Letting People Off the Hook: When Do Good Deeds Excuse Transgressions?

Abstract

Three studies examined when and why an actor's prior good deeds make observers more willing to excuse--or license--his or her subsequent, morally dubious behavior. In a pilot study, actors' good deeds made participants more forgiving of the actors' subsequent transgressions. In Study 1, participants only licensed blatant transgressions that were in a different domain than actors' good deeds; blatant transgressions in the same domain appeared hypocritical and suppressed licensing (e.g., fighting adolescent drug use excused sexual harassment, but fighting sexual harassment did not). Study 2 replicated these effects and showed that good deeds made observers license ambiguous transgressions (e.g., behavior that might or might not represent sexual harassment) regardless of whether the good deeds and the transgression were in the same or in a different domain--but only same-domain good deeds did so by changing participants' construal of the transgressions. Discussion integrates two models of why licensing occurs.

Why and when do racial microaggressions hurt? The role of perceived diversity credentials

“…For example, in a study examining potential discrimination directed at a lesbian, gay, bisexual person (LGB) by a heterosexual person, Krumm and Corning (2008) found that third-party observers (i.e., not targets) belonging to a perpetrator's in-group (i.e., heterosexual) were less likely to perceive the heterosexual perpetrator's behavior as discriminatory when the perpetrator had high moral credentials (e.g., activist for gay rights, affiliation with LGB) than when the perpetrator had low moral credentials. Similarly, Effron and Monin (2010) found that in ambiguous transgressions (e.g., ambiguous discriminatory behavior perpetrated by a manager against his Black employees), observers licensed the manager's prior good deeds (e.g., supported affirmative action policy) regardless of domain, compared to blatant transgressions. These studies, however, did not examine the actual target's appraisal and emotional reactions to the perpetrator's behavior directed toward the target.…”

“…Some emerging work focusing on moral transgressions and meta-perceptions suggests that minority targets may focus on cues related to whether a person behavior is perceived as due to prejudice (Effron & Monin, 2010;Krumm & Corning, 2008). This research is relevant in understanding whether PDE may matter in the experience of racial microaggressions.…”

From opposition to alliance: Asian Westerners’ drive to fit in to a White society

“…If effective, moral credentials should protect actors from attributions of prejudice, and reframe their potentially incriminating actions in a more benevolent light (Effron & Monin, 2010). Although research demonstrates that people use moral credentials to license conceivably prejudiced behavior, and are personally convinced of their effectiveness (Effron, Cameron, & Monin, 2009;Merritt et al, 2012;Monin & Miller, 2001), little research has looked into how effective moral credentials actually are in shifting observers' interpretation of the behavior in question.…”

“…Indeed, actors who are motivated to moral credential often overestimate how credentialed observers will perceive them as being (Effron, 2014). Research also shows that transgressing in the same domain as that in which moral credentials have been established may provoke backlash from observers due to perceptions of hypocrisy (Effron & Monin, 2010). Disparaging a particular minority group from which one possesses friends may similarly be deemed hypocritical, and consequently incite more negative attributions.…”

“…For example, actors who have moral credentials are let off the hook by observers for their transgressions, irrespective of domain, if those transgressions are ambiguous enough to allow for reconstrual (Effron & Monin, 2010). This ambiguity caveat may be especially relevant in the context of racism.…”