Moral duty or moral defence? The effects of perceiving shared humanity with the victims of ingroup perpetrated harm

42Citations
Citations of this article
92Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Previous theory and research suggests that perceiving shared humanity with others should be a positive force for intergroup relations. The present research considers the alternative possibility, that notions of shared humanity might protect people from feelings of guilt over ingroup perpetrated harm by obscuring the ingroup's unique role in these events. Consistent with this idea, Study 1 (N=58) found that perceiving shared humanity with a harmed outgroup was associated with less guilt and stronger expectations of forgiveness among members of the perpetrator group. Study 2 (N=52) demonstrated that these effects only occurred when the moral integrity of the ingroup was open to question. When ingroup morality was instead secure, defensive use of humanity was not apparent. Together, these studies suggest that perceiving harmful ingroup actions as 'only human' can sometimes be a moral defence that absolves group members of feelings of responsibility for wrongdoing. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Morton, T. A., & Postmes, T. (2011). Moral duty or moral defence? The effects of perceiving shared humanity with the victims of ingroup perpetrated harm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.751

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free