Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Dec 22;281(1797). pii: 20142112. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2112.

Equity or equality? Moral judgments follow the money.

DeScioli P1, Massenkoff M2, Shaw A3, Petersen MB4, Kurzban R5.

Author information

• 1Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA pdescioli@gmail.com.
• 2Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
• 3Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
• 4Department of Political Science and Government, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
• 5Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Abstract

Previous research emphasizes people's dispositions as a source of differences in moral views. We investigate another source of moral disagreement, self-interest. In three experiments, participants played a simple economic game in which one player divides money with a partner according to the principle of equality (same payoffs) or the principle of equity (pay-offs proportional to effort expended). We find, first, that people's moral judgment of an allocation rule depends on their role in the game. People not only prefer the rule that most benefits them but also judge it to be more fair and moral. Second, we find that participants' views about equality and equity change in a matter of minutes as they learn where their interests lie. Finally, we find limits to self-interest: when the justification for equity is removed, participants no longer show strategic advocacy of the unequal division. We discuss implications for understanding moral debate and disagreement.