Preregistered Replication and Extension of "Moral Hypocrisy: Social Groups and the Flexibility of Virtue"

The tendency for people to consider themselves morally good while behaving selfishly is known as moral hypocrisy. Influential work by Valdesolo and DeSteno (2007) found evidence for intergroup moral hypocrisy such that people were more forgiving of transgressions when they were committed by an in-group member than an out-group member. We conducted two experiments to examine moral hypocrisy and group membership in an online paradigm with Prolific workers from the United States: a direct replication of the original work with minimal groups (N = 610; nationally representative) and a conceptual replication with political groups (N = 606; 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans). Although the results did not replicate the original findings, we observed evidence of in-group favoritism in minimal groups and out-group derogation in political groups. The current research finds mixed evidence of intergroup moral hypocrisy and has implications for understanding the contextual dependencies of intergroup bias and partisanship.

Hierarchie und Demokratie in Organisationen – Die 49-Punkte-Intervention

Dieser Beitrag der Zeitschrift Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO) beschreibt eine auf gruppendynamischen Überlegungen beruhende Intervention, die im Rahmen der Lehre an Universitäten und Hochschulen eingesetzt werden kann. Ziel ist es, mittels Reflexion der Intervention Erkenntnisse über Organisationsdynamiken und -konflikte zu erlangen.

Universitäten und Hochschulen sind Institutionen, die Wissen vermitteln und Bildung und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung ermöglichen sollen. Dabei sind Lehrende und Studierende zueinander in eine hierarchische Beziehung gesetzt. Dies ist eine organisatorische Notwendigkeit, die aber auch, im Fall der Sozialwissenschaften, im Widerspruch zu einem gemeinsamen Erkunden sozialer Phänomene auf Augenhöhe steht. Lehrende und Studierende sind mit dem „Sei-selbstständig-Paradox“ konfrontiert. Studierende müssen gegebenen Vorgaben folgen, sich im normativen Rahmen bewegen, sollen sich jedoch gleichzeitig selbstständig und authentisch einbringen. Dies kann zu Konflikten führen, die aber oft nicht diskutiert werden. Damit verbleiben sie im System, was dazu führen kann, dass die Studierenden einem möglichen Double Bind ausgesetzt sind.

In diesem Beitrag wird aufgezeigt, wie Studierende im Rahmen einer von uns als 49-Punkte-Intervention bezeichneten Methode die Möglichkeit bekommen, im Gegensatz zur üblichen hierarchischen Ordnung an der Gestaltung der eigenen Prüfung mitzuwirken. Dadurch werden übliche Grenzen aufgeweicht und institutionell gelöste Konflikte neu zur Diskussion gestellt. Es wird hier die Intervention kurz beschrieben, um dann potenzielle Konfliktdynamiken auf folgenden Ebenen aufzuzeigen: (a) intrapersonelle Ebene, (b) interpersonelle Ebene, (c) Ebene zwischen Studierenden und Dozenten, (d) Ebene der Sachzwänge des Systems, die sowohl Studierende als auch Dozenten betreffen

Unfairness and Radicalization

This article reviews the relationship between people's perceptions of unfairness and their tendencies to think, feel, and act in radicalizing ways. Various theories of radicalization processes are reviewed that examine key aspects of the psychology of perceived unfairness. The review shows that experienced group deprivation and perceived immorality are among the core judgments that can drive Muslim radicalization, right-wing radicalization, and left-wing radicalization. Symbols of injustice, the legitimization of revolutionary thought, and the experience of unfair treatment can also increase radicalization. The review also examines core moderators (e.g., uncertainty and insufficient self-correction) and mediators (e.g., externally oriented emotions) of the linkage between perceived unfairness and core components of radicalization (e.g., rigidity of thoughts, hot-cognitive defense of cultural worldviews, and violent rejection of democratic principles and the rule of law). The review discusses how the study of unfairness and radicalization contributes to a robust and meaningful science of psychology.

The Psychology of Morality: A Review and Analysis of Empirical Studies Published From 1940 Through 2017

We review empirical research on (social) psychology of morality to identify which issues and relations are well documented by existing data and which areas of inquiry are in need of further empirical evidence. An electronic literature search yielded a total of 1,278 relevant research articles published from 1940 through 2017. These were subjected to expert content analysis and standardized bibliometric analysis to classify research questions and relate these to (trends in) empirical approaches that characterize research on morality. We categorize the research questions addressed in this literature into five different themes and consider how empirical approaches within each of these themes have addressed psychological antecedents and implications of moral behavior. We conclude that some key features of theoretical questions relating to human morality are not systematically captured in empirical research and are in need of further investigation.

A riot on campus: The effects of social identity complexity on emotions and reparative attitudes after ingroup-perpetrated violence

When a group commits a transgression, members who identify closely with the group often engage in defensive strategies in which they are less likely to experience guilt and shame in response to the transgression than are less identified group members. Subsequently, highly identified group members are often less willing to offer reparations to the injured parties. Because appropriate emotional responses and reparations are critical to community reconciliation, the present investigation examined whether social identity complexity-the degree to which individuals perceive their multiple social identities as interrelated-reduced these defensive responses. In the aftermath of a campus riot, emotional responses and reparative attitudes of undergraduate students were assessed. Results indicated that individuals who closely identified with the university were in fact capable of experiencing guilt and shame, but only if they also had complex social identities. A path model indicated that emotional responses, in turn, predicted willingness to provide reparations to the campus community. Accordingly, social identity complexity provides a new approach to understanding responses to ingroup-perpetrated violence.

A Social Identity Approach to Understanding Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Allegations

Two studies investigated the role of group allegiances in contributing to the failure of institutions to appropriately respond to allegations of child sexual abuse. In Study 1, 601 participants read a news article detailing an allegation of child sexual abuse against a Catholic Priest. Catholics were more protective of the accused–and more skeptical of the accuser—than other participants, an effect that was particularly pronounced among strongly identified Catholics. In Study 2 (N = 404), the tendency for Catholics to be more protective of the accused and more skeptical of the accuser than non-Catholics was replicated. Moreover, these effects held independently of the objective likelihood that the accused was guilty. Overall, the data show that group loyalties provide a psychological motivation to disbelieve child abuse allegations. Furthermore, the people for whom this motivation is strongest are also the people who are most likely to be responsible for receiving and investigating allegations: highly identified ingroup members. The findings highlight the psychological mechanisms that may limit the ability of senior Church figures to conduct impartial investigations into allegations of child abuse within the Church.

Evaluation of Ingroup Disloyalty Within a MultiGroup Context

The present research sought to determine if group vulnerability to ingroup norm violations moderated evaluations of these disloyal acts. Specifically, it tested the notion that smaller groups, groups organized around a moral cause, and groups demanding relatively high sacrifice from members would most harshly evaluate instances of ingroup disloyalty because such actions may be more likely to dissolve the group, undermine its message, or tempt other members to deviate. A first experiment found that the most distinct and vulnerable group – vegans – devalued disloyal ingroup behavior more than others, particularly when the mainstream was salient. A second experiment also found that vegans rated ingroup disloyalty more negatively than vegetarians when the disloyal act was unconcealed, that is, committed in front of outgroup members who knew the violator’s group membership. In addition, this effect was found to be primarily mediated by concerns that disloyalty would undermine intergroup distinctiveness and the ingroup’s message.