Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEthics in Business and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Moral licensing, instrumental apology and insincerity aversion: Taking Immanuel Kant to the lab

Open access
Khalil, Elias L., Feltovich, Nick·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0206878PMC PMC6224065
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Moral licensing, equivalently called "self-licensing", is the instrumental use of a Good Act to cover up a Bad Act. This paper's thesis is that "instrumental apology" i.e., bad-faith apology, is a case of moral licensing. A decision maker may issue an apology (Good Act) after committing a Bad Act, but if the decision maker uses the apology instrumentally, he or she is using the apology to justify the Bad Act. Hence, the apology is insincere. Sincerity is the fine line between a good-faith apology or, more generally, a Good Act, on one hand, and an instrumental apology or, more generally, moral licensing, on the other. In this light, moral licensing should be separated from genuine apology that attains moral equilibrium, which is called in the literature moral "self-regulation' and "conscience accounting." According to Kantian ethics, not just the consequences of an act matter, but also the sincerity with which the act was conducted. This pits Kant against the utilitarian view, which downplays intentions and focuses on consequences. We take Kant to the lab. Participants play a modified ultimatum game, where proposers in some treatments have the option of issuing apology messages and responders have both costly and costless options for rewarding or punishing proposers. We introduce different treatments of the apology message to allow responders to form doubts about the sincerity of the apology messages. Our results support the Kantian position: responders, once they become suspicious of the sincerity of the proposers' apology, exhibit "insincerity aversion" and punish proposers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0206878

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 The structure of the experiment.
Fig 1 The structure of the experiment.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Estimated likelihood of apology based on Model 2 in Table 3.
Fig 2 Estimated likelihood of apology based on Model 2 in Table 3.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 17

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Khalil, E. L., & Feltovich, N.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Khalil, Elias L.
  • Feltovich, Nick
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-11-08
Volume
13
Issue
11
Pages
e0206878
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0206878
PMC
PMC6224065
OpenAlex
W2899638763
Cited by
17
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Monash University (grant #1758024)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
moral licensing, Kantian ethics, sincerity, moral self-regulation, ultimatum game, punishment, utilitarianism
MeSH terms
Affect, Decision Making, Emotions, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Morals, Social Behavior, Ethical Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.