When does moral engagement risk triggering a hypocrite penalty?

Jordan, Jillian J.; Sommers, Roseanna

doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101404

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this does not seem to be the case; people continue to elect leaders and support individuals and organizations that exhibit word-deed inconsistency (e.g., Kim et al, 2021). Our findings help explain this puzzle by highlighting the costs of moral flexibility, which have been largely ignored in previous hypocrisy research (Effron, O'Connor et al, 2018;Jordan & Sommers, 2022). As a result, this work helps to explain a social tolerance for hypocritical absolutism, broadly, and to explain inconsistencies in public versus private attitudes towards honesty, in particular.…”

Section: A Theoretical Model Of How Absolute and Flexible Honesty Sta...mentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Recent work, however, suggests that hypocrisy penalties are not inevitable (Jordan & Sommers, 2022). Inconsistent communicators who admit to their own moral failingsfor example, communicators who claim that it is wrong to download music illegally, but who admit that they sometimes do it anyways -are viewed more positively than "traditional" hypocrites who do not acknowledge their own inconsistency between their words and deeds (Jordan et al, 2017).…”

Section: The Costs Of Hypocrisymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Supplemental Study 2, though the communicators endorsing absolute honesty are more moral in Supplemental Study 5, similarly to Studies 1 and 2 (see SI Appendix 2.2, 2.5). Behaving hypocritically for selfish reasons can be more costly than behaving hypocritically for prosocial reasons (Jordan & Sommers, 2022), but even so, hypocritical selfish behaviors are not more costly than proclamations of moral flexibility.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On being honest about dishonesty: The social costs of taking nuanced (but realistic) moral stances

Huppert¹,

Levine²,

Landy³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This page contains materials, data, and access to the R scripts for all studies included in the article "On being honest about dishonesty: The social costs of taking nuanced (but realistic) moral stances" (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2023). Please note: © 2022, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors' permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000340

show abstract

Section: A Theoretical Model Of How Absolute and Flexible Honesty Sta...mentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: The Costs Of Hypocrisymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On being honest about dishonesty: The social costs of taking nuanced (but realistic) moral stances

Huppert¹,

Levine²,

Landy³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this study suggests that expressing guilt may risk one being perceived as a hypocrite when one commits the same act again. In such cases, exhibiting remorse would lead to more negative evaluations of the person because people would see the person as insincere (e.g., [ 44 , 45 ]). Considering that hypocrisy judgment is closely related to feelings of trust, the present findings will help us understand how expressions of shame and guilt, along with other situational factors, differentially influence the perceived authenticity of remorse, especially in legal settings (e.g., [ 46 ]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeling One Thing and Doing Another: How Expressions of Guilt and Shame Influence Hypocrisy Judgment

Choi

2022

Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated how people, as uninvolved social observers (i.e., those not affected by the emotion expresser’s behavior), judge hypocrisy in a target who publicly expresses their self-conscious emotions (i.e., shame and guilt) after making an immoral decision, then repeats the same immoral behavior again. Results across the two studies conducted showed that participants viewed the target as more hypocritical when the target expressed guilt (vs. shame) for their past misdeed and then committed the same act again. The present study suggests that social perceivers tend to infer expressions of guilt (and of shame to a lesser degree) as signaling future changes, which is reflected in judgments of hypocrisy. The study further discusses implications for the social functions of emotional expression and communication.

show abstract

“…claims that it is never okay to lie and then lies is judged more negatively than a communicator who lies but makes no such claim. Recent work, however, suggests that hypocrisy penalties are not inevitable (Jordan & Sommers, 2022). Inconsistent communicators who admit to their own moral failings-for example, communicators who claim that it is wrong to download music illegally, but who admit that they sometimes do it anyways-are viewed more positively than "traditional" hypocrites who do not acknowledge their own inconsistency between their words and deeds (Jordan et al, 2017).…”

Section: The Costs Of Hypocrisymentioning

confidence: 99%

On being honest about dishonesty: The social costs of taking nuanced (but realistic) moral stances.

Huppert¹,

Herzog²,

Landy³

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the well-documented costs of word–deed misalignment, hypocrisy permeates our personal, professional, and political lives. Why? We explore one potential explanation: the costs of moral flexibility can outweigh the costs of hypocrisy, making hypocritical moral absolutism a preferred social strategy to admissions of moral nuance. We study this phenomenon in the context of honesty. Across six studies (total N = 3545), we find that communicators who take flexible honesty stances (“It is sometimes okay to lie”) that align with their behavior are penalized more than hypocritical communicators who take absolute honesty stances (“It is never okay to lie”) that they fail to uphold. Although few people take absolute stances against deception themselves, they are more trusting of communicators who take absolute honesty stances, relative to flexible honesty stances, because they perceive absolute stances as reliable signals of communicators’ likelihood of engaging in future honesty, regardless of inconsistent behavior. Importantly, communicators—including U.S. government officials—also anticipate the costs of flexibility. This research deepens our understanding of the psychology of honesty and helps explain the persistence of hypocrisy in our social world.

show abstract

When does moral engagement risk triggering a hypocrite penalty?

Cited by 8 publications

References 48 publications

On being honest about dishonesty: The social costs of taking nuanced (but realistic) moral stances

On being honest about dishonesty: The social costs of taking nuanced (but realistic) moral stances

Feeling One Thing and Doing Another: How Expressions of Guilt and Shame Influence Hypocrisy Judgment

On being honest about dishonesty: The social costs of taking nuanced (but realistic) moral stances.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About