Moral contagion: Devaluation effect of immorality on hypothetical judgments of economic value

Abstract

Moral contagion is a phenomenon in which individuals or objects take on the moral essence of the people who are associated with them. Previous studies have found that individuals value objects associated with moral and likable people more than those associated with immoral and dislikable people. However, the neural mechanisms underlying this “moral contagion effect” have not yet been explored. In the present study, we combined a novel “Second‐hand Goods Pricing” paradigm with functional magnetic resonance imaging to (a) confirm the existence of the moral contagion effect on the hypothetical economic valuation of objects and (b) determine the neural substrates underlying it. Participants were shown second‐hand goods, information regarding the moral valence of the previous owner, and an initial price assigned to the object by computer. The participants were then asked to adjust the initial price to one they deemed most reasonable. Behaviorally, we found a significant devaluation effect for immoral owners and a weaker reverse effect for moral owners. Imaging data showed that the devaluation effect was primarily driven by neural responses in the dorsal striatum (mainly the caudate nucleus) that were triggered by high initial prices assigned to the “contaminated” objects. Dynamic causal modeling revealed that the high initial price assigned to “contaminated” objects led to increased effective connectivity from the caudate nucleus to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex—the brain area that integrates values during decision making.

Resolving the dilemma of dirty money: a computational account

“…Research on "moral contagion" demonstrates that the value of objects can be tainted by association with moral misdeeds (Huang et al, 2017;Levav & Mcgraw, 2018;Stellar & Willer, 2014). For example, participants will pay less money for items previously owned by immoral individuals (Liu et al, 2019;Newman & Bloom, 2014). There is also evidence that money itself is less subjectively valuable when it is obtained immorally.…”

“…People imagine they would rather not receive money that is morally tainted (Tasimi & Gelman, 2017), and when faced with actual decisions to accept money from an experimenter in exchange for the experimenter inflicting painful electric shocks on oneself or another person, most people would rather receive money from an experimenter harming themselves over someone else (Crockett et al, 2014). Neuroimaging studies demonstrate that morally tainted money and objects are associated with lower activity in the brain's valuation network (Crockett et al, 2017;Liu et al, 2019;Qu et al, 2019). However, it remains unknown what cognitive computations are employed during decisions about whether to accept or reject morally tainted cash.…”

Morality recruits neural reward circuitry to shape economic decision making

“…Previous studies have found that “moral contagions” affect economic decisions related to the “contaminated” objects such that individuals value objects more if they are associated with respectable people and less if they are associated with immoral people (Hood et al, 2011; Kramer and lock, 2011; Newman and Bloom, 2014). An fMRI study reported that the devaluation effect was supported by activation of the putamen and its connectivity with the vmPFC (Liu et al, 2019). Another study found that in a trust game, prior moral information about trading partners modulated activation in the dorsal striatum during both the decision phase and the outcome phase (Delgado et al, 2005).…”

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

“…Research on "moral contagion" demonstrates that the value of objects can be tainted by association with moral misdeeds [2][3][4] . For example, participants will pay less money for items previously owned by immoral individuals 5,6 . There is also evidence that money itself is less subjectively valuable when it is obtained immorally.…”

“…People imagine they would rather not receive money that is morally tainted 7 , and when faced with actual decisions to accept money from an experimenter in exchange for the experimenter inflicting painful electric shocks on oneself or another person, most people would rather receive money from an experimenter harming themselves over someone else 8 . Neuroimaging studies demonstrate that morally tainted money and objects are associated with lower activity in the brain's valuation network 5,9,10 . However, it remains unknown what cognitive computations are employed during decisions about whether to accept or reject morally tainted cash.…”