Competing interests pose a challenge to harmonious social functioning and can undermine consumer markets. However, some individuals eschew actions that yield personal gain even when it is ambiguous (to them and others) that they are inappropriate, and even in the absence of potential reputational damages or public praise. Across four studies, we provide evidence for the existence for such righteousness and adjudicate between competing psychological mechanisms. Contrary to the idea that righteous behavior is inherently rewarding, functional neuroimaging results show that activity in a network of brain regions associated with self-control, rather than reward, tracks differences in righteousness. This relationship is specific to circumstances in which the proper course of action is ambiguous, a common feature of many conflict-of-interest settings. We build on these findings by testing pre-commitment as a behavioral intervention that might mitigate the negative consequences of ambiguous conflict of interest situations. These results advance our understanding of the psychological processes that shape unbiased behavior in conflicts of interest, advocating a central role for self-control in promoting righteous behaviors and informing potential policy interventions to prevent conflicts from undermining consumer markets.
Reeck et al. (Sat,) studied this question.