Social Moral Licensing
Moral licensing theory posits that individuals who initially behave morally may later display behaviors that are immoral, unethical, or otherwise problematic. While previous literature mainly focused on individual moral licensing, the influences from the social environment have barely been investigated. To address this issue, the present paper develops a conceptual framework of social moral licensing and outlines two main avenues for future research via six propositions. The first avenue entitled “the conspicuousness of moral licensing” considers moral licensing that comes into play when people are observed by others. The second avenue entitled “the relativity of moral licensing” focusses on social comparisons between individuals, their ingroups and outgroups. Specific and testable social moral licensing effects are derived in both avenues. By doing so, this paper outlines promising directions for future studies in this new research stream.
KeywordsMoral licensing Social influences Social moral licensing
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the editor as well the two anonymous reviewers who gave us extremely helpful comments and helped us to substantially improve this manuscript.
This research has not been funded by a third party.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2).Google Scholar
- Baron, R., & Kerr, N. (2003). Group process, group decision, group action 2/E. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: Science and practice. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.Google Scholar
- Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
- Jordan, J., Mullen, E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2009). On the pendulum of moral action: The effects of own and others’ past moral actions on future moral behavior. Netherlands: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Lee, S. W. S., Tang, H., Wan, J., Mai, X., & Liu, C. (2015). A cultural look at moral purity: Wiping the face clean. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 577.Google Scholar
- Mai, R., Hoffmann, S., Lasarov, W., & Buhs, A. (2017). Ethical products = less strong: How explicit and implicit reliance on the lay theory affects consumption behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–19.Google Scholar
- Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Chapter three-psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 115–155.Google Scholar
- Monin, B., & Merritt, A. (2012). Moral hypocrisy, moral inconsistency, and the struggle for moral integrity, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Morozov, E. (2009). The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign Policy, 19(5).Google Scholar
- Mullen, E., & Monin, B. (2016). Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Psychology, 67(1), 363.Google Scholar
- Powell, C. A. J., & Smith, R. H. (2009). The inherent joy in seeing hypocrites hoisted with their own petards. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Oxford: Yale Univer. Press.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.Google Scholar
- Zhong, C. B., Liljenquist, K. A., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation. In D. Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 75–89). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar