12.08 Should we? How appeals to moral responsibility affect group-level behavioural change

Aim of the project

Due to the importance of morality for people’s social identity, their belongingness to and inclusion in a group, community or society, and intragroup norms and values, appeals to moral responsibilities may be effective in activating the motivation to engage in joint behavioral improvements and taking responsibility for shared social outcomes. However, since the interpretation of appeals to moral responsibility may cause a threat, this could also extrapolate onto interaction partners or fellow group members, resulting in the adverse effects to become largescale. This could especially be the case when informational messages conveying appeals to responsibility come from (perceived) outgroups. To optimally use social influence in moral appeals, we thus aim to obtain insight in which appeals could have the danger of become enlarged in a defensive sense by the social structure—potentially increasing intergroup conflict or polarization—and which moral appeals can enhance intra- and intergroup (i.e., shared) responsibility, joint engagement and action, and hence increase collective sustainable behavior.

The primary aim of this project is to explore the negative effect of appeals to people’s moral responsibility as well as how can we diminish these effects. In order to turn a vicious cycle of avoiding moral responsibility and a lack of behavioral change into a virtuous one, including the intrinsic motivation and subsequent efforts to establish actual behavioral improvements.

Theoretical background

Besides the importance of morality for people’s self-view, which can affect how they respond to moral appeals about their individual behavior, morality is also essential within interpersonal relations and groups. Common ground about moral values can be apparent in the norms that are shared among self-relevant others, such as ingroup members, and this in turn can affect behavior. Interestingly, research has revealed that when an ingroup norm explicitly describes that a course of action is perceived by one’s ingroup as the morally right thing to do, this helps other group members to decide to act in accordance with such a norm—regardless of whether those norms prescribe pro self or prosocial behavior (Ellemers et al., 2008; Pagliaro et al., 2011). Furthermore, research shows that people are not only inclined to decide to behave in line with what the moral norms of fellows group members prescribe, they also decide more quickly to do so—as revealed by reduced response latencies when informed about the moral, as compared to the smart, course of action according to one’s group (Ellemers et al., 2008). In line with research showing group members’ compliance to moral norms, regardless of the nature of the behavior they prescribe, are findings of different programs of research which suggest that various mechanisms can antagonize groups that endorse different moral values. Confronting the moral values of the other group does not prompt them to reconsider their moral behaviors. Instead, this typically works counterproductively as it tends to raise threat responses, infrahumanization of those who confront one's moral values, distancing between the groups, and mutual displays of hostility (e.g., Skitka & Mullen, 2002; Pacilli et al., 2016; Kouzakova et al., 2014). Less detrimental, yet also potentially resulting in adverse effects on moral behavioral improvements, is the effect that moral criticism stemming from outgroup members is especially counterproductive as it raises defensive responses and reluctance to change (the intergroup sensitivity effect, Hornsey et al., 2002). Then again, within groups, an emphasis on the moral implications of one’s behavior may have positive effects on behavioral change. Consistent with the research showing that people are inclined to adhere to moral norms, which can have important positive effects when the behavior prescribed has positive outcomes for the greater community (or in our projects, for the planet, for instance when reducing the ecological footprint), are findings revealing that ingroup norms that are apparent from the social evaluation by fellow group members can also have positive effects. That is, when people are asked to perform a task indicative of their moral values, they become even more motivated to perform this task well when an ingroup member is evaluating their performance (van Nunspeet et al., 2015).

Furthermore, in addition to the positive effects of offering people opportunities to improve their behavior or to achieve future moral goals and ideals (rather than to meet moral obligations), moral opportunities (behavioral decisions offering people the chance to restore their moral self-view and image as group member) can even be effective in stimulating moral behavior when past moral failures were not made on one's personal address, but by fellow group members (Van der Toorn, Ellemers, & Doosje, 2015). That is, when participants were first confronted with moral transgressions committed by their group members, the opportunity to improve the moral image of their group (by explaining the importance of and achieving the ideal of improving moral conduct) reduced their self-reported perception of threat—and increased the intention to address or change one's behavior. Importantly, the previous research described above examined individuals’ interpretation and responses to group-level moral values, norms and behaviors. In the current projects, we instead focus on group members’ responses to appeals to their moral responsibility for current macro-level outcomes and future improvement. More specifically, we will examine how interaction partners and members of small and larger groups respond to such appeals (in terms of their expectations of oneself and the other[s], and their motivation to change depending on the others’ motivation to change) and how these response in turn influences the behavior of (the) other(s). As in the first project, behaviors will relate to current unsustainable behaviors in the domain of consumption, energy use, and travel preferences that result in a big(ger) ecological footprint—as well as alternative/future sustainable behaviors that result in a smaller ecological footprint.

Research design