THE ROLE OF MORAL PREFERENCES IN PROSOCIAL AND HONEST BEHAVIOR: INSIGHTS FROM THE PUBLIC GOOD AND DIE ROLLING GAMES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.12817.2026Keywords:
Consequentialist, Deontologist, Public Good Game, Die Rolling Game, Honesty, ProsocialityAbstract
This study explored the sustainability and persistence of prosocial and honest behaviors influenced by moral preferences—specifically deontological and consequentialist orientations—within two economic games: the Public Goods Game and the Die-Rolling Game. Drawing on existing literature, we sought to understand how individuals' ethical frameworks shape their decision-making processes, particularly in contexts involving prosociality and honesty. We replicated the Die-Rolling Game and Public Goods Game to assess cheating and contribution behavior across one-shot and repeated conditions. Results indicated that consequentialists displayed more variability in decision-making, while deontologists remained consistent regardless of repeated opportunities for dishonest behavior. In the Public Goods Game, moral preferences did not significantly influence contribution levels, suggesting both groups emphasized the act of contributing. These findings contribute to the understanding of ethical decision-making in economic settings and provide insight into the mechanisms underlying prosocial behavior.
References
Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed II, A., Lim, V. K., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: the interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 97(1), 123. DOI:10.1037/a0015406
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015406
Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Conway, P. (2019). Clarifying gender differences in moral dilemma judgments: The complementary roles of harm aversion and action aversion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618755873
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618755873
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and social psychology review, 11(2), 150-166.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907
Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2690
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2690
Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. Handbook of psychology, 463-484. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0519
https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0519
Beller, S. Deontic reasoning reviewed: psychological questions, empirical findings, and current theories. Cognitive Processing 11, 123-132 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0265-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0265-z
Black, J. E., & Reynolds, W. M. (2016). Development, reliability, and validity of the Moral Identity Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.041
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.041
Bolton, Gary E., and Ockengels, Axel (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166-193. DOI: 10.1257/aer.90.1.166
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.1.166
Bostyn, D. H., & Roets, A. (2017a). An asymmetric moral conformity effect: Subjects conform to deontological but not consequentialist majorities. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 323-330. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506166719
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671999
Bostyn, D. H., & Roets, A. (2017b). Trust, trolleys and social dilemmas: A replication study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(5), e1.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000295
Brekke, Kjell Arne, Karen Evelyn Hauge, Jo Thori Lind, Karine Nyborg. (2011). Playing with the good guys. A public good game with endogenous group formation. Journal of Public Economics, Volume 95, Issues 9-10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.003
Broersen, J., van der Torre, L. (2012). Ten Problems of Deontic Logic and Normative Reasoning in Computer Science. In: Bezhanishvili, N., Goranko, V. (eds) Lectures on Logic and Computation. ESSLLI ESSLLI 2011 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7388. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31485-8_2
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31485-8_2
Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2004). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies, 97, 55-95.
https://doi.org/10.1093/0199262055.003.0003
Charness, Gary and Rabin, Matthew (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817-869. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302760193904
https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302760193904
Chaudhuri, A., Paichayontvijit, T., & Smith, A. (2017). Belief heterogeneity and contributions decay among conditional cooperators in public goods games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 58, 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.11.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.11.004
Chen, J. I., & He, T. S. (2021). Discounting from a distance: The effect of pronoun drop on intertemporal decisions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 87, 102454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2021.102454
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2021.102454
Ch'ng, K. S., & Narayanan, S. (2022). The Effect of Observability on Professed Moral Values and Pro-social Behavior in an Asian Context: An Experimental Study. Asian Economic Papers, 21(3), 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00854
https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00854
Christov-Moore, L., Conway, P., & Iacoboni, M. (2017). Deontological dilemma response tendencies and sensorimotor representations of harm to others. Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 11, 34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2017.00034.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2017.00034
D'Altan, P., Meyer, J. J. C., & Wieringa, R. J. (1996). An integrated framework for ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(2), 77-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116787
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116787
Devlin-Foltz, Z., & Lim, K. (2008). Responsibility to punish: Discouraging free-riders in public goods games. Atlantic Economic Journal, 36, 505-518.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-008-9117-y
Edwards, A., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Reiser, M., Eggum‐Wilkens, N. D., & Liew, J. (2015). Predicting sympathy and prosocial behavior from young children's dispositional sadness. Social Development, 24(1), 76-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12084
https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12084
Everett, J. A., Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal of experimental social psychology, 79, 200-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004
Falk, A., and Fischbacher, U (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980-994. DOI: 10.1257/aer.90.4.980
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.980
Fehr, E., and Schmidt,K (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151
https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151
Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in disguise-an experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12014
https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12014
Foot, Philippa. 1967. The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Oxford Review 5:5-15.
Gabriel, A. S., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Helping others or helping oneself? An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 85-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12229 Garmendia, P., Fernández-Salinero, S., Holgueras González, A. I., & Topa, G. (2023). Social support and its impact on job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(12), 2827-2840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13120195
https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13120195
Gibson, R., Tanner, C., & Wagner, A. F. (2016). Protected values and economic decision-making. Handbook of value-perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology and sociology, 223-242.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716600.003.0011
Glicken, M. D., & Robinson, B. C. (2013). Understanding job stress, job dissatisfaction, and worker burnout. Treating Worker Dissatisfaction During Economic Change, 2, 23-39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397006-0.00002-6
Gneezy, U., & Serra-Garcia, M. (2021). Lies in disguise - an experimental study on cheating (by Urs Fischbacher and Franziska Föllmi-Heusi) (pp. 220-227). routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003019121-21
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003019121-21
Gunnthorsdottir, A., Houser, D., & McCabe, K. (2007). Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 62(2), 304-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.03.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.03.008
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 115(2), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001
Haidt, J., Bjorklund, F., & Murphy, S. (2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, 191, 221.
Hilbig, B. E., Glöckner, A., & Zettler, I. (2014). Personality and prosocial behavior: linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 107(3), 529. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036074
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036074
Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2015). When the cat's away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 72-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.04.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.04.003
Hao, L., & Houser, D. (2010). Honest Lies. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1801546
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1801546
Hochman, G., Peleg, D., Ariely, D., & Ayal, S. (2021). Robin Hood meets Pinocchio: Justifications increase cheating behavior but decrease physiological tension. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 92, 101699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2021.101699
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2021.101699
Hurley, P. E. (2006). Does Consequentialism Make Too Many Demands, or None at All? Ethics, 116(4), 680-706. https://doi.org/10.1086/504620
https://doi.org/10.1086/504620
Jiang, T. (2013). Cheating in mind games: The subtlety of rules matters. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 328-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.003
Joosten, A., van Dijke, M., Van Hiel, A., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Out of control!? How loss of self-control influences prosocial behavior: the role of power and moral values. Plos one, 10(5), e0126377. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126377
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126377
Keefer, M. (2003). Moral reasoning and case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 241-259). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4996-X_13
Kreps, T. A., & Monin, B. (2014). Core values versus common sense: Consequentialist views appear less rooted in morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1529-1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214551154
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214551154
Kim, B., Wen, R., de Visser, E. J., Tossell, C. C., Zhu, Q., Williams, T., & Phillips, E. (2024). Can robot advisers encourage honesty?: Considering the impact of rule, identity, and role- based moral advice. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 184, 103217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103217Get rights and content
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103217
Kleinlogel, E. P., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2018). Lucky, competent, or just a cheat? Interactive effects of honesty-humility and moral cues on cheating behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(2), 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733071
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733071
Lawn, E. C., Zhao, K., Laham, S. M., & Smillie, L. D. (2022). Prosociality Beyond Big Five Agreeableness and HEXACO Honesty-Humility: Is Openness/Intellect Associated With Cooperativeness in the Public Goods Game?. European Journal of Personality, 36(6), 901-925. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211028104
https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211028104
Lazar, Seth (2017). Deontological Decision Theory and Agent-Centered Options. Ethics 127 (3):579-609.
https://doi.org/10.1086/690069
Lin, W., Koopmann, J., & Wang, M. (2020). How does workplace helping behavior step up or slack off? Integrating enrichment-based and depletion-based perspectives. Journal of Management, 46(3), 385-413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318795275
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318795275
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of marketing research, 45(6), 633-644. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633
Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Ariely, D. (2009). Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of experimental social psychology, 45(3), 594-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.004
Megías, A., de Sousa, L., & Jiménez-Sánchez, F. (2023). Deontological and Consequentialist Ethics and Attitudes Towards Corruption: A Survey Data Analysis. Social Indicators Research, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03199-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03199-2
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3). https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.774
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.774
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-Regulation and Depletion of Limited Resources: Does Self-Control Resemble a Muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
Muraven, M., Pogarsky, G., & Shmueli, D. (2006). Self-control depletion and the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 263-277.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9011-1
Necker, S., & Paetzel, F. (2023). The effect of losing and winning on cheating and effort in repeated competitions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 98, 102655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2023.102655
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2023.102655
Noussair, C., & Tucker, S. (2007). Public Observability of Decisions and Voluntary Contributions in a Multiperiod Context. Public Finance Review, 35(2), 176-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142106290453
https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142106290453
Potters, J., & Stoop, J. (2016). Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field?. European Economic Review, 87, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.03.004
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.03.004
Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2011). Low self-control and imprudent behavior revisited. Deviant Behavior, 32(7), 589-625. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639621003800505
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639621003800505
Ścigała, K. A., Schild, C., Heck, D. W., & Zettler, I. (2019). Who deals with the devil? Interdependence, personality, and corrupted collaboration. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(8), 1019-1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618813419
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618813419
Scheffler, Smauel (ed.) (1988). Consequentialism and its critics. New York: Oxford University Press. Schoepfer, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2006). Self-control, moral beliefs, and criminal activity. Deviant Behavior, 27(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396290968326
https://doi.org/10.1080/016396290968326
Shalvi, S., Eldar, O., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2012). Honesty requires time (and lack of justifications). Psychological science, 23(10), 1264-1270. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761244383
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443835
Pichler, E., & Shapiro, A. M. (2017). Public goods games on adaptive coevolutionary networks. Chaos (Woodbury, N.Y.), 27(7), 073107. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4991679
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4991679
Silver, E., & Silver, J. R. (2021). Morality and self-control: The role of binding and individualizing moral motives. Deviant Behavior, 42(3), 366-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1678580
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1678580
Tanner, C., Medin, D. L., & Iliev, R. (2008). Influence of deontological versus consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects: When principles are more important than consequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(5), 757-769. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.493
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.493
Verschuere, B., Meijer, E. H., Jim, A., Hoogesteyn, K., Orthey, R., McCarthy, R. J., ... & Yıldız, E. (2018). Registered replication report on Mazar, Amir, and Ariely (2008). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 299-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918781032
https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918781032
Wang, Y., Wang, G., Chen, Q., & Li, L. (2017). Depletion, moral identity, and unethical behavior: Why people behave unethically after self-control exertion. Consciousness and cognition, 56, 188-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.09.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.09.007
Weimann, J., Brosig-Koch, J., Heinrich, T., Hennig-Schmidt, H., & Keser, C. (2019). Public good provision by large groups-the logic of collective action revisited. European Economic Review, 118, 348-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.05.019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.05.019
White, M. D. (2009). Immanuel kant. In Handbook of economics and ethics. Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848449305.00047
Zhao, K., Ferguson, E., & Smillie, L. D. (2016). Prosocial personality traits differentially predict egalitarianism, generosity, and reciprocity in economic games. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01137
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01137
Zhao, J., Dong, Z., & Yu, R. (2019). Don't remind me: When explicit and implicit moral reminders enhance dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103895
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 UNIMAS Publisher
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Transfer Statement for Journal
1) In signing this statement, the author(s) grant UNIMAS Publisher an exclusive license to publish their original research papers. The author(s) also grant UNIMAS Publisher permission to reproduce, recreate, translate, extract or summarize, and to distribute and display in any forms, formats, and media. The author(s) can reuse their papers in their future printed work without first requiring permission from UNIMAS Publisher, provided that the author(s) acknowledge and reference publication in the Journal.
2) For open access articles, the author(s) agree that their articles published under UNIMAS Publisher are distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work of the author(s) is properly cited.
3) For subscription articles, the author(s) agree that UNIMAS Publisher holds copyright, or an exclusive license to publish. Readers or users may view, download, print, and copy the content, for academic purposes, subject to the following conditions of use: (a) any reuse of materials is subject to permission from UNIMAS Publisher; (b) archived materials may only be used for academic research; (c) archived materials may not be used for commercial purposes, which include but not limited to monetary compensation by means of sale, resale, license, transfer of copyright, loan, etc.; and (d) archived materials may not be re-published in any part, either in print or online.
4) The author(s) is/are responsible to ensure his or her or their submitted work is original and does not infringe any existing copyright, trademark, patent, statutory right, or propriety right of others. Corresponding author(s) has (have) obtained permission from all co-authors prior to submission to the journal. Upon submission of the manuscript, the author(s) agree that no similar work has been or will be submitted or published elsewhere in any language. If submitted manuscript includes materials from others, the authors have obtained the permission from the copyright owners.
5) In signing this statement, the author(s) declare(s) that the researches in which they have conducted are in compliance with the current laws of the respective country and UNIMAS Journal Publication Ethics Policy. Any experimentation or research involving human or the use of animal samples must obtain approval from Human or Animal Ethics Committee in their respective institutions. The author(s) agree and understand that UNIMAS Publisher is not responsible for any compensational claims or failure caused by the author(s) in fulfilling the above-mentioned requirements. The author(s) must accept the responsibility for releasing their materials upon request by Chief Editor or UNIMAS Publisher.
6) The author(s) should have participated sufficiently in the work and ensured the appropriateness of the content of the article. The author(s) should also agree that he or she has no commercial attachments (e.g. patent or license arrangement, equity interest, consultancies, etc.) that might pose any conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript. The author(s) also agree to make any relevant materials and data available upon request by the editor or UNIMAS Publisher.
