Objective: Recent findings indicate that a conflict of interest (COI) can subconsciously influence an agent's understanding even before potential immoral acts—a phenomenon known as COI bias. This study investigates how ethical perspectives affect COI bias across interest conditions.
Method: In a between-subjects design, participants were classified as utilitarians or deontologists based on their dominant ethical perspective and randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions (COI, AOI, or neutral). They performed a stimulus-choice task in a visual masking paradigm, with response accuracy and reaction time serving as dependent measures. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests.
Results: Utilitarians showed significantly lower accuracy than deontologists in the COI condition, indicating greater susceptibility to COI bias. No significant differences between ethical perspectives emerged in the AOI or neutral conditions, and reaction times did not differ between utilitarians and deontologists in any condition.
Conclusion: Ethical perspectives, particularly utilitarianism, modulate susceptibility to COI bias. Utilitarians are selectively vulnerable when interests conflict with task demands, whereas deontologists appear more resistant. These preliminary findings suggest that ethical frameworks may warrant consideration in professional contexts, although replication with larger samples is essential.