Sensitivity to ingroup and outgroup norms in the association between commonality and morality

Abstract

Emerging research suggests that people infer that common behaviors are moral and vice versa. The studies presented here investigated the role of group membership in inferences regarding commonality and morality. In Study 1, participants expected a target character to infer that behaviors that were common among their ingroup were particularly moral. However, the extent to which behaviors were common among the target character's outgroup did not influence expectations regarding perceptions of morality. Study 2 reversed this test, finding that participants expected a target character to infer that behaviors considered moral among their ingroup were particularly common, regardless of how moral their outgroup perceived those behaviors to be. While Studies 1-2 relied on fictitious behaviors performed by novel groups, Studies 3-4 generalized these results to health behaviors performed by members of different racial groups. When answering from another person's perspective (Study 3) and from their own perspective (Study 4), participants reported that the more common behaviors were among their ingroup, the more moral those behaviors were. This effect was significantly weaker for perceptions regarding outgroup norms, although outgroup norms did exert some effect in this real-world context. Taken together, these results highlight the complex integration of ingroup and outgroup norms in socio-moral cognition.

Following your group or your morals? The in-group promotes immoral behavior while the out-group buffers against it

“…Even though participants became more honest after observing an honest out-group member, they failed to positively judge such moral virtuosity. Instead, an outgroup member's honesty was perceived as on par with a dishonest ingroup member, conceptually replicating the general phenomenon that people perceive in-group behavior as more indicative of morality than the same behaviors from an out-group member (Goldring & Heiphetz, 2020). This parallels the daily moral contortions observed in the news and on social media, where people are quick to condone immoralities committed by their own political party but easily overlook the moral acts endorsed by the opposing party.…”

Do Social Norms Influence Young People’s Willingness to Take the COVID-19 Vaccine?

“…This implies that within the social identity framework, the distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms is less clear: Behaviors that are common among ingroup members not only describe behavior but also prescribe it, because they tell members how they should behave to fit in (Hogg & Reid, 2006). For example, a recent study by Goldring and Heiphetz (2020) found that the more common people believe that certain behaviors are in the ingroup, the more moral they perceive these behaviors to be (and this effect was not as prominent for the outgroup). The tendency to be influenced by perceptions of what others do should therefore be especially likely when one identifies with, or feels similar to, the (norm) reference group (Christensen et al, 2004).…”

Testing the limits of structural thinking about gender

“…Such essentialist thought is also associated with negative outcomes including prejudice and stereotypes (e.g., Chen & Ratliff, 2018). Further, combined with people's tendency to conflate "what it is" with "what ought to be" (Roberts et al, 2017), these forms of reasoning may cause stronger negativity towards non-typical category members because the norms they violate are treated as innate and critical features of the category membership, perhaps especially towards ingroup members (Goldring & Heiphetz, 2020).…”