A major barrier to the resolution of intergroup conflicts is the reluctance to acknowledge transgressions committed by one’s ingroup toward the outgroup. Existing research demonstrates that individuals are generally motivated to justify ingroup conduct and avoid experiencing guilt and shame about ingroup harmdoing. The current work explores the use of an analogy-based intervention to attenuate motivated reasoning in evaluations of ingroup harmdoing. Overall, across six studies, we find support for our hypothesis that considering a case of harmdoing in a removed context increases acknowledgment of an analogous case of ingroup harmdoing. We further explore why, and under what conditions, the analogy is effective in leading to increased acknowledgment of an ingroup transgression. We find that the effect of the analogy is mediated by the endorsement of moral principles specific to the domain of the transgression, suggesting that the mechanism involves a cognitive process of analogical reasoning.
AllpressJ. A.BarlowF. K.BrownR.LouisW. R. (2010). Atoning for colonial injustices: Group-based shame and guilt motivate support for reparation. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4(1), 75–88.
2.
BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
3.
Barak-CorrenN.TsayC. J.CushmanF.BazermanM. H. (2017). If you’re going to do wrong, at least do it right: Considering two moral dilemmas at the same time promotes moral consistency. Management Science, 64(4), 1528–1540.
4.
Bar-TalD. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BlassJ. A.ForbusK. D. (2015, January). Moral decision-making by analogy: Generalizations versus exemplars. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 501–507). https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2887007.2887077
6.
BranscombeN. R.MironA. M. (2004). Interpreting the ingroup’s negative actions toward another group: Emotional reactions to appraised harm. In TiedensL. Z.LeachC. W. (Eds.), The social life of emotion (pp. 314–335). Cambridge University Press.
7.
BrownT. J. (2014). Advantageous comparison and rationalization of earnings management. Journal of Accounting Research, 52(4), 849–876.
8.
BruneauE.KteilyN.FalkE. (2018). Interventions highlighting hypocrisy reduce collective blame of Muslims for individual acts of violence and assuage anti-Muslim hostility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 430–448.
9.
BruneauE.KteilyN.UrbiolaA. (2019). A collective blame hypocrisy intervention enduringly reduces hostility towards Muslims. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 45–54.
10.
Čehajić-ClancyS.BrownR. (2010). Silencing the past: Effects of intergroup contact on acknowledgment of in-group responsibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(2), 190–196.
11.
Čehajić-ClancyS.EffronD. A.HalperinE.LibermanV.RossL. D. (2011). Affirmation, acknowledgment of in-group responsibility, group-based guilt, and support for reparative measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 256–270.
12.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R.NewsomJ. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 318–328.
13.
CohenS. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Polity Press.
14.
DarcyS. (2010). Prosecuting the war crime of collective punishment: Is it time to amend the Rome statute?Journal of International Criminal Justice, 8(1), 29–51.
15.
DayS. B.GentnerD. (2003). Analogical inference in automatic interpretation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 25, 306–311.
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
17.
GentnerD. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.
18.
GentnerD. (2006). Analogical reasoning, psychology of. In NadelL. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 106–112). Wiley.
19.
GentnerD.LandersR. (1985, November). Analogical reminding: A good match is hard to find. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 607–613). IEEE.
20.
GickM. L.HolyoakK. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.
21.
GickM. L.HolyoakK. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
22.
GrossW. L.GreeneA. J. (2007). Analogical inference: The role of awareness in abstract learning. Memory, 15(8), 838–844.
23.
HalperinE.Bar-TalD. (2011). Socio-psychological barriers to peace making: An empirical examination within the Israeli Jewish society. Journal of Peace Research, 48(5), 637–651.
24.
HalperinE.Bar-TalD.SharvitK.RoslerN.RavivA. (2010). Socio-psychological implications for an occupying society: The case of Israel. Journal of Peace Research, 47(1), 59–70.
25.
HayesA. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
26.
LammersJ.StapelD. A.GalinskyA. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), 737–774.
27.
LeachC. W.CidamA. (2015). When is shame linked to constructive approach orientation? A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 983–1002.
28.
LeachC. W.EllemersN.BarretoM. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234–249.
29.
LeachC. W.IyerA.PedersenA. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1232–1245.
30.
LeachC. W.ZeineddineF. B.Čehajić-ClancyS. (2013). Moral immemorial: The rarity of self-criticism for previous generations’ genocide or mass violence. Journal of Social Issues, 69(1), 34–53.
31.
LeidnerB.CastanoE. (2012). Morality shifting in the context of intergroup violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 82–91.
32.
LernerJ. S.LiY.ValdesoloP.KassamK. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799–823.
33.
LombrozoT. (2009). The role of moral commitments in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 33(2), 273–286.
34.
PahariaN.VohsK. D.DeshpandéR. (2013). Sweatshop labor is wrong unless the shoes are cute: Cognition can both help and hurt moral motivated reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 81–88.
PliskinR.Bar-TalD.SheppesG.HalperinE. (2014). Are leftists more emotion-driven than rightists? The interactive influence of ideology and emotions on support for policies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1681–1697.
37.
Reifen TagarM.MorganG. S.HalperinE.SkitkaL. J. (2014). When ideology matters: Moral conviction and the association between ideology and policy preferences in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 117–125.
38.
SaguyT.Chernyak-HaiL.AndrighettoL.BrysonJ. (2013). When the powerful feels wronged: The legitimization effects of advantaged group members’ sense of being accused for harboring racial or ethnic biases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 292–298.
StephanW. G.FinlayK. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729–743.
41.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1986) . The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Nelson Hall.
42.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
43.
UhlmannE. L.PizarroD. A.TannenbaumD.DittoP. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 476–491.
44.
ValdesoloP.DeStenoD. (2007). Moral hypocrisy. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.
45.
ValdesoloP.DeStenoD. (2008). The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1334–1338.
46.
WaytzA.YoungL. L.GingesJ. (2014). Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(44), 15687–15692.
47.
WiegmannA.OkanY.NagelJ. (2012). Order effects in moral judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 25(6), 813–836.
48.
WiegmannA.WaldmannM. R. (2014). Transfer effects between moral dilemmas: A causal model theory. Cognition, 131(1), 28–43.
49.
WohlM. J.BranscombeN. R. (2008). Remembering historical victimization: Collective guilt for current ingroup transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 988–1006.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
