Three experiments tested whether verification of ingroup morality increases engagement in collective action in favor of immigrants’ rights. To that end, participants were exposed to (a) verifying, (b) negatively discrepant, (c) enhancing, or (d) no feedback about the morality of their group in general (Studies 1–2) or specifically in matters of corruption (Study 3). Results show that those who received verifying feedback of their group’s morality were more willing to engage in collective action than those who received negative or no feedback. These effects seemed to be mediated by increased anger over immigrants’ disadvantage and positive attitudes towards them. Critically, enhancing feedback exerted similar effects as verifying feedback, although the latter yielded more stable and consistent results across the studies. These results suggest that appeals to collective ingroup morality can be effective to promote immigrants’ rights, especially when members of the host society feel that others consider them as moral as they perceive themselves.
AtroszkoP. A.PiankaL.RaczyńskaA.SęktasM.AtroszkoB. (2015). Validity and reliability of single item self-report measures of social support. In McGreevyM.RitaR. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th biannual CER Comparative European Research Conference (pp. 216–219). SCIEMCEE Publishing.
2.
BrambillaM.HewstoneM.ColucciF. P. (2013). Enhancing moral virtues: Increased perceived outgroup morality as a mediator of intergroup contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212471737
3.
BrambillaM.RusconiP.SacchiS.CherubiniP. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.744
4.
BrambillaM.SacchiS.PagliaroS.EllemersN. (2013). Morality and intergroup relations: Threats to safety and group image predict the desire to interact with outgroup and ingroup members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 811–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.005
5.
BrambillaM.SacchiS.RusconiP.CherubiniP.YzerbytV. Y. (2012). You want to give a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2010.02011.x
6.
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.
7.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
8.
ChenS.ChenK. Y.ShawL. (2004). Self-verification motives at the collective level of self-definition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.77
9.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
10.
CuadradoI.López-RodríguezL.ConstantinA. A. (2020). “A matter of trust”: Perception of morality increases willingness to help through positive emotions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23, 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219838606
11.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.ThomaeM. (2017). The principle-implementation gap in attitudes towards racial equality (and how to close it). Political Psychology, 38, 91–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12393
12.
DuncanL. E. (1999). Motivation for collective action: Group consciousness as mediator of personality, life experiences, and women’s rights activism. Political Psychology, 20, 611–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00159
13.
EpsteinS. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28, 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034679
14.
FeinS.SpencerS. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.31
15.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
16.
GómezÁ.EllerA.VázquezA. (2013). Verification of ingroup identity as a longitudinal mediator between intergroup contact and outgroup evaluation. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, E74. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.66
17.
GómezÁ.SeyleD. C.HuiciC.SwannW. B.Jr. (2009). Can self-verification strivings fully transcend the self–other barrier? Seeking verification of ingroup identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1021–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016358
18.
HaddockG.ZannaM. P.EssesV. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105
19.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2th ed.). Guilford Press.
20.
JonesS. C. (1973). Self- and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories versus consistency theories. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033957
21.
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, 234–249.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234
LickelB.SchmaderT.BarquissauM. (2004). The evocation of moral emotions in intergroup contexts: The distinction between collective guilt and collective shame. In BranscombeN. R.DoosjeB. (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 35–55). Cambridge University Press.
24.
López-RodríguezL.ZagefkaH. (2015). The effects of stereotype content on acculturation preferences and prosocial tendencies: The prominent role of morality. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.12.006
25.
MaelF.AshforthB. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
26.
MinsonJ. A.MoninB. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415695
MoninB.MillerD. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33
29.
PostmesT.HaslamS. A.JansL. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12006
30.
ReimerN. K.BeckerJ. C.BenzA.ChristO.DhontK.KlockeU.NejiS.RychlowskaM.SchmidK.HewstoneM. (2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676478
31.
SabucedoJ. M.DonoM.AlzateM.SeoaneG. (2018). The importance of protesters’ morals: Moral obligation as a key variable to understand collective action. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00418
32.
SachdevaS.IlievR.MedinD. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20, 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x
33.
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, 292–298.https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1948
34.
SedikidesC.GaertnerL.VeveaJ. L. (2007). Evaluating the evidence for pancultural self-enhancement. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 201–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.539
35.
ShnabelN.NadlerA. (2015). The role of agency and morality in reconciliation processes: The perspective of the needs-based model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 477–483.https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415601625
36.
ShnabelN.UllrichJ.NadlerA.DovidioJ. F.AydinA. L. (2013). Warm or competent? Improving intergroup relations by addressing threatened identities of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1975
37.
StetsJ. E.BurkeP. J. (2005). Identity verification, control, and aggression in marriage. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800204
38.
SwannW. B.Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In SulsJ.GreenwaldA. G. (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66). Erlbaum.
39.
SwannW. B.Jr. (2012). Self-verification theory. In van LangP.KruglanskiA.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 23–42). SAGE.
40.
SwannW. B.Jr.BuhrmesterM. D. (2012). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In LearyM. R.TangneyJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 405–424). The Guilford Press.
41.
SwannW. B.GriffinJ. J.PredmoreS. C.GainesB. (1987). The cognitive–affective crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 881–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.881
42.
SwannW. B.WenzlaffR. M.TafarodiR. W. (1992). Depression and the search for negative evaluations: More evidence of the role of self-verification strivings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.101.2.314
43.
TajfelH. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. Academic Press.
44.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
45.
TäuberS.van ZomerenM. (2013). Outrage towards whom? Threats to moral group status impede striving to improve via out-group-directed outrage. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1930
Van LeeuwenE.van DijkW. W.KaynakÜ. (2013). Of saints and sinners: How collective pride and guilt affect outgroup helping. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 781–796.https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213485995
48.
Van ZomerenM. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12031
49.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2012). On conviction’s collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x
50.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR.BettacheK. (2011). Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality?: Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 735–753.https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210395637
51.
Van ZomerenM.SpearsR.FischerA. H.LeachC. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649
52.
VázquezA.GómezÁ.SwannW. B. (2018). You just don’t get us! Positive, but non-verifying, evaluations foster prejudice and discrimination. Social Psychology, 49, 231–242.https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000346
53.
VorauerJ. D.MainK. J.O’ConnellG. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917
54.
WitkowskaM.BenedaM.Čehajić-ClancyS.BilewiczM. (2019). Fostering contact after historical atrocities: The potential of moral exemplars. Political Psychology, 40, 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12529
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.
