Sugaring o'er the devil: Moral superiority and group identification help individuals downplay the implications of ingroup rule‐breaking

We examined how a group's claim to moral superiority influences evaluations of rule‐breaking by ingroup members. Moral superiority was manipulated among researchers (Study 1) and British citizens (Study 2), after which group members were presented with ingroup rule‐breakers: a researcher violating ethical rules (Study 1) and British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners (Study 2). In both studies, higher and lower identifiers in the control condition perceived the rule‐breaking as equally damaging, evaluated the rule‐breakers equally negatively and recommended equally harsh punishments. When the group had taken the moral high ground, lower identifiers perceived the rule‐breaking as more damaging than did higher identifiers. In addition, higher identifiers evaluated the rule‐breakers less negatively and recommended more lenient punishments. Results of mediation analyses demonstrated that negative evaluations of, and recommended punishment for, the rule‐breakers were explained by the perceived damage that their behaviour caused to the ingroup. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.