Table 1
Summary of Studies S1–S5.
| STUDY | TARGET | CAUSAL INVOLVEMENT [NO INVOLVEMENT] | VIGNETTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Self vs. Other | Self: You [other tourists] vs. Other: a tourist [other tourists] | buy jewelry |
| S2 | Self vs. Other | Self: You [other tourists] vs. Other: a tourist [other tourists] | buy jewelry |
| S3 | Self | You [other tourists] | buy jewelry |
| S4 | Other | Mizarcs [Dwalkhs] | buy stone furniture |
| S5 | Self | American ingroup vs. [Chinese outgroup] | buy clothing vs. buy wooden furniture |
[i] Note: All studies featured a causal involvement between subjects manipulation orthogonal to the Target manipulation (if more than one Target condition).

Figure 1
Forest Plot of the Effect Size Estimates in the Meta-analysis of Studies S3, 2, 3, S1, S2.
Note: The forest plot is based on a random-effects model meta-analysis of the effect of causal involvement in creating and maintaining poor working conditions on the perceived moral obligation to support the suffering workers. It shows the summary effect for all comparisons included in Studies S3 to 3, S1, and S2 and the effects for the subgroups comprising other-judgments and self-judgments.

Figure 2
Moral Obligation Judgments in Study 1.
Note: Mean moral obligation judgments (with 95% CIs) as a function of experimental group (role of target: causally involved vs. not causally involved in creating poor working conditions × 2 target: self vs. other).

Figure 3
Moral Obligation Judgments in Study 2.
Note: Mean moral obligation judgments (with 95% CIs) as a function of experimental group (role of target: causally involved vs. not causally involved in creating poor working conditions × 2 target: close vs. distant other).
Table A1
Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) of all Dependent Variables as a Function of Causal Involvement of the Target of Judgment and Self- versus Other-Judgment in Study 1.
| DEPENDENT VARIABLE | SELF | OTHER | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAUSALLY INVOLVED | NOT CAUSALLY INVOLVED | CAUSALLY INVOLVED | NOT CAUSALLY INVOLVED | |
| Moral Obligation | 3.60 (1.63) | 3.38 (1.54) | 3.76 (1.60) | 2.92 (1.54) |
| Causal Responsibility | 3.67 (1.83) | 2.63 (1.81) | 4.67 (1.64) | 2.89 (1.73) |
[i] Note: All dependent variables range from 1 to 7.
Table A2
Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) of All Dependent Variables as a Function of Causal Involvement of the Target of Judgment and Self- versus Other-Judgment in Study 2.
| DEPENDENT VARIABLE | CLOSE OTHER | DISTANT OTHER | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAUSALLY INVOLVED | NOT CAUSALLY INVOLVED | CAUSALLY INVOLVED | NOT CAUSALLY INVOLVED | |
| Moral Obligation | 3.22 (1.00) | 2.84 (1.06) | 3.30 (0.82) | 2.46 (1.03) |
| Causal Responsibility | 4.04 (1.61) | 2.99 (1.79) | 4.13 (1.47) | 2.53 (1.77) |
[i] Note: Causal Responsibility ranges from 1 to 7 on a 7-point scale, Moral Obligation ranges from 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale.
Table A3
Summary of Studies in This Line of Research.
| STUDY | TARGET | CAUSAL INVOLVEMENT [NO INVOLVEMENT] | VIGNETTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Self vs. Other | Self: You [other tourists] vs. Other: a tourist [other tourists] | buy jewelry |
| S2 | Self vs. Other | Self: You [other tourists] vs. Other: a tourist [other tourists] | buy jewelry |
| S3 | Self | You [other tourists] | buy jewelry |
| S4 | Other | Mizarcs [Dwalkhs] | buy stone furniture |
| S5 | Self | American ingroup vs. [Chinese outgroup] | buy clothing vs. buy wooden furniture |
| 1 | Self vs. Other | American ingroup vs. [Chinese outgroup] | buy clothing vs. buy wooden furniture |
| 2 | Close vs. Distant Other | Cocoa [Azuki beans] | buy cocoa products vs. Azuki bean products |
[i] Note: All studies featured a causal involvement between subjects manipulation orthogonal to the Target manipulation (if more than one Target condition).
Table A4
Fixed-Effects ANOVA Results of Study 1 Using Causal Responsibility as a Criterion.
| PREDICTOR | SUM OF SQUARES | df | MEAN SQUARE | F | p | ηp2 | ηp2 90% CI [LL, UL] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 9351.64 | 1 | 9351.64 | 3036.18 | <.001 | .797 | [.78, .81] |
| Involvement | 385.92 | 1 | 385.92 | 125.29 | <.001 | .139 | [.10, .18] |
| Target | 78.01 | 1 | 78.01 | 25.33 | <.001 | .032 | [.01, .05] |
| Involvement × Target | 26.62 | 1 | 26.62 | 8.64 | .003 | .011 | [.00, .03] |
| Error | 2383.97 | 774 | 3.08 |
[i] Note: LL and UL represent the lower-limit and upper-limit of the partial ηp2 confidence interval, respectively.
Table A5
Fixed-Effects ANOVA Results of Study 1 Using Moral Obligation as a Criterion.
| PREDICTOR | SUM OF SQUARES | df | MEAN SQUARE | F | p | ηp2 | ηp2 90% CI [LL, UL] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 9066.11 | 1 | 9066.11 | 3646.37 | <.001 | .825 | [.81, .84] |
| Involvement | 53.92 | 1 | 53.92 | 21.69 | <.001 | .027 | [.01, .05] |
| Target | 4.29 | 1 | 4.29 | 1.73 | .19 | .002 | [.00, .01] |
| Involvement × Target | 18.79 | 1 | 18.79 | 7.56 | .006 | .010 | [.00, .02] |
| Error | 1924.43 | 774 | 2.49 |
[i] Note: LL and UL represent the lower-limit and upper-limit of the partial ηp2 confidence interval, respectively.
Table A6
Fixed-Effects ANOVA Results of Study 2 Using Causal Responsibility as a Criterion.
| PREDICTOR | SUM OF SQUARES | df | MEAN SQUARE | F | p | ηp2 | ηp2 90% CI [LL, UL] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 6046.40 | 1 | 6046.40 | 2187.47 | <.001 | .807 | [.79, .82] |
| Involvement | 225.83 | 1 | 225.83 | 81.70 | <.001 | .135 | [.09, .18] |
| Target | 4.40 | 1 | 4.40 | 1.59 | .21 | .003 | [.00, .02] |
| Involvement × Target | 9.46 | 1 | 9.46 | 3.42 | .07 | .006 | [.00, .02] |
| Error | 1448.39 | 524 | 2.76 |
[i] Note: LL and UL represent the lower-limit and upper-limit of the partial ηp2 confidence interval, respectively.
Table A7
Fixed-Effects ANOVA Results of Study 2 Using Moral Obligation as a Criterion.
| PREDICTOR | SUM OF SQUARES | df | MEAN SQUARE | F | p | ηp2 | ηp2 90% CI [LL, UL] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 4509.87 | 1 | 4509.87 | 4653.78 | <.001 | .899 | [.89, .91] |
| Involvement | 48.205 | 1 | 48.21 | 49.74 | <.001 | .087 | [.05, .13] |
| Target | 2.882 | 1 | 2.88 | 2.97 | .09 | .006 | [.00, .02] |
| Involvement × Target | 6.607 | 1 | 6.61 | 6.82 | .01 | .013 | [.00, .03] |
| Error | 507.796 | 524 | .97 |
[i] Note: LL and UL represent the lower-limit and upper-limit of the partial ηp2 confidence interval, respectively.
