ABSTRACT
Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity-variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity-estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs-indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Adherence to behavioral measures such as physical distancing are key to mitigating the effects of viral pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Adherence depends in part on people's perception of what others do (descriptive norms) or approve of (injunctive norms). This study examines the effects that exposure to images depicting people following or breaking physical distancing rules have on perceptions of descriptive and injunctive norms and subsequent adherence behavior. METHODS: An online between-subjects experiment (n = 315) was conducted, in which participants were exposed to a set of five photographs of different public spaces in which people either did or did not adhere to physical distancing rules (pre-registration: https://www.osf.io/uek2p). Participants' adherence behavior was measured using a triangulation of measures (incentivized online behavioral task, vignettes, intention measure). Perceptions of relevant social norms were also measured. RESULTS: Mann-Whitney tests showed no effects of condition on perceptions of descriptive and injunctive norms or on adherence behavior. Linear regressions showed that both component paths of the indirect effect (condition on norm perceptions, and norm perceptions on adherence behavior) were non-significant, hence mediation analyses were not conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to images of people following (compared to breaking) physical distancing rules did not affect adherence to such rules or perceived norms. We surmise that a single exposure to such images, especially in the context of COVID-19, is insufficient to affect behavior. We therefore recommend performing a comparable experiment in which participants are exposed repeatedly to images showing people (non)adhering to a specific behavior in a particular context for a longer period.
