A recent study sheds light on the relationship between moral values and political affiliations, revealing that the standards of morality people apply in political contexts may differ significantly from those in personal spheres. The findings, published in the journal Political Psychology, indicate that people are inclined to lower their moral standards in political contexts, especially when opposing group interests are at play.
Prior research has consistently shown that moral judgments can be swayed by political affiliations, with individuals often willing to overlook the moral failings of those within their political in-group while condemning those of the opposing side. This phenomenon, known as moral hypocrisy, highlights a puzzling contradiction: despite moral values being considered core components of one’s identity, they seem to waver in the face of political partisanship.
The new study was motivated by a desire to understand the underlying reasons for this discrepancy and to explore whether the adaptive function of morality—to ensure group success—might explain why moral standards are applied more leniently in political contexts.
“We were really interested in trying to understand why some people are willing to engage in some of the immoral behaviors they do in some situations, particularly in the political realm, but won’t engage in the same immoral behaviors elsewhere. In our studies, we asked people the same set of questions about different behaviors they may engage in as well as tolerance of others, and we simply changed ‘person’ to ‘politician’ in these sets,” explained study author Kyle Hull, a visiting assistant professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
The researchers recruited four independent samples, ensuring a broad and varied demographic representation. The first two samples comprised 1,362 students enrolled in introductory political science courses. The third sample (410 participants) was sourced from MTurk, a popular platform for academic research that captures a more diverse adult demographic across the United States.
The final sample of 700 participants was obtained via YouGov, a respected market research firm, and was specifically weighted to match the American Community Survey on key demographic variables such as gender, age, race, and education.
The core of the study’s methodology revolved around an online survey that presented participants with a series of measures designed to gauge their moral behavior and tolerance. These measures were carefully constructed to assess respondents’ likely responses to hypothetical scenarios involving moral transgressions, with a critical distinction made between political and non-political contexts.
For moral behavior, participants were asked to imagine either a despicable person or politician and indicate their likelihood of engaging in various transgressive acts against them, ranging from making fun of their appearance to more severe actions like vandalism. Similarly, for moral tolerance, participants rated their willingness to either befriend someone or support a political candidate who engaged in morally questionable behavior.
Participants were more willing to engage in or tolerate morally questionable behavior when the context was political, rather than personal. This pattern was evident across all four independent samples, indicating a systematic and robust effect. Specifically, when participants imagined themselves or others acting against political figures, they showed a higher propensity to endorse actions or tolerate behaviors that they would likely condemn in non-political, personal scenarios.
“Our findings suggest that people are indeed using a different set of moral standards in the political sphere than their own personal spheres,” Hull told PsyPost. “This shift in moral judgement leads people, regardless of their background, whether young or old or whether liberal or conservative, to do things they normally wouldn’t do as well as tolerate things they normally wouldn’t tolerate. Our politics and commitment to our political groups does indeed seem to be making bastards of us all.”
Another key finding of the study relates to the role of group dynamics, particularly the impact of antipathy towards political outgroups. The study identified a clear and consistent signal: genuine antipathy towards political outgroups significantly predicted a greater willingness to bend moral standards in the political realm.
This suggests that negative feelings towards those who hold opposing political views can lead individuals to rationalize or even endorse morally questionable behavior, provided it serves the interests or goals of their ingroup. This insight speaks volumes about the power of group identification and intergroup emotions in shaping moral judgment, highlighting how deeply entrenched group loyalties can override individual moral convictions in the face of political competition.
“One of the more interesting findings in our results is not just that there aren’t ideological differences, but rather that our own ingroup, partisan, attachment consistently shifted our moral judgement,” Hull explained. “It was a genuine, internalized dislike of the outgroup, or opposing party, that led people to be willing to engage in more immoral acts, and those with a much stronger commitment to their own party made them more tolerant of politicians who acted immorally.”
Interestingly, the study also revealed nuances in how moral behavior and tolerance are judged differently within the political context. While participants showed a general leniency towards moral transgressions in politics, this leniency was more pronounced for actions they themselves might take against political adversaries than for transgressions committed by politicians they supported.
This research contributes to our understanding of the fluidity of moral judgment in the face of political affiliations. As with any study, however, the research includes some caveats. The measures were based on hypothetical scenarios, which may not fully capture the complexities of real-life moral decision-making. Future research could explore more nuanced aspects of moral judgment, including how principled policy preferences might influence political moral leniency.
The study, “Politics makes bastards of us all: Why moral judgment is politically situational,” was authored by Kyle Hull, Clarisse Warren, and Kevin Smith.
