Social identity and situational information guide how people morally judge others. A journalist is judged differently than a doctor if they expose private information, which may also depend on whether the reason was to prevent a public health crisis vs. for monetary gain. What is less known, is how people decide how much and what type of information (identity vs. situation) is more relevant for them to make a moral judgment. To investigate this, participants received partial information about a case where an agent committed a moral violation. Then, participants could choose whether to incur a cost to get new pieces of information, or to stop collecting information and instead judge the agent’s actions. This study elucidates how people accumulate and use evidence to judge others. Our findings can reveal underlying biases in decision-making and be used to inform legal and criminal proceedings, news coverage strategies, and others.

Authors:

Deborah Cesarini: Duke University; Jade Terry: Duke University