A computational account of how individuals resolve the dilemma of dirty money

Abstract

Money can be tainted when it is associated with direct or indirect harm to others. Deciding whether to accept “dirty money” poses a dilemma because money can be used to help others, but accepting dirty money has moral costs. How people resolve the dilemma of dirty money remains unknown. One theory casts the dilemma as a valuation conflict that can be resolved by integrating the costs and benefits of accepting dirty money. Here, we use behavioral experiments and computational modeling to test the valuation conflict account and unveil the cognitive computations employed when deciding whether to accept or reject morally tainted cash. In Study 1, British participants decided whether to accept “dirty” money obtained by inflicting electric shocks on another person (versus “clean” money obtained by shocking oneself). Computational models showed that the source of the money (dirty versus clean) impacted decisions by shifting the relative valuation of the money’s positive and negative attributes, rather than imposing a uniform bias on decision-making. Studies 2 and 3 replicate this finding and show that participants were more willing to accept dirty money when the money was directed towards a good cause, and observers judged such decisions to be more praiseworthy than accepting dirty money for one’s own profit. Our findings suggest that dirty money can be psychologically “laundered” through charitable activities and have implications for understanding and preventing the social norms that can justify corrupt behavior.

Mindfulness training reduces slippery slope effects in moral decision-making and moral judgment

“…The two cognitive mechanisms involved in moral decision-making and moral judgments are the processing of one’s own material profits (i.e., money) and the harm to another person (relative to the self). Previous studies have shown that, from the Decider’s perspective, the neurocognitive processing of material profits drives the decision to maximize the Decider’s self-interest, while the neurocognitive processing of harm to another person (relative to oneself) drives the decision to minimize harming others 31 , 32 . From a third-party evaluator’s perspective, these two cognitive processes also influence the blameworthiness they assign to a given choice—everything else being equal, a choice that leads to more harm to another is judged as more blameworthy, whereas a choice that results in more profits to the Decider is judged as less blameworthy 28 , 29 , 33 .…”

An Adversarial Collaboration on Dirty Money

“…Future work might also explore how concerns about taint and endorsement interact with one another in people’s reasoning about dirty money. Existing work on dirty money—and related forms of money—has found that people would prefer to spend money acquired under negative circumstances on virtuous causes, like donations to charities (e.g., Levav & McGraw, 2009; Siegel et al, 2022; Tasimi & Gelman, 2017; Zelizer, 1994). Such findings likely connect with both moral taint and endorsement accounts.…”

“…As far back as biblical times (Titus 1:11), there has been talk of dirty money--that is, money earned in immoral ways. Over the past decade, psychological science has become increasingly interested in dirty money (see Tasimi & Gross, 2020), with research in social psychology (e.g., Stellar & Willer, 2014), neuroscience (e.g., Crockett et al, 2017), developmental psychology (e.g., Tasimi & Gelman, 2021), and cognitive psychology (e.g., Siegel et al, 2022) converging on a picture of people devaluing and being reluctant to accept dirty money.…”

Moral judgement and decision-making: theoretical predictions and null results

“…To study how trust inference of moral decision-makers is moderated by several contextual factors , Bostyn et al 1 used a behavioral game theory task, the trust game, where participants endow some of their money to a trustee in the hope that they will reciprocate, and the amount indicates their level of trust. Other studies in this Collection used monetary transactions as a proxy for cooperation and trust, using trust games 4 , the common-goods game 5,6 , decisions under risk 7 , variations of the dictator game where participants split money with others 8,9 and paradigms in which participants gain money from harm to others 10,11 . The use of such different approaches in the study of the same topic is important, as it allows evidence to converge across different studies, each with its own weaknesses and strengths.…”