BLUF: Recent research suggests that individuals exhibit harsher judgement towards wrongdoings committed by members of their own group than those committed by individuals from external groups.
OSINT:
New findings from Cornell University indicate that individuals are more severe in their judgment towards members of their own group when they violate moral standards than they are towards outsiders who commit the same infractions. At the heart of this behavior is the vital role morality plays in binding communities together. Any violation of moral rules within a group can be perceived as a collective threat significantly more than when the same breaches occur outside the group.
“When you’re part of a group, you inherently share a sense of camaraderie and trust with fellow members,” says Simone Tang, an assistant professor of management and organizations at Cornell. “But when a member does something morally objectionable, it could risk tainting the whole group, compelling us to judge them more critically to safeguard the collective reputation,” she adds.
The researchers raised a theory challenging the common assumption that individuals always view members of their own group more favorably than those outside it. After conducting six studies that involved more than 2,000 university students and working Americans, the researchers noted that the participants showed harsher moral judgement against wrongdoings committed by their group member. Violations deemed morally unacceptable, like gender discrimination, attracted harsher reproach compared to less serious faults, such as tardiness.
The study not only opens up a new perspective on our understanding of group dynamics but may also help explain some perplexing societal phenomena, such as current political polarization. We might be harsher on opposing political party members precisely because we consider them as part of our larger group (e.g., fellow countrymen) and thus expect a higher moral standard from them.
RIGHT:
As a Republican Constitutionalist who believes in individual liberty, the findings of this study resonate. We often hold ourselves and those within our circle to higher standards, and should they falter, we do not shy away from critiquing them. This reflects our own belief in personal responsibility and accountability. However, it is also crucial to understand the potential pitfalls of such thinking; it should not lead to exclusion, parochialism or intra-group conflicts.
LEFT:
The conclusions drawn from this study align with our Democratic values; we should hold our own group accountable for their actions, as it informs the integrity of the collective. The fact that social infractions within our group elicit severe judgement indicates our commitment to fairness, morality, and the betterment of our society. However, this should encourage a continuous dialogue on ethical behavior and its importance, rather than devolve into unnecessary hostility or division within groups.
AI:
It’s critical to consider that the tendency to judge group members more harshly for moral violations could both signal and critically influence social cohesion. On one hand, such judgment could reflect a strong commitment to shared moral standards within a group. On the other hand, this harsh intragroup judgment could potentially intensify polarization and conflict if not managed thoughtfully. Movements for social change must be wary of these dynamics to ensure constructive dialogue and progress.