System circumvention: Dishonest-illegal transgressions are perceived as justified in non-meritocratic societies

Does believing that "effort doesn't pay" in society shape how people view dishonest-illegal transgressions? Across five studies, we show that when people view societal success as non-meritocratic-that is, more dependent on luck and circumstances than on hard work-they are more lenient in their moral judgements of dishonest-illegal transgressions. Perceiving society as non-meritocratic predicted greater justifiability of dishonest-illegal transgressions in the United States (Study 2), and across 42 countries (N = 49,574; Study 1). And inducing participants to view society as non-meritocratic increased justifiability of others' dishonest-illegal transgressions, via greater feelings of sympathy (Studies 3 and 4). Next, we investigated the contours of these effects. Perceiving societal success as non-meritocratic rather than based on hard work causes people to view dishonest-illegal transgressions as more justifiable if they are perpetrated by the poor, but not the rich (Study 4), and if the dishonest-illegal transgressions are related to economic striving, such as money laundering and dealing illegal drugs (Study 5). In sum, when people see a social system as unfair, they show greater tolerance for dishonest-illegal transgressions perpetrated to circumvent the system.

Double standards in the COVID‐19 pandemic: The moderation of perceived threat

This research explored whether people hold double standards in a public crisis. We proposed that during the COVID‐19 pandemic, people required others to strictly follow self‐quarantine rules and other preventive behaviours, whereas they themselves would not, demonstrating double standards. Moreover, this effect would be moderated by the perceived threat from the pandemic. Using data collected in the United States and China, three studies (N = 2180) tested the hypotheses by measuring (Study 1) and manipulating the perceived threat (Studies 2 and 3). We found that people generally applied higher standards to others than to themselves when it came to following the self‐quarantine rules. This effect was strong when a relatively low threat was perceived, but the self–other difference disappeared when the perceived threat was relatively high, as the demands they placed on themselves would increase as the perceived threat intensified, but their requirements of others would be constantly strict.

Under the Threat of an Epidemic: People with Higher Subjective Socioeconomic Status Show More Unethical Behaviors

This research focused on the psychological impact of an epidemic. We conducted a cross-sectional survey and two empirical experiments to examine how an epidemic would influence unethical behaviors and how the effect differs in people of different subjective socioeconomic statuses. These studies consistently demonstrated that subjective socioeconomic status moderates the relationship between an epidemic and unethical behaviors. Specifically, the perceived severity of an epidemic positively predicts the unethical behaviors of people with a high socioeconomic status, but it does not predict the unethical behaviors of people with a low socioeconomic status. These findings elucidate the effects of epidemics and bring theoretical and practical implications.