Differing Moral Judgments of In-Group and Out-Group Actions

It is well-established that people favor members of their in-groups, and also protect and cooperate more with them, compared with out-groups. We investigated whether this differential treatment applied to how people evaluate morally questionable behavior of others. In two experiments, one exploratory and one pre-registered, participants viewed narratives that randomly varied the political, racial, national, or religious affiliation of actors who commit morally questionable actions (e.g., failing to help a fellow student struggling to carry books). As hypothesized, people gave greater approval to behavior of in-group members, compared with when the same action was taken by an out-group member. This seemed to be caused less by mere group identity, and more because of potential utility from supporting an in-group member. Surprisingly, however, effects were not stronger when the in-group was presented as under threat. People also tended to rate in-group members as better intentioned and less biased. The strongest effects were related to whether the act reflects upon the group. Questionable behavior from in-group members was seen as an individual action by a “bad apple,” while the same action committed by an out-group member reflected badly on the whole group. This finding may explain reluctance by individuals to rectify the bad behavior of members of their groups. Overall, these results identify a factor that may contribute to intergroup conflict, given that the same action can lead to moral outrage or a more muted response, depending on group affiliation.