Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lessons from Morality-Based Social Identity: The Power of Outgroup “Hate,” Not Just Ingroup “Love”

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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]).

  3. 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.

  4. 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).

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. J. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 341–359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Waal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, Fall(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, method, and point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 120–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nucci, L. (1982). Conceptual development in the moral and conventional domains: Implications for values education. Review of Educational Research, 52, 93–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10, 218–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). The dark side of moral conviction. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2, 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    Michael T. Parker & Ronnie Janoff-Bulman

Authors
  1. Michael T. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael T. Parker.

Additional information

This work was supported by NSF grant BCS-1053139 to the second author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0175-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation