Thou shalt not discriminate: How emphasizing moral ideals rather than obligations increases Whites' support for social equality

Abstract

An important step toward reducing group-based disparities in society is creating support for equality among advantaged group members (e.g., Whites, men). The current research examined how presenting social equality between ethnic groups in terms of moral ideals (i.e., equal treatment) vs. moral obligations (i.e., non-discrimination) affected the attitudes of Whites (students in Study 1, N = 45 and 2, N = 44 and employees in Study 3a, N = 67 and Study 3b, N = 62) toward various social equality issues. Results showed that participants in the moral ideals condition reported more activation rather than inhibition action tendencies related to improving equality (Study 1), were more supportive of affirmative action (Study 2), indicated lower levels of threat to their social identity, and held more favorable attitudes towards cultural diversity which resulted in greater prioritization of equality (Study 3a). These effects did not arise when the ideals/obligations distinction was applied to a nonmoral domain (i.e., competence, Study 3b), underlining the central argument that these processes are specific to morality. The theoretical implications and limitations of the current work are discussed.Keywords: morality, intergroup relations, motivation, social equality 2 We live in a world that is still marked by inequality between social groups (e.g., Whites versus Blacks, men versus women). It has been argued that an effective means for establishing a more equal society is by use of affirmative action (i.e., policies aimed at increasing the entrance of disadvantaged group members in educational and/or professional settings, Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006). The success of affirmative action is partly determined by the endorsement of such programs by currently advantaged groups (e.g., Whites, men). However, support for policies that promote equality is often the lowest among advantaged group members (e.g., Niemann & Dovidio, 1998). Previous work has aimed to increase support for affirmative action by focusing advantaged group members on moral wrongdoings committed by their group (e.g., colonialism, slavery). A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTWe argue that this approach may be suboptimal. The current research aims to demonstrate that a moral incentive presented in terms of ideals (a focus on approaching positive moral outcomes) rather than obligations (a focus on avoiding negative moral outcomes) stimulates more favorable attitudes among advantaged group members toward social equality issues, including affirmative action. Opposition to Social Equality and Group PositionDisplays of ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation are most common among members of advantaged rather than disadvantaged groups (Guimond, Dif, & Aupy, 2002;Sidanius, Pratto, Martin, & Stallworth, 1991). Even though legislative changes in recent history have given rise to the social consensus that discrimination is morally objectionable (Plant & Devine, 1998), more subtle, indirect forms of discrimination and 3 A C C E P T E D M ...

Should the moral core of climate issues be emphasized or downplayed in public discourse? Three ways to successfully manage the double-edged sword of moral communication

“…This proposition receives support from other recent research: Does et al (2011) showed that moral ideals (ought) are better suited for motivating the intended change in behaviour than moral obligations (must). Other research suggests that people can easily construe issues in either moral or non-moral terms.…”

The threat of moral transgression: The impact of group membership and moral opportunity

“…An interesting direction for future research would be to examine the potential utility of moral opportunity for motivating participants to actively improve group conduct. The current findings suggest there may be particular value in reparation measures that focus on opportunities to improve moral practices in the future rather than ways of redressing the moral transgressions of the past (see also Does et al, 2011). Thus, rather than asking individual group members whether they think they should take responsibility for the consequences of past moral transgressions, it might be more appropriate to capture the impact of providing people with moral opportunity by assessing their willingness to be involved or invest effort in the development or adoption of novel measures to improve moral behavior in the future (see also Zimmermann, Abrams, Doosje, & Manstead, 2011).…”

Morality in Groups: On the Social‐Regulatory Functions of Right and Wrong

“…The way in which social equality is connected to moral goals does matter, though. Whereas moral ideals can challenge people to achieve these goals, setting equality as a moral obligation tends to raise threat and resistance (Does et al., 2011, Does et al., 2012).…”

“…When the moral ideal of equal opportunities (in this case on the labor market) for members of different ethnic groups is made explicit, majority group members can be activated to improve equality. They then indicate personal commitment to achieving the goal of equality and are inclined to support affirmative action and cultural diversity (Does, Derks, & Ellemers, 2011). The way in which social equality is connected to moral goals does matter, though.…”