When Dishonesty Leads to Trust: Moral Judgments Biased by Self-interest are Truly Believed

Open access


Research has shown that cheating is perceived as immoral when it serves the cheater’s interests, though it can be seen as moral when it serves the interests of the perceiver. However, are such biased moral judgments real, or are they merely lip service? To answer the question of whether biased moral judgments actually inform behavior, the authors asked participants to observe a confederate who either cheated for money or did not cheat, which benefited either the confederate alone or both the confederate and the participating observer. Then, participants evaluated the confederate and, finally, played a one shot trust game with her. Cheating influenced moral judgments and decreased behavioral trust, but this only occurred when self-interest was not involved. When self-interest was involved, participants showed no significant differences in trust levels, independent of whether the confederate had cheated or not. Implications for the dual process theory in moral psychology are discussed.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612. doi:

Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. A. (1999). Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 525-537. doi:

Baumard, N. (2010). Has punishment played a role in the evolution of cooperation? Mind and Society, 9, 171-192. doi:

Bell, R., Schain, C., & Echterhoff, G. (2014). How selfi sh is memory for cheaters? Evidence for moral and egoistic biases. Cognition, 132, 437-442. doi:

Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122-142. doi:

Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014a). Self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 898-909. doi:

Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014b). Unawareness of self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ behavior. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 45(4), 411-417. doi:

Cislak, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Agency and communion are inferred from actions serving interests of self or others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1103-1110. doi:

Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216-235. doi:

Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of classical theory. London: Sage.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi:

Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140. doi:

Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233-239. doi:

Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 322-323. doi:

Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2008). The psychology of meta-ethics: Exploring objectivism. Cognition, 106, 1339-1366. doi:

Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002. doi:

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

Levine, E., Schweitzer, M. (2014). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88-106. dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2266091

McCool, G., & Graybow, M. (March 13, 2009). Madoff pleads guilty, is jailed for $65 billion fraud. Reuters. Retrieved in August 1, 2014 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/13/us-madoff-idUSTRE52A5JK20090313

Rand, D., Greene, J., & Nowak, M. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427-430. doi:

Schulz, J., Fischbacher, U., Thoni, C., Utikal, V. (2014). Affect and fairness: dictator games under cognitive load. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 77-87. doi:

Stone, J. (2011). Consistency as a basis for behavioral interventions. In B. Gawronski & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency. A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 326-347). New York: Guilford Press.

Suzuki, A., Honma, Y., & Suga, S. (2013). Indelible distrust: Bias towards cheaters reveled as high persistence against extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1901-1913. doi:

Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the fl exibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18, 689-690. doi:

Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2008). The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1334-1338. doi:

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:

Weisel, O., Shalvi, S. (2015). The collaborative roots of corruption. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 10651-10656. doi:

Polish Psychological Bulletin

The Journal of Committee for Psychological Sciences of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.185
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.258

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 97 97 16
PDF Downloads 43 43 10