Abstract How do people make decisions? Previous psychological research consistently shed light on the fact that decisions are not the result of a pure rational reasoning, and that emotions can assume a crucial role. This is particularly true in the case of moral decision-making, which requires a complex integration of affective and cognitive processes. One question that is still open to debate concern the individual factors that can affect moral decisions. Gender has been consistently identified as a possible variable of interest for the adoption of different strategic behaviors, with men using more rational processes and women more deontological principles. In the present study we aimed at exploring the presence of gender differences in different decision-making scenarios. Results showed that the moral scenario led to a similar acceptance rate in both genders, while economic and shopping offers were more likely to be accepted by men. Also, women were more inclined to refuse unfair offers, which included a higher personal benefit at the expense of the opponent, even if this meant a total loss for both parties. Finally, correlational analyses revealed a different relation between risk propensity and decision-making in men and women in different scenarios.

Lucchiari, C., Meroni, F., Vanutelli, M. (2019). Moral decision-making as compared to economic and shopping contexts. Gender effects and utilitarianism [Decisioni morali, economiche e d’acquisto a confronto. Effetti di genere e utilitarismo]. RIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DI FILOSOFIA E PSICOLOGIA, 10(1), 49-64.

Moral decision-making as compared to economic and shopping contexts. Gender effects and utilitarianism [Decisioni morali, economiche e d’acquisto a confronto. Effetti di genere e utilitarismo]

Vanutelli, Maria Elide
2019

Abstract

Abstract How do people make decisions? Previous psychological research consistently shed light on the fact that decisions are not the result of a pure rational reasoning, and that emotions can assume a crucial role. This is particularly true in the case of moral decision-making, which requires a complex integration of affective and cognitive processes. One question that is still open to debate concern the individual factors that can affect moral decisions. Gender has been consistently identified as a possible variable of interest for the adoption of different strategic behaviors, with men using more rational processes and women more deontological principles. In the present study we aimed at exploring the presence of gender differences in different decision-making scenarios. Results showed that the moral scenario led to a similar acceptance rate in both genders, while economic and shopping offers were more likely to be accepted by men. Also, women were more inclined to refuse unfair offers, which included a higher personal benefit at the expense of the opponent, even if this meant a total loss for both parties. Finally, correlational analyses revealed a different relation between risk propensity and decision-making in men and women in different scenarios.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Altruism; Decision-making; Economic Decision-making; Moral Decision-making; Utilitarianism
English
2019
10
1
49
64
open
Lucchiari, C., Meroni, F., Vanutelli, M. (2019). Moral decision-making as compared to economic and shopping contexts. Gender effects and utilitarianism [Decisioni morali, economiche e d’acquisto a confronto. Effetti di genere e utilitarismo]. RIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DI FILOSOFIA E PSICOLOGIA, 10(1), 49-64.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Moral Decision-making as Compared to Economic Lavazza 2019 claudio e Maria e francesca.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia di allegato: Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Licenza: Creative Commons
Dimensione 508.66 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
508.66 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/420078
Citazioni
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
Social impact