Moral and ethical conduct (and their absence) in groups,politics,and society: Introduction to the special issue

Abstract

Morality—broadly defined as the distinction between “right” and “wrong” ways to behave—represents one of the most important and appealing inquiries within the realm of social sciences. Past research has consistently shown that morality dominates social perception and serves regulatory functions that help individuals define their social identities, regulate intragroup dynamics, and shape intergroup and political relations. We introduce a special issue that presents 10 articles that center on the theme of morality as a tool for regulating social life at different levels. These articles can be broadly organized into three interrelated macrothemes: intragroup processes, intergroup processes, and political processes. The research studies described in the special issue highlight the societal and political implications of morality; in particular, these studies allow us to map out particular strategies and policy recommendations aimed at diminishing the negative and enhancing the positive implications of morality, and at avoiding moral conflicts.

The study of morality—generally meant as the distinction between “right” and “wrong” ways to behave (Haidt & Kesebir, 2010)—has undoubtedly always been one of the most important and fascinating inquiries within the realm of social sciences. This is in part due to its philosophical legacy since issues related to morality, such as fairness, collective responsibilities, or the social nature of human beings, have been the subject of philosophical inquiry for centuries (Aristotle, 2009; Kant, 2012/1785; Nietzsche, 2006/1887). An examination of social psychology research over the last 2 decades reveals that the subject of morality has attracted an exceptionally high level of interest among researchers, surpassing that of many other relevant topics (Ellemers et al., 2019). The increasing attention to the topic of morality is evidenced not only by the total number of publications on the subject, but also by the organization of thematic conferences (e.g., meetings sponsored by the European Association of Social Psychology), thematic research networks, special issues in scientific journals, and comprehensive handbooks which seek to shape the literature on this topic (e.g., Ellemers et al., 2023).

Such a renewed interest in morality and its manifestations has been magnified by recent sociopolitical changes that are shaping the future of societies. The COVID-19 pandemic that broke out in early 2020 is a case in point. Over the past 3 years, many researchers worldwide have joined forces to understand how the social regulatory functions of morality could be used to foster behaviors to reduce COVID-19 transmissions (e.g., Pagliaro et al., 2021; Plohl & Musil, 2021; van Bavel et al., 2020); to promote vaccination through communication framed in terms of moral issues (e.g., Larson, 2020; Zhang et al., 2023); to (examine and) contrast the spread of COVID-19-related conspiracy theories (e.g., Gkinopoulos et al., 2022); or to promote prosocial behavior and reduce prejudice (e.g., Clissold et al., 2020; Huo, 2020). In the same vein, but in the opposite direction, researchers have showed that morality-related considerations have been used to justify prejudice and discrimination (e.g., Passini, 2023; Simić et al., 2022).

The COVID-19 pandemic is not the only challenge societies have been dealing with in recent times, although it has been and still is a pervasive one. We currently live in challenging times that confront us with the war in Ukraine, which could represent the harbinger of a world crisis, a global energy crisis, a widespread mistrust of science and politics, the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories, or a resurgence of ultra-conservative ideologies in many countries. Morality may play a role in each of these situations as it underpins human life in a variety of settings and constitutes the foundation of moral standards aimed at protecting the collective welfare of societies (Kinsella & Kinsella, 2009). For instance, morality affects the way people view and interact with their governments in political contexts, shapes the moral choices healthcare professionals face when saving lives during health crises, and influences social interactions with outgroups who have been discriminated against during uncertain times, when people seek to attribute responsibility for the problems they face.

Amid persistent uncertainty and beyond, people need to make moral choices that are deeply rooted in shared values within groups or communities (Ellemers, 2017). In doing so, people reflect on their moral values related to their identities, particularly when facing difficult decisions, dilemmas, or when interacting with members of outgroups and deciding whom to include or exclude from their moral community and inner circle (Ellemers et al., 2013; Haidt & Kesebir, 2010; Leach et al., 2014; Pagliaro et al., 2011; Tomasello & Vaish, 2013). In other words, morality plays a crucial role in regulating our everyday social life.

The Primacy of Morality in Social Judgment and Its Regulatory Functions

Classical models of social judgment tended to cluster individuals’ judgments about themselves and others into two main evaluative dimensions, namely warmth (e.g., friendliness, honesty) and competence (e.g., skillfulness, smartness; Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Fiske et al., 2007; for a review, see Brambilla & Leach, 2014). While this general distinction has been widely and fruitfully applied to many contexts, subsequent studies have proposed that the warmth dimension encompasses two subdimensions that are distinct both in terms of theoretical meaning and of empirical evidence: sociability and morality (Leach et al., 2007). Grounded in the seminal work of Leach and colleagues, a substantial body of research has shown that morality actually represents the dimension that dominates social judgments. Without denying the relevance of the competence (and sociability) dimension, research has consistently found that individuals rely to a greater extent on information about morality when they describe themselves or judge others (e.g., Brambilla et al., 2021), as well as when they evaluate and choose the groups they want to belong to (e.g., Ellemers, 2017; Leach et al., 2007), evaluate (and behave toward) ingroup and outgroup members (Brambilla et al., 2013; Ellemers et al., 2008; Pagliaro et al., 2011; 2013), and decide how to behave in an intergroup context (e.g., Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2021; Pacilli et al., 2016; Vezzali et al., 2017).

In an attempt to shape this body of research, Ellemers and van den Bos (2012) suggested that morality plays several regulatory functions that help individuals build their own social identity, coordinate behaviors within groups, and regulate intergroup relations. In particular, morality serves an identity regulation function that helps people shape their own collective identity and link them to the groups they belong to. Individuals consider it important to perceive themselves as moral (Pagliaro et al., 2016), and when it comes to considering their collective self, they actively seek to belong to groups that are considered as such (Leach et al., 2007). As a consequence, this has a positive spillover on their identification with such groups, and they feel pride in and committed to their ingroup.

If morality contributes to defining and strengthening people’s social identity, it also represents a fundamental tool to regulate intragroup dynamics. Groups serve as “moral anchors” (Ellemers, 2017) that provide individuals with normative guidelines about the proper way to behave in order to be considered a good group member and to earn the respect of the group (Ellemers et al., 2013). This behavioral regulation function of morality has been confirmed, for instance, with regard to group norms and social influence (e.g., Ellemers et al., 2008; Pagliaro et al., 2011), reactions to ingroup deviance (e.g., Pagliaro et al., 2016), whistleblowing (Dungan et al., 2019; Pacilli et al., 2022), leadership and leader endorsement (e.g., Giannella et al., 2022; Wang & Li, 2019), effects of ethical climate on employee reactions (e.g., Pagliaro et al., 2018; Teresi et al., 2019), and group feedback and criticism (Rösler et al., 2023).

The third regulatory function of morality is related to the management of intergroup relations. Researchers have shown, for instance, that people differentially react to an immoral ingroup versus outgroup member, with the former posing a threat to the ingroup’s image and the latter a threat to the ingroup’s safety (e.g., Brambilla et al., 2013). Additionally, it has been shown that outgroup dehumanization may be the result of the perception of moral distance between the ingroup and the outgroup (e.g., Bastian et al., 2013; Cassese, 2021; Pacilli et al., 2016), and that the positive effect of contact might be driven by an enhanced perception of moral similarity between the ingroup and the outgroup (e.g., Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2021).

Moreover, moral-exemplar-based interventions might be useful to promote conflict resolution (Čehajić-Clancy & Bilewicz, 2021), and moral stances might motivate engagement in collective actions that benefit the outgroup (e.g., Vezzali et al., 2023). Furthermore, research has shown that political intergroup judgments and attitudes are fundamentally rooted in moral considerations, with liberals and conservatives constructing their moral evaluations on different foundations (e.g., Graham et al., 2009).

Societal and Political Implications of the Study of Morality

A decade ago, Haidt (2012) argued that moral reasoning helps “further our social agendas—to justify our own actions and to defend the teams we belong to” (p. 5). From this, we can easily infer that the implications of morality extend far beyond academic research and can have significant impacts on society and policy-making. Although morality is often conceived as the pinnacle of goodness, it can also be a major impediment to societal progress and functioning (Kovacheff et al., 2018). While people’s moral codes may motivate moral and cooperative intra- and intergroup behaviors as described before, the absolute nature of such moral codes can also lead to negative interpersonal or intergroup outcomes. The latter occur because people tend to dehumanize those who disagree with their moral values and beliefs, and this can justify any means towards a moral end (Gollwitzer & Melzer, 2012; Lee & Schwarz, 2010; McGraw & Tetlock, 2005; Pacilli et al., 2018). These moral codes function as moral mandates for individuals and societies (Skitka, 2002; Skitka & Houston, 2001), and their violation has important implications for individual, collective, and public welfare.

This special issue of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations presents a variety of evidence that brings the positive and negative societal implications of morality to the foreground. Furthermore, through the articles of our special issue, we are able to map out particular strategies and policy recommendations at a societal and collective group level aimed at diminishing the negative and enhancing the positive implications of morality, and at avoiding moral conflicts. Most importantly, a sense of shared identity and the existence of superordinate goals and intergroup contact can cultivate positive moral perceptions of outgroups by considering what unites people and groups, rather than what divides them (Frimer et al., 2017). Interaction with outgroups appears to be the key to shared group identification and to the change of outgroup attitudes towards a moral perception of outgroup members and their values (Brambilla et al., 2013).

The study of morality has wide implications for human interaction if we consider the significant role of moral perspective-taking (Feinberg & Willer, 2015), in both individual and group relations, in establishing trustworthy relations. This is of the utmost importance in an era of major global crises—such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate crisis, and the Ukrainian war—that divide people and fuel hostile behaviors (e.g., Bartoš et al., 2021). Providing evidence on the positive societal implications of moral conviction, beliefs, and behaviors may facilitate the development of trust among people and, eventually, the effective management of such global crises.

Furthermore, the study of morality can shed light on the role of moral considerations in shaping public policy and on the effectiveness of these policies. Morality can constitute a tool for resolving major problems relevant to politics and the public good. In 1997, Gyekye (1997) captured the role of morality in politics, suggesting that political corruption can be eliminated through commitment to a moral revolution; responses of community members in line with their societal beliefs, moral arrangements, and norms can help reduce political corruption. Meanwhile, in recent times, populism and populist leadership practices suggest an even greater need to involve morality in our political psychological understanding of such phenomena. Populist political leaders often use moral arguments to advance their political agendas and interests (Mudde, 2017). In this context, populist leaders claim a moral mandate stemming directly from “the people” (Eatwell & Goodwin, 2018). Moral mandates allegedly serve nations’ interests, marginalizing at the same time the “immoral elites” (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2017). Therefore, when considering the political implications of morality, it is clear that major political decisions are made by politicians who appeal to audiences’ moral principles by emphasizing the moral content of their own political agenda and decisions.

One aspect of the political implications of morality relates to how morality is used as a political tool by populist leaderships to divide people, or to widespread phenomena such as political corruption. We should note also that the liberal–conservative ideological divide in American politics broadly stems from diverging values, as well as moral beliefs (Haidt, 2012).

In addition, the study of morality has important implications when considering morality from an ethical leadership perspective. In the era of globalization, which requires communication between countries and regions worldwide, groups—from the workplace level to a wider institutional group or political party—have a wide array of moral values that confront them and that raise the possibility of intercultural conflict (Li et al., 2012). Research on morality can be informative and impactful, depending on the importance leaders place on their ethical vision and on creating a socially responsible culture (May et al., 2015). Therefore, morality can provide a conceptual lens not only for populist leadership and divisive practices, but also for political behaviors and leadership models that aim at setting a good example for their followers by sharing common moral standards as reference points for the whole group.

Thus, the relevance of morality is visible virtually in every aspect of social life. This special issue aimed at including a wide range of empirical findings and theoretical stances relating to different aspects of morality, and at providing evidence of how these are manifested in intragroup, intergroup, political, and broader societal settings. We believe that the papers included in this special issue largely reflect the initial aims of this project, as we describe in the next section.

The Special Issue

This special issue presents 10 articles that revolve around the theme of morality as a tool for regulating social life at different levels. These articles can be broadly organized into three macrothemes: intragroup processes, intergroup processes, and political processes. However, it should be noted that these areas of investigation are interrelated, and several papers in the issue cover more than one.

In the first macroarea, we have included the papers authored by Wagoner and Rinella, Rullo et al. van der Lee et al., and Ronay et al. Wagoner and Rinella paper focuses on schism intentions as predicted by ideological asymmetries in morality. More specifically, the authors synthesize different bodies of literature—from social identity theory and social psychological models of schism to moral foundation theory and similar theoretical frameworks—to make an argument about differences in group schism intentions between liberals and conservatives. The authors provide robust evidence for the predictive role of political ideologies in people’s susceptibility to perceptions of moral violations and, in turn, people’s schism intentions stemming from those moral violation perceptions. In this way, Wagoner and Rinella work has strong implications for our understanding of identity subversion processes and, eventually, schisms within groups. Their findings also have significant relevance to our understanding of recent crises that have resulted in deep societal rifts and have caused people to reconsider the meaning of emotions elicited by belonging to a group.

Moral judgements, attitudes, and perceptions are embedded in how people as individuals or as group members perceive their own or others’ behaviors and actions in response to expected moral standards. Rullo et al.’s paper offers empirical evidence addressing when people denounce or keep silent about acts of misconduct committed by fellow ingroup members. Specifically, Rullo and colleagues bring to the foreground a very familiar phenomenon in ingroups’ lives, the omertà, that is, a code of silence within organizations and other groups where ingroup members protect each other notwithstanding their moral wrongdoings. The article confirms the role of shared social identities in favoring immoral and dishonest behaviors, such as cheating and omertà, emphasizing loyalty toward ingroup cheaters. People thus face a dilemma in relation to denouncing immoral behaviors or not, something that leads us to a somewhat paradoxical conceptualization of morality.

Group members often evaluate the behavior of fellow ingroup members with the intention of eliciting desirable behaviors (Levine & Moreland, 1994). This evaluation may be related to several dimensions, such as competence and morality. Although negative moral evaluations may seem like an effective way to encourage behavior change, compared for example to negative evaluations in terms of competence, the article by van der Lee et al. suggests otherwise. The authors found that negative moral evaluations elicit a motivational state of threat rather than challenge, reducing the evaluations’ effectiveness in shaping group member behavior. Interestingly, this is evident not only in self-report measures, as has been shown in past research, but emerges when considering cardiovascular responses to intragroup evaluations. Therefore, when attempting to motivate group members towards behavioral change, the use of moral criticism may have unintended consequences.

The perceived morality of a leader plays a very significant role in warranting followers’ support and endorsement (e.g., Giannella et al., 2022). The article by Ronay et al. which closes this first section on intragroup processes, examines the conditions under which politicians are not supported by their followers. Specifically, the paper provides evidence that followers respond to dominant leaders by banding together in collective moral opposition in order to resist, and even topple, incumbent leaders whose leadership is deemed to be immoral. This paper offers, as a recent example, the 2016 coup in Turkey and the leadership of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan as a case of immoral leadership opposed by the people.

The argument of this paper has a wide impact. The authors write about the “moral contract” between leaders and followers, and discusses when this contract is broken, calling on further research on the conditions under which dominant leaderships can be judged as moral or immoral. Finally, the question is raised of what kind of implications there can be for establishing or breaking trust between leaders and followers, especially in contexts of dynamic institutional changes.

Moving on to consider the effects of morality in the context of intergroup processes, the paper by Čehajić-Clancy and Olsson examines whether reminders of ingroup harmdoing could enhance moral engagement and reparation attempts, besides the defensiveness already documented in past literature. The issue is examined experimentally in the context of historical atrocities committed against indigenous people in Sweden. On the one hand, Čehajić-Clancy and Olsson argue that the relevance of individuals’ moral identity is related to their willingness to make reparations to the outgroup for the injustices they suffered (e.g., by means of monetary donations to the outgroup). On the other hand, they suggest that ingroup moral exemplars might trigger these positive effects, and their findings show in fact that those who learned about morally admirable behaviors (vs. neutral ones) performed by ingroup fellow members were more likely to endorse and engage in prosocial behaviors benefiting the outgroup. Overall, this intriguing paper focuses on the promotion of prosociality—in the context of historical conflicts—by fostering ways of affirming people’s threatened moral identity.

Interestingly, whereas Čehajić-Clancy and Olsson paper considers ingroup moral exemplars as a trigger to affirm a positive moral identity and to promote prosociality, Alonso-Arbiol and colleagues focus on the effect of outgroup moral exemplars on outgroup attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral intentions. As such, the moral exemplars framework (Čehajić-Clancy & Bilewicz, 2021) to promote positive intergroup behavior is also at the heart of this paper. The authors report that watching a video clip presenting a story about migrant essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (vs. a neutral video clip involving immigrants) induced more positive outgroup attitudes and beliefs, as well as behavioral intentions, and these effects were mediated by self-transcendent emotions. Thus, this paper extends the moral exemplars framework to consider how such exemplars may be derived, and admired, also from the outgroup.

The last paper in this second macroarea presents data collected from a non-Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (non-WEIRD) sample in a tribal context in Nigeria. Cocco and colleagues relied on the common ingroup identity model to investigate the link between a superordinate group identity and the engagement of a majority group in collective action strategies aimed at creating a more equitable society. Interestingly, Cocco et al. depart from the classic binary ingroup–outgroup logic, to consider two outgroups varying in social status among Nigerian tribes. In line with the theoretical framework of the common ingroup identity model, they found that superordinate identification was positively associated with collective action intentions toward both groups via greater moral convictions. Thus, this paper shows that a common identity may influence moral convictions and, as a consequence, foster collective action.

The articles by Walter and Kutlaca and Boggio et al. are more directly related to political psychology topics. As noted before, moral perceptions are not only embedded or occur in contexts of relations between social groups, but also in institutional and political settings. Such perceptions follow, for example, major political events and instances where politicians either are perceived by the people as immoral or where they actually violate socially and morally established values. The article by Walter and Kutlaca exemplifies an approach to morality-relevant topics in political environments and their implications for understanding political processes. The authors argue that politicians’ violations of social and moral norms reflect on their uncivil behaviors. However, immoral actions of politicians are not judged as such when the judgements come from their supporters. Evidence is provided regarding the moral approval of otherwise immoral actions, taking into account the ideological underpinnings of such judgements in the context of differences between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. This research sheds further light on political group relations and exemplifies how moral beliefs and judgements can inform political communication scholarship, directing future research towards questions that relate to how politicians’ words and actions are judged in intergroup (often conflicting) settings.

Boggio and colleagues conducted a large-scale study to explore the impact of morality on public health behavior in the context of the first wave of the COVID-19 global pandemic. The research, which included samples from 68 countries, found evidence suggesting that moral concern can mobilize citizens to support public health policies and adopt behaviors that benefit the collective good. The research adopted a novel approach by using Google mobility reports to estimate active engagement to combat the pandemic through real-world behavior, and focused on investigating the potential association between moral motivation and increased self-restriction during the first wave of the pandemic. The findings of the three studies emphasize the importance of framing public health messages in terms of moral obligation, rather than solely individual benefit, in order to effectively promote necessary health related behaviors during times of crisis.

The special issue closes with a theoretical article by van Nunspeet and Ellemers, which introduces the paradox of morality as a useful lens to examine (im)moral behaviors in intergroup contexts. The authors propose that individuals are motivated to act in ways that align with what is considered moral by others, but may be hesitant to acknowledge their own or others’ morally relevant shortcomings. This creates a cycle of negative behavior in human relationships, where individuals may openly criticize others’ moral values, actions, and beliefs. This paper turns our attention towards establishing a virtuous cycle of moral behavior regulation by highlighting shared norms and common ideals, increasing abilities to focus on what unites people and, eventually, providing moral opportunities for repairing past wrongdoings.

Concluding Remarks

This special issue aimed at bringing together theoretically and methodologically impactful research from different parts of the world on the dynamics of morality across a range of topics and from a range of theoretical approaches. As guest editors, we were fortunate to receive many excellent submissions relative to the regulatory functions that morality may have across a variety of contexts and topics. We believe that the final result reflects the enthusiasm that fuels research on the topic of morality in social psychology. At the same time, the research presented here certainly does not exhaust the interest that the social and behavioral sciences are showing in the theme of morality, and we hope it encourages new and interesting investigations regarding how moral considerations shape identities and regulate social life.