title: Moral hypocrisy on the basis of construal level: to be a utilitarian personal decision maker or to be a moral advisor?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  People encounter various moral issues that involve making decisions for others by giving advice.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This study investigated the characteristics of providing suggestions for oneself versus providing suggestions for others in ethical decision-making and the differences between them based on Construal Level Theory (CLT).
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 768 undergraduate students from three universities in China were randomly assigned to eight groups on the basis of a grid of two Construal Levels (self or others) by two different numbers of people saved (5 people or 15 people) by two problem situations (trolley problem vs. footbridge problem). The investigation examined participants' decisions to opt to take action or refrain from action that would have the consequence of saving more people.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The main effects of Construal Level (F1, 752 = 6.46, p = .011), saving number (F1, 752 = 35.81, p < .001), and problem situation type (F1, 752 = 330.55, p < .001) were all significant. The interaction of the problem situation and saving number (F1, 752 = 1.01, p = .31), and social distance and saving number (F1, 752 = 0.85, p = .36), and interaction of the three independent factors (F1, 752 = 0.47, p = .49) were not significant. However, the interaction of social distance and problem situation (F1, 752 = 9.46, p = .002) was significant. Results indicated the participants utilized a component of utilitarian reasoning in the decision-making, and their behaviors appeared more utilitarian at low Construal Levels (CLs) compared to high.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  CLs, saving numbers, and problem situation significantly affected moral decision-making and exhibited significant interaction. Making decisions for oneself (low-construal) rather than giving advice to others (high-construal) was one important factor that determined whether the people were utilitarian or not. Utilitarian considerations are more relevant in impersonal dilemmas.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
authors.forename: Wei
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Xiao
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China; Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Office of Basic Education Department, Chongqing Communication Institute, Chongqing, China.
authors.forename: Qing
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
authors.forename: Qun
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Yang
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
authors.forename: Liang
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Zhou
authors.affiliation: Astronaut Scientific Research Training Center of China, Beijing, China.
authors.forename: Yuan
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Jiang
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
authors.forename: Jiaxi
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
authors.forename: Danmin
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Miao
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
authors.forename: Jiaxi
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Peng
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D003657:Decision Making; D028663:Ethical Theory; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007398:Interpersonal Relations; D008297:Male; D009014:Morals; D011340:Problem Solving; D012929:Psychological Distance; D055815:Young Adult