Based on the unique features of morality, we suggest that group memberships rooted in moral convictions are a special classification of inherently threatening social groups in which outgroup “hate” naturally occurs with ingroup “love.” Three studies explored emotional reactions to ingroups and outgroups by individuals whose group memberships were either morality-based or non-morality-based. Results of each study indicated that individuals in morality-based groups reported less positive ingroup emotions and more negative outgroup emotions and threat than did those in non-morality-based groups. Additionally, strength of morality-based identification was predicted by attitudes about both the ingroup and the outgroup, but only attitudes about the ingroup predicted identification for non-morality-based groups. Together, these studies suggest a necessary interdependence of ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity for social groups based in morality. We conclude that negative outgroup-related emotions may be just as important as positive ingroup-related emotions for social identification based on moral convictions.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Males and females demonstrated similar levels of positivity toward N-MB ingroups (Ms = 6.60 and 7.27, respectively) and MB ingroups (Ms = 5.29 and 5.76, respectively). Outgroup negativity was also similar for males and females for N-MB outgroups (Ms = 2.27 and 2.10) and MB outgroups (Ms = 2.74 and 3.46). None of the differences between males and females were significant.
Threat significantly mediated the group difference for both majority and minority groups. In a moderated mediation analysis, status had no effect on the group difference for threat, b = −.08, SE = 0.72, p = .91, nor did it moderate the relationship between threat and outgroup negativity, b = 0.13, SE = 0.13, p = .33. The confidence intervals for the indirect effect indicated significant mediation for both majority (95 % CI [0.72, 2.24]) and minority groups (95 % CI [0.54, 1.97]).
This analysis was presented separately by group type to aid interpretation. We also conducted a similar analysis using moderated regression to test differences in the relationships across groups. We found a significant interaction between the outgroup feeling thermometer and the group type, b = −0.029, SE = 0.14, p = .038. The interaction with the ingroup feeling thermometer and the group type was marginally significant, b = −0.037, SE = 0.021, p = .086. Though not expected, this trend suggests ingroup feelings are less related to identification for MB groups compared to N-MB groups when controlling for feelings about the outgroup.
Political liberals and conservatives were combined because there were not enough conservatives in the sample to test separately. The individual means suggested the same pattern of results for both liberals and conservatives. On ingroup positivity, both liberals (M = 4.25) and conservatives (M = 3.47) were lower than the student group (M = 5.32). On outgroup negativity, both liberals (M = 3.16) and conservatives (M = 2.07) were higher than the student group (M = 1.14). On perceived threat, liberals (M = 0.91) and conservatives (M = 0.60) both felt greater threat than did students (M = −2.45).
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Basic Books.
Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Group beliefs as an expression of social identity. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Páez, & J. C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity: International perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.
Brown, R. J. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 341–359.
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–789.
De Waal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505–520.
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101–124.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002.
Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 65–72.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, Fall(1), 55–66.
Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1–36.
Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science, 19, 405–411.
Halevy, N., Weisel, O., & Bornstein, G. (2012). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” in repeated interaction between groups. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 188–195.
Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, method, and point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hodson, G., Dovidio, J. F., & Esses, V. M. (2003). Ingroup identification as a moderator of positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 215–233.
Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462–479). New York: Guilford.
Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 963–976.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 120–128.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Parker, M. T. (2012). Moral bases of public distrust: Politics, partisanship, and compromise. In R. Kramer & T. Pittinsky (Eds.), Restoring trust in organizations and leaders: Enduring challenges and emerging answers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 521–537.
Kant, I. (1947). Fundamentals of the metaphysics of morals. New York: Longmans. (Original work published 1786.)
Krebs, D. L. (2008). Morality: An evolutionary account. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 149–172.
Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.
Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (2006). Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 629–643.
Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Carsten, D., Grünert, M., Haeger, G., Kessler, S., et al. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125–144.
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.
Nucci, L. (1982). Conceptual development in the moral and conventional domains: Implications for values education. Review of Educational Research, 52, 93–122.
Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2005). Rethinking the link between categorization and prejudice within the social cognition perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 108–130.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.
Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10, 218–221.
Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895–917.
Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14, 305–326.
Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). The dark side of moral conviction. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2, 35–41.
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 191–207). New York: Psychology Press.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhong, C., Phillips, K. W., Leonardelli, G. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Negational categorization and intergroup behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 793–806.
This work was supported by NSF grant BCS-1053139 to the second author.
About this article
Cite this article
Parker, M.T., Janoff-Bulman, R. Lessons from Morality-Based Social Identity: The Power of Outgroup “Hate,” Not Just Ingroup “Love”. Soc Just Res 26, 81–96 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0175-6
- Social identity
- Intergroup relations