Psychological License

Miller, Dale T.; Effron, Daniel A.

doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(10)43003-8

Cited by 264 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

177

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We reveal a novel source of standing -paying a price for a misdeed -as well as several new consequences of having it: increased perceptions that advice-giving is legitimate, greater comfort giving advice, and less negative reactions from advice-receivers. Along with previous research on standing, our results speak to how perceptions of legitimacy can liberate or constrain behavior (Miller & Effron, 2010;Miller et al, 2009). Failure to advocate for a cause, express an attitude, or offer advice need not indicate that one lacks the motivation to do so; instead, it may reflect a perceived lack of standing.…”

Section: Implications For Psychological Standing and Legitimacysupporting

confidence: 80%

“…In a similar manner, previously succumbing to a temptation can deny people the legitimacy to advise others to resist it. We describe the subjective sense of legitimacy or entitlement to act or to speak up as psychological standing (Miller, 1999;Miller & Effron, 2010;Miller, Effron, & Zak, 2009). When people lack the psychological standing to express a particular attitude, even one with which others agree, they will feel uncomfortable and inhibit themselves from speaking up, or risk censure.…”

Section: Suffering As a Source Of Psychological Standingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it

Effron

Miller

2015

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Implications For Psychological Standing and Legitimacysupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Suffering As a Source Of Psychological Standingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it

Effron

Miller

2015

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Motivation impels people to act; a license, by contrast, allows people to act if they wish (Miller & Effron, 2010). In other words, we propose that perceived ingroup entitativity seems to legitimize prejudice, and gives people standing to express prejudiced views if they already hold them.…”

Section: A Plausibility Constraintmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…As a result, people who perceive their ingroup as entitative, compared with people who do not, will be more likely to give voice to their anti-outgroup prejudices (if they indeed have such prejudices). We describe this phenomenon as a licensing effect (Miller & Effron, 2010), indi cating that membership in an entitative group grants people per mission or legitimacy to express prejudiced attitudes without nec essarily changing their private attitudes.2…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Entitativity and intergroup bias: How belonging to a cohesive group allows people to express their prejudices.

Effron¹,

Knowles

2015

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose that people treat prejudice as more legitimate when it seems rationalistic-that is, linked to a group's pursuit of collective interests. Groups that appear to be coherent and unified wholes (entitative groups) are most likely to have such interests. We thus predicted that belonging to an entitative group licenses people to express prejudice against outgroups. Support for this idea came from 3 correlational studies and 5 experiments examining racial, national, and religious prejudice. The first 4 studies found that prejudice and discrimination seemed more socially acceptable to third parties when committed by members of highly entitative groups, because people could more easily explain entitative groups' biases as a defense of collective interests. Moreover, ingroup entitativity only lent legitimacy to outgroup prejudice when an interests-based explanation was plausible-namely, when the outgroup could possibly threaten the ingroup's interests. The last 4 studies found that people were more willing to express private prejudices when they perceived themselves as belonging to an entitative group. Participants' perceptions of their own race's entitativity were associated with a greater tendency to give explicit voice to their implicit prejudice against other races. Furthermore, experimentally raising participants' perceptions of ingroup entitativity increased explicit expressions of outgroup prejudice, particularly among people most likely to privately harbor such prejudices (i.e., highly identified group members). Together, these findings demonstrate that entitativity can lend a veneer of legitimacy to prejudice and disinhibit its expression. We discuss implications for intergroup relations and shifting national demographics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

show abstract

“…Thus, some customers felt that their inefficient showering practices (e.g., using a low-flow shower-head and/or having frequent, long hot showers) were acceptable because they curtailed the duration of their shower instead. This rationalization shows some resemblance to the seemingly paradoxical phenomenon of "moral licensing"-the tendency for people to become less pro-social and ethical after they have performed a good deed, presumably because they feel they have then "earned a license" to engage in self-interested behavior [41]. Indeed, this effect has been used to explain the side effects of increased electricity consumption observed during a water conservation campaign among 154 apartment dwellers [42].…”

Section: Bathroom Practicesmentioning

confidence: 86%

Exploring Everyday Energy Usage Practices in Australian Households: A Qualitative Analysis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In recent years, energy conservation research has identified a number of household actions that have the potential to drive significant reductions in carbon emissions in the near-term, without requiring substantial changes to householders' lifestyles or imposing significant financial costs. In this qualitative study, we investigate the potential of some of these actions for behavioral modification by asking householders to reveal the reasons why they perform (or fail to perform) such actions. As part of a telephone survey, a sample of customers (n = 1541) from an Australian energy retailer were asked about their reasons for engaging in specific energy usage practices in one of five household domains: laundry, kitchen, bathroom, space heating/cooling or general appliance usage. Qualitative analyses of participants' open-ended responses revealed that practices in the laundry and kitchen appear to hold the greatest promise for behavioral change, whereas practices in the shower may be more challenging to modify. Integrating our findings with current psychological and sociological knowledge, we present a range of possibilities for future behavior change interventions at the practice-level.

show abstract

Psychological License

Cited by 264 publications

References 38 publications

Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it

Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it

Entitativity and intergroup bias: How belonging to a cohesive group allows people to express their prejudices.

Exploring Everyday Energy Usage Practices in Australian Households: A Qualitative Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About