Moral Credential Effect

Their results showed that moral authority produced nearly identical effects under both conditions, suggesting that the influence of moral character may have been due more to self-perception motives than to impression management problems. Moral qualification refers to the act of asserting oneself as a virtuous or moral person, and recent research has shown that it can indeed foster selfish or ethically questionable behavior, whether the act of attestation occurs in public or private and whether it involves real or simple behavior imaginary (eg, Khan and Dhar, 2006; Monin and Miller, 2001). Research on morality has shown that by upholding egalitarian standards (Monin and Miller, 2001) or by reflecting on prosocial behavior (Khan and Dhar, 2006), people can increase their moral reserves and thus gain a license to express their opinions. their inegalitarian preferences or selfish behavior. In contrast to the moral trust model, which does not imply a change in the perceived meaning of permitted bad behavior, the moral criteria model shows that good behavioral stories of people provide a license for subsequent bad behavior by changing the way they are interpreted (Miller and Effron, 2010). [Sources: 5, 6]

Likewise, individual differences in self-esteem can also be explored as potential moderators of moral character in the area of ​​ethical misconduct, licensing, prejudice, or other problem areas related to values. Prevention-focused participants with positive attitudes between groups were less likely to support affirmative action when they acquired morality than when they did not (i.e. self-licensed), t (329) = -3.79, p < 0.001, d = -, 42, 95% CI [-, 64, -, 20]. A prospective researcher may attempt to explore the mechanisms underlying the moral license effect by directly incorporating moral worth and moral values ​​into the research model (Lin et al., 2016). We also found that when subordinates believed that executives’ previous ethical behavior was motivated by intrinsic rather than extrinsic motives, the impact of moral liberties was stronger. [Sources: 0, 5, 6]

For example, when non-sexist participants were offered the opportunity to shape their own moral character (for example, disagree with sexist statements or select a member from a stereotypical group), they were more likely to exhibit sexist behavior in subsequent tasks (Monin and Miller, 2001). More specifically, we assume that the greatest effect appears in samples drawn from participants from countries where moral issues are considered more important to the person’s personality. In another experiment, subjects who confirmed their reputation (at least in their minds) as good people by buying “green” products, not ordinary ones, later allowed themselves to deceive not only the subjects, but also in one experiment. moral norms. The perceived motivation of the executives’ previous moral behavior will influence the consequences of the license. [Sources: 2, 4, 6]

The state of moral freedom in which the participant is required to do or remember a good thing can be compared with the neutral state in which the participant performs or remembers a neutral behavior or the unethical state in which the participant performs or remembers a bad behavior. Regarding the problem-solving type of the experiment on the influence of moral freedom, the second task, which is used to measure the strength of the moral freedom obtained in the first task, may be more related to oneself or to the whole society. …Due to the phenomenon of moral cleansing (Conway and Peetz 2012), the comparison between the morally free group and the neutral control group should result in a smaller effect size than the group where the participants perform unethical tasks. In Study 3, when participants are motivated to make choices, the influence of choice will be weakened. [Sources: 1, 2]

Therefore, research on moral freedom shows that moral behavior will lead to lower moral standards and lower moral behavior. In a study published by Stanford University in the online journal “Guide to Social and Personality Psychology,” researchers wrote that when people face the ethical uncertainty of social life, moral freedom will emerge. This kind of psychological bargaining is called “moral freedom”, and it explains that when people initially show morality, they are more likely to show unethical, unethical, or problematic behavior in other ways. If people do things that do not meet their normal moral standards, their psychological billboards will become scarce, and they can actually look for good deeds (such as donations or volunteering to help charities) to put their billboards back on the scale. [Sources: 2, 3, 4]

In the second task, they also have the opportunity to demonstrate moral behavior. Third, this study emphasizes the internal balance of moral behavior in individuals. The next time someone you admire or think is morally good behaves contrary to this rule, don’t be surprised. [Sources: 2, 3, 6]

On the other hand, if they do something in which they feel good enough, such as doing a great service to a stranger, their scoreboard shows a positive result and they may give themselves permission (just this time) to not live up to their normal ethical standards. … … [Sources: 4]


— Slimane Zouggari


##### Sources #####