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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

morality groups identity minimal groups partisanship open data preregistration

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Balliet

De Dreu

C. K.

(2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581.

Barden

Rucker

D. D.

Petty

R. 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.

Batson

C. D.

Kobrynowicz

Dinnerstein

J. L.

Kampf

H. C.

Wilson

A. D.

(1997). In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1335–1348.

Batson

C. D.

Thompson

E. R.

Chen

(2002). Moral hypocrisy: Addressing some alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 330–339.

Bocian

Cichocka

Wojciszke

(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

Brady

W. J.

Crockett

M. J.

Van Bavel

J. 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.

Brandt

M. J.

IJzerman

Dijksterhuis

Farach

F. J.

Geller

Giner-Sorolla

Grange

J. A.

Perugini

Spies

J. R.

Van’t Veer

(2014). The Replication Recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224.

Branscombe

N. R.

Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Blackwell Science.

Brewer

M. B.

(1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324.

10.

Brewer

M. B.

(1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.

11.

Claassen

R. L.

Ensley

M. 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.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13.

Cohen

(1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

14.

Cottle

(2021, May 4). Who cares about hypocrisy? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/opinion/republicans-biden-hypocrisy.html

15.

Effron

Markus

Jackman

Muramoto

Muluk

(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.

Eriksson

Simpson

Strimling

(2019). Political double standards in reliance on moral foundations. Judgment & Decision Making, 14(4), 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006124

17.

Finkel

E. J.

Bail

C. A.

Cikara

Ditto

P. H.

Iyengar

Klar

Mason

McGrath

M. C.

Nyhan

Rand

D. G.

Skitka

L. J.

Tucker

J. A.

Van Bavel

J. J.

Wang

C. S.

Druckman

J. N.

(2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533–536.

18.

Ginges

Atran

Medin

(2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 7357–7360.

19.

Graham

Haidt

Nosek

B. A.

(2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.

20.

Hewitt

C. E.

Torgerson

D. J.

Miles

J. N.

(2006). Is there another way to take account of noncompliance in randomized controlled trials? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175(4), 347.

21.

Hofmann

Wisneski

D. C.

Brandt

M. J.

Skitka

L. J.

(2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340–1343.

22.

Hornsey

M. J.

(2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222.

23.

Huff

Tingley

(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.

Iyengar

Lelkes

Levendusky

Malhotra

Westwood

S. J.

(2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.

25.

Iyengar

Sood

Lelkes

(2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.

26.

Iyer

Jetten

Haslam

S. 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.

Jordan

J. J.

Sommers

Bloom

Rand

D. G.

(2017). Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling. Psychological Science, 28(3), 356–368.

28.

Lachin

J. M.

(2000). Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21(3), 167–189.

29.

Lakens

(2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362.

30.

Leach

C. W.

Spears

Branscombe

N. R.

Doosje

(2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 932–943.

31.

Lees

Cikara

(2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 279–286.

32.

Leshin

R. A.

Yudkin

D. A.

Van Bavel

J. J.

Kunkel

Rhodes

(2022). Parents’ political ideology predicts how their children punish. Psychological Science, 33(11), 1894–1908.

33.

Lovakov

Agadullina

E. R.

(2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 485–504.

34.

Marques

J. M.

Paez

(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.

McCoy

C. E.

(2017). Understanding the intention-to-treat principle in randomized controlled trials. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(6), 1075–1078.

36.

McDermott

M. L.

Schwartz

Vallejo

(2015). Talking the talk but not walking the walk: Public reactions to hypocrisy in political scandal. American Politics Research, 43(6), 952–974.

37.

Milgram

(1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.

38.

Molnar

(2019). SMARTRIQS: A simple method allowing real-time respondent interaction in Qualtrics surveys. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 22, 161–169.

39.

Montgomery

J. M.

Nyhan

Torres

(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-Berg

S. L.

Ankori-Karlinsky

L. O.

Hameiri

Bruneau

(2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117(26), 14864–14872.

41.

Rathje

Van Bavel

J. J.

van der Linden

(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.

Richard

F. D.

Bond

C. F.

Jr. Stokes-Zoota

J. J.

(2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363.

44.

Shalvi

Dana

Handgraaf

De Dreu

C. K. W.

(2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 181–190.

45.

Shalvi

Gino

Barkan

Ayal

(2015). Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125–130.

46.

Solomon

E. D.

Hackathorn

J. M.

Crittendon

(2019). Judging scandal: Standards or bias in politics. Journal of Social Psychology, 159(1), 61–74.

47.

Tajfel

Billig

M. G.

Bundy

R. P.

Flament

(1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.

48.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Hatch

M. G.

(Ed.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 56–65). Oxford University Press.

49.

Tosi

Warmke

(2020). Grandstanding: The use and abuse of moral talk. Oxford University Press.

50.

Valdesolo

DeSteno

(2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.

51.

Van Bavel

J. J.

Cunningham

W. 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 Bavel

J. J.

Packer

Ray

J. L.

Robertson

Ungson

N. D. A

. (2023). How social identity tunes moral cognition. In Elemers

Pagliaro

Nunspeet

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of the psychology of morality (pp. 51–62). Routledge.

53.

Van Bavel

J. J.

Packer

D. J.

Haas

I. J.

Cunningham

W. 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 Sikorski

Herbst

. (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.

Wolsky

A. 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.

0.00 MB

1.07 MB