The Effects of Culture on Active and Passive Reactions to Financial Offenders; the Moderating Role of Type of Harm

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of research hypotheses and findings.

Hypothesis	Study 1	Study 2	Study 3
Horizontal individualists, as compared with vertical collectivists, will display more active reactions to financial offenders and will thus:
-be more willing to punish a (powerful) financial offender (Hypothesis 1a).	Not supported (low scale reliability)	Supported	Supported
-display stronger retributive punishment motives toward financial offenders (Hypothesis 1b).	Supported	Supported	Supported
-experience stronger moral outrage as an outcome of the financial offense (Hypothesis 1c).	Not supported	Supported	Not supported
Vertical collectivists, as compared with horizontal individualists, will display more passive reactions to financial offenders and will thus demonize them more and will also endorse stronger conspiracy beliefs about them (Hypothesis 2).	Supported	Partly supported	Partly supported
Horizontal individualists will indicate stronger negative reactions – both active and passive – to a financial offender for having caused instrumental as opposed to symbolic harm to a victim / Vertical collectivists will display stronger reactions – both active and passive – to a financial offender for having inflicted a symbolic rather than instrumental harm (Hypothesis 3).	Partly supported for moral outrage	Partly supported for moral outrage and conspiracy beliefs	Partly supported for moral outrage and conspiracy beliefs

Table 2. Pearson correlations coefficients between study variables, means, and standard deviations (study 1).

	1	2	3	4	M (SD)
1. Conspiracy beliefs	1	.31***	.13**	−.14**	3.68 (1.64)
2. Demonization		1	.41***	.13**	4.54 (1.20)
3. Moral outrage			1	.18***	4.33 (1.17)
4. Retributive motives				1	5.75 (1.07)

* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for the study variables for British and Greek participants (study 1).

	British		Greeks
	M	SD	M	SD
Retributive motives	6.06	.94	5.50	1.10
Moral outrage	4.32	1.08	4.34	1.25
Conspiracy beliefs	2.94	1.39	4.29	1.57
Demonization	4.14	1.18	4.87	1.11

All ratings were on 7-point scales ranging from 1 = absolutely disagree to 7 = absolutely agree. Ratings of moral outrage scale ranged from 1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent).

Figure 1. Horizontal individualism by type of harm in the prediction of moral outrage against offenders (study 3).

Note. Ratings were on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent.

Table 4. Pearson correlations coefficients between study variables, means, and standard deviations (study 2).

	1	2	3	4	5	M (SD)
1. Conspiracy beliefs	1	−.07	.03	.04	.05	3.85 (1.45)
2. Demonization		1	.11	−.01	−.09	3.84 (1.51)
3. Moral outrage			1	.48***	.42**	4.42 (1.50)
4. Punishment intent				1	.51***	6.14 (1.12)
5. Retributive motives					1	5.55 (1.14)

* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for the study variables for British and Greek participants (study 2).

	British		Greeks
	M	SD	M	SD
Punishment intent	6.31	.91	5.96	1.27
Retributive motives	5.84	1.05	5.26	1.16
Moral outrage	4.59	1.40	4.27	1.56
Conspiracy beliefs	3.84	1.54	3.87	1.35
Demonization	2.99	1.26	4.67	1.24

All ratings were on 7-point scales ranging from 1 = absolutely disagree to 7 = absolutely agree. Ratings of moral outrage scale ranged from 1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent).

Table 6. Means and standard deviations for the study variables across experimental conditions (study 2).

	British						Greeks
	Instrumental harm		Symbolic harm		Control		Instrumental harm		Symbolic harm		Control
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Punishment intent	6.63	.65	6.32	.82	6.00	1.10	5.90	1.15	6.08	1.17	5.90	1.46
Retributive motives	6.09	.81	5.81	1.05	5.64	1.20	5.39	1.29	5.31	1.13	5.09	1.08
Moral outrage	4.90	1.31	4.61	1.24	4.28	1.57	3.94	1.49	4.30	1.49	4.49	1.66
Conspiracy beliefs	4.25	1.61	3.77	1.44	3.52	1.50	3.55	1.41	3.99	1.39	4.00	1.24
Demonization	3.20	1.28	3.04	1.14	2.74	1.34	4.76	1.29	4.68	1.31	4.58	1.15

All ratings were on 7-point scales ranging from 1 = absolutely disagree to 7 = absolutely agree. Ratings of moral outrage scale ranged from 1 = not at all, 7 = to a great extent)

Figure 2. Vertical collectivism by type of harm in the prediction of conspiracy beliefs about offenders (study 3).

Ratings were on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = absolutely disagree to 7 = absolutely agree.

Table 7. Pearson correlations coefficients between study variables, means, and standard deviations (study 3).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	M (SD)
1. Conspiracy beliefs	1	.28***	.12	.13*	.08	.06	.20**	.03	.05	4.09 (1.28)
2. Demonization		1	.45***	.23***	.12	.07	.20***	.15*	.24***	3.89 (1.17)
3. Moral outrage			1	.45***	.27***	.08	.19**	.17**	.25***	5.16 (1.44)
4. Punishment intent				1	.51***	.14*	.09	.13*	.13*	6.52 (.87)
5. Retributive motives					1	.31***	.04	.13*	.15*	6.06 (.94)
6. Horizontal individualism						1	.30***	.02	.07	5.46 (.90)
7. Vertical individualism							1	.03	.26***	3.88 (1.09)
8. Horizontal collectivism								1	.36***	5.26 (1.00)
9. Vertical collectivism									1	5.15 (1.09)

* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

Data availability statement

Data and Online Supplemental Materials are available from the Open Science Framework at: https://osf.io/hptkc/?view_only=64ebec98af7843d184e5a123ccaf8991