New research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that the heroization of groups such as healthcare workers or military personnel might inadvertently have negative consequences.
In contemporary society, certain occupations, particularly healthcare workers, military personnel, and educators, have been elevated to hero status, especially in times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This phenomenon is not mere nicety but is deeply ingrained in media portrayals, governmental accolades, and commercial content, which often portray these workers in superhero-like imagery.
Heroization intends to honor and motivate, highlighting traits like altruism and sacrifice. However, when people view certain groups as inherently self-sacrificing, they may be less responsive to injustices or exploitation faced by these individuals. Such beliefs can diminish the urgency to improve their working conditions or advocate for their well-being, with the assumption that they are willing to endure hardships for the greater good.
In a series of studies, Matthew L. Stanley and Aaron C. Kay investigated the relationship between societal admiration and the unintended consequences that accompany the heroization of certain occupations.
Study 1 identified occupations that are commonly perceived as heroic by the general public. A sample of 300 participants rated various occupations on a 7-point scale to determine if workers in those fields are generally considered heroes. Several occupations, including firefighters, nurses, and teachers, were widely regarded as heroic. This finding set the stage for subsequent studies by establishing a baseline of public perception toward heroized occupations.
Study 2 involved 1884 participants, and explored whether heroization predicts public expectations that individuals in these occupations are willing to volunteer for their own exploitation. Participants rated their agreement with statements suggesting workers in heroized fields would accept exploitative conditions (i.e., work early; work on a day off; complete tasks unrelated to job duties) without additional compensation.
There was a strong correlation between the degree of heroization and the expectation of self-exploitation across heroized occupations, suggesting that hero labels increase assumptions that workers are willing to endure poor treatment as part of their role.
Studies 3a-3c (with 621, 621, and 620 participants respectively) used experimental manipulations to establish a causal relationship between heroization and expectations of exploitation. Each sub-study targeted a specific profession (including teachers, nurses, military personnel) with participants exposed to either hero imagery or neutral imagery. Participants once again indicated their agreement with statements suggesting workers in heroized fields would accept exploitative conditions (e.g., “pay cut; less prep time during school hours; teach an additional class each week”).
Exposure to hero imagery consistently increased expectations that professionals in these fields would volunteer for exploitation more than when exposed to neutral imagery, providing causal evidence that hero labels can influence public expectations negatively.
Study 4 focused on military veterans, comparing expectations of exploitation between veterans and non-veterans. Participants were shown resumes portraying either a veteran or a non-veteran in the same job and assessed their willingness to accept exploitative conditions (e.g., Would you expect John to be willing to work with outdated and inadequate protective equipment on the job?).
Participants expected veterans to be more willing to accept exploitative conditions than non-veterans, indicating that heroization effects persist even when individuals transition to non-heroic roles.
Studies 5a-5c (630 participants each) tested the impact of heroization on public support for exploitative policies. Similar to Study 3, participants were exposed to hero or neutral imagery related to specific professions and then asked their level of support for policies that would exploit workers in those professions.
Exposure to hero imagery generally reduced opposition to exploitative policies compared to neutral imagery, suggesting that heroization not only affects individual expectations but also influences broader public policy preferences, potentially reducing resistance to unfair labor practices.
A limitation highlighted by the researchers is the generalizability of their findings as the research participants were all from the United States; thus, findings might not apply to other cultural or national contexts where occupational heroization could be perceived differently.
While hero labels are meant to honor and respect those in demanding and altruistic professions, this research suggests such labels can inadvertently lead to the normalization of exploitation and reduced advocacy for better working conditions.
The research, “The Consequences of Heroization for Exploitation”, was authored by Matthew L. Stanley and Aaron C. Kay.
