cognitive and linguistic, and that it was not linked to the previous recalling task.
Additionally, a couple of questions were asked about participants’ gender, age, level of education, nationality and level of income. These control questions were asked for the internal validity, to be able to test the influence of these factors on the outcomes of the research. Subsequently, a debriefing of Experiment 1 followed. This was included to give participants a short purpose of the research. Next to that they were told that the University of Groningen is not doing a research about charities. That it was a fictive task and belonged to the present study.
The complete questionnaire of Experiment 1 can be found in appendix 3b.
Results
Donating behaviour
In order to analyse whether or not the condition of recalls influences the amount of money individuals donated, an independent samples t-test was performed with the variables ‘condition’ and ‘amount of money in euros’. The independent samples t-test was not significant, t(87)=-0.538, p=0.592. The amount of euros the respondents of the ‘2 condition’ donated (M=27.18; SD=33.62) did not significantly differ from the amount of euros the respondents of the ’12 condition’ donated (M=30.90;
SD=30.94).
Additionally, a regression analysis was performed to see whether the number of actions participants wrote down influenced the amount of money they donated. The regression analysis was not significant, R²=0.00, F(1,87)=0.00, p=0.989. The number of actions participants wrote down did not influence the amount of euros they donated.
Control variables
Uniformly to the pre-test, while the influence of these factors was assumed to be randomized out, the influence of the control variables is examined, to see whether these demographic data affected the results of Experiment 1. A correlation analysis showed that the variables ‘amount of euros donated’ and ‘age’ did correlate (r=0.333; p=0.001). A regression analysis was performed and was significant,
R²=0.111, F(1,87)=10.833, p=0.001. Participants’ age does influence the amount of euros participants
donated to a charity. The older the participants were the more money they donated to a charity (B=1.279; p=0.001). Moreover, the variables ‘age’ and the ‘recalling condition’ did marginally correlate (r=-0.201; p=0.059). An independent samples t-test was performed and was marginally significant,
marginally significant differ from the age of participants in the ‘12 condition’ (M=24.20; SD=4.001). Furthermore, no correlation existed between the variables ‘gender’, ‘education level’, and ‘income level’ and the variables ‘recalling condition’, ‘difficulty’ or ‘moral self-perception’.
Discussion
Experiment 1 revealed no significant differences between both conditions for the amount of money participants donated. The literature had suggested that a reduction in future moral behaviour can be observed for individuals who perceive themselves as moral (Merritt, Effron & Monin, 2010). Since the pre-test revealed that the two conditions did not have a different effect on participants’ moral self-perception, no significant differences were expected between the conditions and the amount of money participants donated.
General discussion
The present study shed light on the influence of recalling different amounts of past moral actions. The purpose was to investigate whether the ease of retrieval did also appear in the domain of morality. Studied was whether recalling a low or high number of actions had a different influence on the ease or difficulty participants experienced, on individuals’ moral self-perception, and, consequently, on their future moral behaviour.
A pre-test was performed to investigate whether the two recalling conditions (i.e. two and twelve recalls) had a different influence on the ease or difficulty participants experienced, and, consequently, whether these conditions divergently shaped individuals’ moral self-perception. Previous research had suggested that the ease of retrieving instances would influence how individuals’ perceived their own behaviour (Schwarz et al., 1991). A marginally significant result was found proving that the difficulty participants experienced by recalling influenced their moral self-perception. The easier participants found the recalling task the higher they rated their own behaviour. Therefore, the ease of retrieval proved to be apparent in the domain of morality. Nevertheless, no significant proof was found supporting that recalling two past moral actions was easier than recalling twelve, neither that participants which recalled two instances had a higher moral self-perception than participants which recalled twelve moral instances. This implies that both conditions of two and twelve recalls did not prove to have the expected effect. The recalling conditions did not differ significantly in the ease or difficulty participants experienced and consequently did not influence individuals’ moral self-perception.
participants were, the more they donated to a charity. Furthermore, appeared that the average age of participants was higher in the ‘2 condition’. However, since the hypothesis expected participants in the ’12 condition’ to donate more, age could have been a confounding factor of the results of Experiment 1. Therefore, this should be kept in mind for further studies.
Limitations and future research
Although the present study did only partly give significant proof for the hypothesis, the hypothesis should not automatically be discarded. The methodology and group of participants suffered from a number of shortcomings, which might have led to the insignificant outcomes. To be able to draw significant results in the future, further research is needed since numerous possibilities exist to explore this phenomenon further.
The most important limitation of the present study is the choice for the recalling conditions, which could be a possible explanation for the insignificant results. The pre-test revealed that the ease of retrieval marginal significantly appeared in the domain of morality. The easier participants estimated recalling the requested amount of moral actions, the higher they rated their moral self-perception. However, the recalling conditions of two and twelve actions did not have the expected effect. The ‘2 condition’ was chosen because it was intended that the majority of the individuals would find this task reasonably easy. The ‘12 condition’ was expected to be a difficult task. These amounts were based on the study of Schwarz (1998), who indicated that retrieving a low number of instances is easier than recalling a high number of instances. However, this turned out to be insignificant for the present study. The experienced difficulty and the grade for moral self-perception did not differ significantly between both conditions. Two recalls were not experienced as easy and twelve recalls were not experienced as difficult. Therefore, these two conditions are not well chosen, since they did not considerably affect participants, and did not simulate the ease of retrieval in the domain of morality. It implies that the cause of the insignificant results was the amount of recalls in both conditions. Therefore, in future research the recalling categories should be rethought to reveal significant results. It could be that recalling two actions was already highly difficult, especially since some respondents did not write down any or only one action. Future research could perform a number of pre-tests with different amounts of recalls, to get insights in which amount is perceived as easy and which amount is perceived as difficult. In that manner the ease of retrieval can be simulated.
twelve actions they were more likely to write down smaller actions, which made it automatically easier for them. This means that it also involved the framework in which individuals thought. And it may be an explanation for the fact that participants in both conditions gave nearly the same grade for the experienced difficulty. A solution to prevent this could be to add a clear description to the task stating which kind of actions are expected to be written down, which was already attempted in the present study. Future research might study whether participants who have to recall a high number of instances indeed write down smaller actions compared to participants who have to recall a low number of instances.
Furthermore, although almost none of the participants in this study was able to finish the recalling task in the ’12 condition’, participants did on average not rate the task as very difficult. At least not significantly more difficult than participants in the ‘2 condition’. A possible explanation might be that participants rated the experienced difficulty to recall the amount of actions they wrote down, instead of the requested amount of actions. In case that participants in both conditions wrote down two actions, they could, consequently, rated the difficulty they experienced in the same manner. A clarification of judging the ease or difficulty of the recalling task might be complemented, to be sure participants rate the requested amount of recalls and not the amount of actions they wrote down. Moreover, a more extensive description of the recalling task could be added, potentially supplemented with examples, to be sure every respondent understands the meaning of the task and the word moral. Not including an example of moral behaviour was a conscious choice to stimulate participants to think for themselves without being pushed in a certain direction, but it might have been an influencer of the outcomes.
compensation they received for participating in the study. Thereby, tangible money is used, that belongs to participants and is thereby more valuable to them.
Furthermore, one of the possible reasons why the pre-test and Experiment 1 did not reveal a large number of significant insights, is the fact that the sample size was very small. A reason for this might have been the time restriction. Additionally, the group of participants was reasonably homogeneous. The age of participants was relatively low and many women participated. Furthermore, participants’ income level was rather low, while their educational level was considerably high. The reason for this homogeneous group of participants may be the usage of convenience sampling. A high number of participants was reached via Facebook. Therefore, the sample of participants was not the best possible reflection of society. Moreover, the dropout rate was really high. For the pre-test 39.39% of the respondents started the questionnaire, but quitted on the first page. Only 60.61% actually finished the questionnaire. That led to the fact that the ‘2 condition’ had thirty-three respondents and the ‘12 condition’ only twenty-seven. For Experiment 1 43.98% of the respondents started the questionnaire, but quitted on the first page. Only 56.02% actually finished the questionnaire. That led to fifty-two respondents for the ‘2 condition’ and only forty-one respondents for the ‘12 condition’. In future research more participants are needed to be able to draw reliable conclusions. Furthermore, a less homogeneous sample size is needed. For this study the control variable ‘age’ did influence the outcomes and was a confound for the results of the study. The age of participants was not equally distributed among the two conditions and thereby marginally influenced the outcomes of Experiment 1. Expected was that participants of the ’12 condition’ would donate more to a charity. However, since the average age of participants in the ‘2 condition’ was higher, this could have led to an elimination of the expected effect. Therefore, in future research equally distributed demographics are essential to reveal significant results and prevent confounding factors.
Conclusion
References
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (1999). How often did I do it? Experienced ease of retrieval and frequency estimates of past behavior. Acta Psychologica, 103(1), 77-89.
Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(6), 1423.
Brañas Garza, P., Bucheli, M., Paz Espinosa, M., & García-Muñoz, T. (2013). Moral Cleansing and Moral Licenses: Experimental Evidence. Economics and Philosophy, 29(02), 199-212.
Conway, P., & Peetz, J. (2012). When Does Feeling Moral Actually Make You a Better Person? Conceptual Abstraction Moderates Whether Past Moral Deeds Motivate Consistency or Compensatory Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(7), 907-919.
Cornelisson, G., Bashshur, M. R., Rode, J., & Le Menestrel, M. (2013). Rules or consequences? The role of ethical mind-sets in moral dynamics. Psychological science, 24(4), 482-488.
Crocker, J., & Knight, K. M. (2005). Contingencies of self-worth. Current directions in psychological science, 14(4), 200-203.
Davis, L. W. (2008). Durable goods and residential demand for energy and water: evidence from a field trial. The RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 530-546.
Dunning, D. (2007). Self-image motives and consumer behavior: How sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 237–249.
Effron, D.A., Cameron, J.S., and Monin, B. (2009), Endorsing Obama licenses favouring whites. Journal
of experimental social psychology, 45(3), 590-593.
Florack, A., & Zoabi, H. (2003). Risikoverhalten bei Aktiengeschäften: Wenn Anleger nachdenklich werden [Risk behavior in share transactions: When investors think about reasons]. Zeitschrift
Haddock, G. (2002). It’s easy to like or dislike Tony Blair: Accessibility experiences and the favorability of attitude judgments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 93, 257–267.
Jordan, J., Mullen, E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Striving for the moral self: The effects of recalling past moral actions on future moral behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 0146167211400208.
Laham,S. M. (2015). Ease of retrieval and the moral circle. Social Psychology.
Merritt A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self‐licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and personality psychology compass, 4(5), 344-357.
Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Chapter three-psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. Advances in experimental social psychology, 43, 115-155.
Monin, B., & Jordan, A. H. (2009). The dynamic moral self: A social psychological perspective. Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology, 341-354.
Ruegger, D., & King, E. W. (1992). A study of the effect of age and gender upon student business ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics, 11(3), 179-186.
Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners the paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological science, 20(4), 523-528.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and
Social psychology, 61(2), 195.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, September.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.
Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K., and Sachs, O. (2013). For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy, 57, 160-171.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.
Cognitive psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
Zhong, C. B., Liljenquist, K. A., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation. Psychological perspectives
Appendices
Appendix 1a Appendix 1b
Figure 1a. Histogram ‘2 condition’ Figure 1b. Histogram ’12 condition’
Appendix 2
The Latin text as used in Experiment 1 is shown below.
Appendix 3a: Questionnaire pre-test
Thank you for participating in this study. This research is dedicated to my graduation for the Master Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. It consists of four short sections. It will take about 5 minutes of your time and you will help me a lot.
I want to ask you to fill in the research truthfully. Also I want to point out that participation in this survey is completely anonymous. Furthermore, it would be nice if you will not communicate with others about (the outcome of) this research, due to their possible participation.
Thanks for your cooperation!
**
Moral behaviour is good, honest and socially desirable behaviour, in which you do not only think of yourself, but of others or society in particular.
Could you recall two/twelve moments in which you have shown moral behaviour?
Only write down moral actions that are really relevant. If you are not able to come up with two/twelve; no problem! This research is not about individuals’ morality, and therefore no right or wrong answers exist. So in that case, leave the concerning boxes blank, instead of writing down actions which are untrue or irrelevant.
Either two of twelve boxes appear in which individuals can fill in moral actions.
**
How good or bad do you feel about your own behaviour?
Very bad Very good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How ethical do you find yourself?
Very unethical Very ethical
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How moral do you consider yourself?
Very immoral Very moral
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
**
How easy or difficult did you find it to recall the requested amount of moral actions previously?
Very hard Very easy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
**
Now follow a few general questions.
What is your gender? Male
Female
What is your education level? Primary education Secondary education
Lower vocational education (LBO) Secondary vocational education (MBO) Higher professional education (HBO) University education (WO)
Doctorate
What is your nationality?
Can you give an indication of your gross annual income? < € 12.000 € 12.000 - € 23.999 € 24.000 - € 35.999 € 36.000 - € 47.999 € 48.000 - € 60.000 > € 60.000 **
This is the end of the questionnaire. By clicking 'next' you send the results.
Appendix 3b: Questionnaire Experiment 1
Thank you for participating in this study. This research is dedicated to my graduation for the Master Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. It consists of four short sections. It will take about 5 minutes of your time and you will help me a lot.
I want to ask you to fill in the research truthfully. Also I want to point out that participation in this survey is completely anonymous. Furthermore, it would be nice if you will not communicate with others about (the outcome of) this research, due to their possible participation.
Thanks for your cooperation!
**
Moral behaviour is good, honest and socially desirable behaviour, in which you do not only think of yourself, but of others or society in particular.
Could you recall two/twelve moments in which you have shown moral behaviour?
Only write down moral actions that are really relevant. If you are not able to come up with two/twelve; no problem! This research is not about individuals’ morality, and therefore no right or wrong answers exist. So in that case, leave the concerning boxes blank, instead of writing down actions which are untrue or irrelevant.
Either two of twelve boxes appear in which individuals can fill in moral actions.
**
Now follows another section of this study. This is a cognitive and linguistic task. Try to perform this task as well as possible.
Amount of times the letter ‘i’ appeared:
**
Presently, the University of Groningen is engaged in an investigation about charities. Through the following question I help them with their research.
Wondered is how much money you would like to donate to a charity. You can pick the charity yourself (something that appeals to you), and determine the amount of money.
Name charity:
Amount in euros:
**
Now follow a few general questions.
What is your gender? Male
What is your age?
What is your education level? Primary education Secondary education
Lower vocational education (LBO) Secondary vocational education (MBO) Higher professional education (HBO) University education (WO)
Doctorate
What is your nationality?
Can you give an indication of your gross annual income? < € 12.000 € 12.000 - € 23.999 € 24.000 - € 35.999 € 36.000 - € 47.999 € 48.000 - € 60.000 > € 60.000 **
This is the end of the questionnaire. By clicking 'next' you send the results.
The goal of this research was to see if recalling different amounts of moral behaviour would influence subsequent moral behaviour. The University of Groningen is presently not working at a research to donating behaviour, but this was part of the present research.
