Might over morality: Social values and the perception of other players in experimental games

Perceived rationality, morality, and power of social choice as a function of interdependence structure and social value orientation

“…In addition to providing support for the Goal Prescribes Rationality (Morality, and Power) Principles, the present results provide some support for the Might over Morality Hypothesis (Liebrand et al, 1986a), the idea that prosocials interpret the 'cooperative-competitive' dimension in terms of morality, whereas individualists (and competitors) interpret that same dimension in terms of power. In the present study, we assumed that such differences would influence the relative weight individuals assigned to morality and power when distinguishing between social choice alternatives with prosocials distinguishing between those alternatives more in terms of morality, and individualists and competitors distinguishing between the alternatives more in terms of power.…”

“…In addition to testing the parallel Goal Prescribes Rationality/Morality/Power Hypotheses, we used the morality and power ratings across the four structures to test predictions based on the Might Over Morality Hypothesis (Liebrand et al, 1986a). In its most general form, the Might Over Morality Hypothesis concerns the relative importance individuals with different social value orientations place on 'morality' and 'power' when differentiating between socially interdependent acts that differ in terms of the benefit/harm they produce for self and other.…”

Stakeholder Relationships and Social Welfare: A Behavioral Theory of Contributions to Joint Value Creation

“…Thus, unless the exclusion of the firm from the CS relationship also results in the end of joint value creation, the firm's managers might care little about the punishment and stick to their decisions and practices. In the face of continuing selfinterested behavior on the part of the firm, stakeholders will switch to MP, the model congruent with the firm's perceived behavior, and contribute less to joint value creation (Gächter & Fehr, 1999;Kelley & Stahelski, 1970;Liebrand, Jansen, Rijken, & Suhre, 1986).…”

The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

“…In fact, social value orientations are often conceptualized in terms of "outcome transformations," or preferences that take into account the outcomes for others (Kelley et al, 2003;Van Lange, 1999;Van Lange, De Cremer, Van Dijk, & Van Vugt, 2007). Also, social value orientations are strongly related to beliefs regarding other's cooperativeness, to response latencies for making decisions in outcome-relevant situations, as well as the construal of cooperative and noncooperative partners in terms of moral evaluations and judgments in terms of strength and weakness (Dehue, McClintock, & Liebrand, 1993;Liebrand et al, 1986;Sattler & Kerr, 1991). In these contexts, differences in the weight assigned to outcomes for self and other are assumed to drive cognitions, affect, and behavior.…”