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.
BallietD.WuJ.De DreuC. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581.
2.
BardenJ.RuckerD. D.PettyR. E. (2005). “Saying one thing and doing another”: Examining the impact of event order on hypocrisy judgments of others. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1463–1474.
3.
BatsonC. D.KobrynowiczD.DinnersteinJ. L.KampfH. C.WilsonA. D. (1997). In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1335–1348.
4.
BatsonC. D.ThompsonE. R.ChenH. (2002). Moral hypocrisy: Addressing some alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 330–339.
5.
BocianK.CichockaA.WojciszkeB. (2021). Moral tribalism: Moral judgments of actions supporting ingroup interests depend on collective narcissism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 93, Article 104098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104098
6.
BradyW. J.CrockettM. J.Van BavelJ. J. (2020). The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 978–1010.
7.
BrandtM. J.IJzermanH.DijksterhuisA.FarachF. J.GellerJ.Giner-SorollaR.GrangeJ. A.PeruginiM.SpiesJ. R.Van’t VeerA. (2014). The Replication Recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224.
8.
BranscombeN. R.EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Blackwell Science.
9.
BrewerM. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324.
10.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.
11.
ClaassenR. L.EnsleyM. J. (2016). Motivated reasoning and yard-sign-stealing partisans: Mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal. Political Behavior, 38(2), 317–335.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
EffronD.MarkusH.JackmanL.MuramotoY.MulukH. (2018). Hypocrisy and culture: Failing to practice what you preach receives harsher interpersonal reactions in independent (vs. interdependent) cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 371–384.
16.
ErikssonK.SimpsonB.StrimlingP. (2019). Political double standards in reliance on moral foundations. Judgment & Decision Making, 14(4), 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006124
17.
FinkelE. J.BailC. A.CikaraM.DittoP. H.IyengarS.KlarS.MasonL.McGrathM. C.NyhanB.RandD. G.SkitkaL. J.TuckerJ. A.Van BavelJ. J.WangC. S.DruckmanJ. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533–536.
18.
GingesJ.AtranS.MedinD. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 7357–7360.
19.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.
20.
HewittC. E.TorgersonD. J.MilesJ. N. (2006). Is there another way to take account of noncompliance in randomized controlled trials?Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175(4), 347.
21.
HofmannW.WisneskiD. C.BrandtM. J.SkitkaL. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340–1343.
22.
HornseyM. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222.
23.
HuffC.TingleyD. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648
24.
IyengarS.LelkesY.LevenduskyM.MalhotraN.WestwoodS. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.
25.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.
26.
IyerA.JettenJ.HaslamS. A. (2012). Sugaring o’er the devil: Moral superiority and group identification help individuals downplay the implications of ingroup rule breaking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 141–149.
27.
JordanJ. J.SommersR.BloomP.RandD. G. (2017). Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling. Psychological Science, 28(3), 356–368.
28.
LachinJ. M. (2000). Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21(3), 167–189.
29.
LakensD. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362.
30.
LeachC. W.SpearsR.BranscombeN. R.DoosjeB. (2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 932–943.
31.
LeesJ.CikaraM. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 279–286.
32.
LeshinR. A.YudkinD. A.Van BavelJ. J.KunkelL.RhodesM. (2022). Parents’ political ideology predicts how their children punish. Psychological Science, 33(11), 1894–1908.
33.
LovakovA.AgadullinaE. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 485–504.
34.
MarquesJ. M.PaezD. (1994). The “black sheep effect:” Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 37–68.
35.
McCoyC. E. (2017). Understanding the intention-to-treat principle in randomized controlled trials. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(6), 1075–1078.
36.
McDermottM. L.SchwartzD.VallejoS. (2015). Talking the talk but not walking the walk: Public reactions to hypocrisy in political scandal. American Politics Research, 43(6), 952–974.
37.
MilgramS. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
38.
MolnarA. (2019). SMARTRIQS: A simple method allowing real-time respondent interaction in Qualtrics surveys. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 22, 161–169.
39.
MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.TorresM. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775.
40.
Moore-BergS. L.Ankori-KarlinskyL. O.HameiriB.BruneauE. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(26), 14864–14872.
41.
RathjeS.Van BavelJ. J.van der LindenS. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 118(26), Article e2024292118.
42.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.2.1) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
43.
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Jr.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363.
44.
ShalviS.DanaJ.HandgraafM.De DreuC. K. W. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 181–190.
45.
ShalviS.GinoF.BarkanR.AyalS. (2015). Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125–130.
46.
SolomonE. D.HackathornJ. M.CrittendonD. (2019). Judging scandal: Standards or bias in politics. Journal of Social Psychology, 159(1), 61–74.
47.
TajfelH.BilligM. G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.
48.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C.AustinW. G.WorchelS. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In HatchM. G. (Ed.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 56–65). Oxford University Press.
49.
TosiJ.WarmkeB. (2020). Grandstanding: The use and abuse of moral talk. Oxford University Press.
50.
ValdesoloP.DeStenoD. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.
51.
Van BavelJ. J.CunninghamW. A. (2012). A social identity approach to person memory: Group membership, collective identification, and social role shape attention and memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1566–1578.
52.
Van BavelJ. J.PackerD.RayJ. L.RobertsonC.UngsonN. D. A. (2023). How social identity tunes moral cognition. In ElemersN.PagliaroS.NunspeetF. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the psychology of morality (pp. 51–62). Routledge.
53.
Van BavelJ. J.PackerD. J.HaasI. J.CunninghamW. A. (2012). The importance of moral construal: Moral versus non-moral construal elicits faster, more extreme, universal evaluations of the same actions. PLOS ONE, 7(11), Article e48693. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048693
54.
von SikorskiC.HerbstC. (2020). Not practicing what they preached! Exploring negative spillover effects of news about ex-politicians’ hypocrisy on party attitudes, voting intentions, and political trust. Media Psychology, 23(3), 436–460.
55.
WolskyA. D. (2022). Scandal, hypocrisy, and resignation: How partisanship shapes evaluations of politicians’ transgressions. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(1), 74–87.
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.
