Morality is Supreme: The Roles of Morality, Fairness and Group Identity in the Ultimatum Paradigm

Figures & data

Table 1 ANOVA for the Acceptance Rate of Allocation of Money in Experiment 1 (N = 60)

Factors	F	p	η^2
Gender	0.60	0.442	0.01
Moral behavior	34.84	<0.001	0.38
Fairness of allocation	254.46	<0.001	0.81
Gender × Moral behavior	0.09	0.772	<0.01
Gender× Fairness of allocation	0.16	0.800	<0.01
Moral behavior × Fairness of allocation	11.73	<0.001	0.17
Gender × Moral behavior × Fairness of allocation	2.36	0.113	0.04

Figure 1 The mean acceptance rate from ANOVAs used to test the differences in fairness of allocation of money for the moral behavior of virtual proposer in Experiment 1. The acceptance rate of proposals from positive moral proposer was higher than those from negative moral proposer in fair moderately unfair and extremely unfair allocation of money. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Note: Data are the mean ± SD (n = 60). **p < 0.001.

Figure 2 Example of single negative moral priming in Experiment 2. The negative behavior presented the screen, participants were asked to read and immerse themselves in the scenarios and then press the “F” key to commit negative moral behavior.

Figure 3 The experimental procedure of Experiment 2 is displayed on the left. Examples of moral information regarding proposer are displayed on the right. In this example, the proposer put the fair allocation of money.

Figure 4 The mean acceptance rate from ANOVAs used to test the differences in fairness of allocation of money for the moral behavior of virtual proposer in Experiment 2. The acceptance rate of proposals from positive moral proposer was higher than those from negative moral proposer in fair moderately unfair and extremely unfair allocation of money. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Note: Data are the mean ± SD (n = 60). **p < 0.001.

Figure 5 The three-way interaction between the moral priming, the fairness of the allocation of money and the moral behavior. (A) The condition of the moral behavior in this diagram was negative. (B) The condition of the moral behavior in this diagram was positive.

Note: Data are the mean ± SD (n = 120). **p < 0.001.

Table 2 The Mean Acceptance Rate in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 Joint Analysis (N = 120)

Moral Priming	Allocation of Money	Moral Behavior		F	p	η^2
		Positive	Negative
No priming	Fair	1.00 ± 0.01	0.80 ± 0.04	23.57	<0.001	0.17
	Moderately unfair	0.51 ± 0.03	0.23 ± 0.04	46.33	<0.001	0.28
	Extremely unfair	0.20 ± 0.05	0.03 ± 0.02	14.01	<0.001	0.11
Positive priming	Fair	1.00 ± 0.02	0.74 ± 0.06	19.16	<0.001	0.14
	Moderately unfair	0.94 ± 0.04	0.38 ± 0.05	91.99	<0.001	0.44
	Extremely unfair	0.51 ± 0.06	0.10 ± 0.03	50.03	<0.001	0.30
Negative priming	Fair	0.95 ± 0.02	0.76 ± 0.06	10.68	<0.001	0.08
	Moderately unfair	0.93 ± 0.04	0.37 ± 0.05	94.21	<0.001	0.45
	Extremely unfair	0.49 ± 0.06	0.06 ± 0.03	54.15	<0.001	0.32