“Me” versus “We” in moral dilemmas: Group composition and social influence effects on group utilitarianism

• Author: Nicoleta Meslec,Anișoara A. Pavelea,Oana C. Fodor,Petru Lucian Curşeu
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12292
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Date: 01 October 2020

810  

|

  Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2020;29:810–823.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer

To understand a soc ial species and to pre dict the

behavior of its me mbers it is essenti al to analyze

the nature of socia l influence within th at species.

(Pratkanis, 20 06, p. 1)

1 | INTRODUCTION

Moral decision s are at the core of human society. They are e mbed-

ded in social convent ions on what is believed to b e right or wrong

in society (Hai dt & Kesebir, 2010; Maclagan, 2012 , 2015; Rai &

Fiske, 2011) and are often c lassified as utilitarian an d deontological

choices. Utilitarian choices maximize gains and minimize losses inde-

pendent of what is pr escribed through socia l conventions, and thus,

are an indicator of d ecision rationalit y. Deontological choi ces, reflect

the moralit y of an alternative or the w ay in which a choice com-

plies to moral no rms and conventions, ir respective of th e gains or

losses associat ed with it (Carmona- Perera, Carac uel, Perez-Garcia,

& Verdejo-Garcia , 2015; Conway & Gawronski, 2013). Typical tasks

used in researc h on moral decisions are formulate d as moral dilem-

mas in which one has to c hoose on whether to br eak social norms

(and even cause som e degree of harm) in order t o minimize losses

or to obey social no rms and maximize losse s (Foot, 1967; Greene,

Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen, 2001).

Organizatio ns face a myriad of moral dile mmas in which conflict-

ing principles of profitability, justice, and fairness should be simul-

taneously t aken into account (Bagus & H owden, 2013; Dukerich,

Nichols, Elm, & Vollr ath, 1990; Maclagan, 2 015; Queiroz, 2015;

Wurthmann, 2 020). For example, the m anagement decision t o

replace old, env ironmentally har mful technology i n order to

Received: 10 Octo ber 2019 

|

  Revised: 21 April 2 020 

|

  Accepted: 4 May 2020

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12292

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

“Me” versus “We” in moral dilemmas: Group composition and

social influence effects on group utilitarianism

Petru Lucian Curşeu1,2  | Oana C. Fodor1 | Anișoara A. Pavelea3 | Nicoleta Meslec4

This is an open ac cess article und er the terms of the Crea tive Commons Attr ibution License, w hich permits use , distribution an d reproduction i n any medium,

provided the o riginal work is prop erly cited.

© 2020 The Autho rs. Business Ethi cs: A European Review p ublished by John Wil ey & Sons Ltd

1Departme nt of Psychology, “Ba beş-Bolyai”

University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

2Department of Organisation, Open

University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The

Netherlands

3Department of Communication, Public

Relations and A dvertising, “B abeş-Bolyai”

University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

4Department of Organization Studies,

Tilburg University, The Netherlands

Correspondence

Petru Lucian C urşeu, Depar tment of

Psycholog y, “Babeş-Bolyai” U niversity,

Republicii 37, Cluj-Na poca, 4000 15,

Romania.

Email: petrucurseu@psychology.ro

Funding information

Unitatea Exe cutiva pentru Fi nantarea

Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii,

Dezvoltarii si Inovarii, Grant/Award Number:

PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2111 and PN-III-P4-ID-

ERC- 2016- 0008

Abstract

The paper is one of the f irst empirical at tempts that builds on the m oral dilemmas

and group rationali ty literature to explore t he way in which group composition with

respect to group m embers’ individual cho ices in moral dilemmas and so cial influ-

ence processes impa ct on group moral choice s. First individuall y and then, in small

groups, 221 partic ipants were asked to decide on 10 mor al dilemmas. Our result s

show that emergent grou p level utilitarianism is high er than the average individu al

utilitarianism , yet, lower than the highest i ndividual utilitarianism within grou ps. We

also show that average indi vidual utilitarianism p ositively predict s group utilitarian-

ism while group fragm entation in individual u tilitarianism has a negati ve effect on

group utilitaria nism. Next to group composition , minority influence proce sses explain

additional varian ce in group utilitarianism , cognitive dissent having a positi ve influ-

ence, while normative deviance a negative influence on group utilitarianism. Majority

influence has no signif icant influence on group utilit arianism. Finally, our results sh ow

that the relationship b etween group fragme ntation in individual ut ilitarianism and

emergent group utili tarianism is mediated by the two forms of min ority influence.