Devil on Your Shoulder?
-
The Impact of Judgement on
Moral Do-Gooder Derogation
Devil on Your Shoulder?
-
The Impact of Judgement on
Moral Do-Gooder Derogation
Author Sandra Johansson (s3291286) s.b.johansson@student.rug.nl Plutolaan 329 -304 9742 GK, Groningen The Netherlands +358505002459 1st supervisor 2nd supervisor
1 PREFACE
In front of you is the final work for my Master in Marketing Management at University of Groningen. The thesis was done from September 2017 to January 2018 and focuses on moral do-gooders, individuals who do good, and how they should act in order to inspire other instead of cause irritation. The thesis gave me the opportunity to familiarise myself to a new area of marketing while also being part of conducting an experiment with over 300 participants, something that I never thought I would do. The experiment was a truly challenging and memorable experience. During the process of writing this paper I have become more aware of my own reactions towards moral rebels, while also paying more attention to the sustainable choices I am making myself.
I would like to thank my first supervisor, Mr. Bolderdijk, for his help with turning my conceptual thoughts into an actual thesis. Thanks also to the members of my thesis group for help and support, to Anja for motivating me to work hard in the library and to Guillaume for letting me be in my thesis-bubble.
As this thesis also is the final chapter of my seven years of university studies, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my family and friends who have been supporting me, not only this year, but for almost a decade. Kudos to you! Furthermore, I would like to thank Céline for providing the soundtrack for the studies throughout all these years.
ABSTRACT
Consumers have an important role in tackling the environmental challenges the earth is facing. By making ethical and sustainable decisions everyone can improve the situation. The moral do-gooders, by showing ethical behaviour, can inspire others to do the same, but this is however not always the case. Research shows that morally superior behaviour can result in moral do-gooder derogation which means expressing negative feelings about the morally motivated persons. There are several explanations for this behaviour. One is that people derogate because they are reminded of their own shortcomings (the devil on our shoulder) and another is that people fear the judgment from the morally superior. Thus, it is still uncertain whether the fear of judgement is necessary for moral do-gooder derogation to take place, or if derogation merely stems from a ‘devil on our shoulders’. The results from the survey-based experiment suggests that the same moral rebel is evaluated more positively when she implicitly signals she would not judge others, thus indicating that anticipated judgement is required for moral do-gooder derogation to take place. This effect is however in this study not mediated through the levels of anticipated devaluation and self-threat.
TABLE OF CONTENT
PREFACE ... 1
ABSTRACT ... 2
INTRODUCTION ... 4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 6
Moral Do-Gooder Derogation ... 6
Conceptual Model ... 8
Manipulation ... 8
Derogation ... 9
Anticipated Devaluation and Self-threat... 9
METHOD ... 10
Context of the Study ... 10
The Experiment ... 10
Manipulation and measurements of the variables ... 11
The Independent Variable ... 11
The Dependent Variable ... 12
The Mediators ... 13
Participants and Data Analysis ... 14
RESULTS ... 15
Anticipated Devaluation ... 15
Self-threat ... 16
Derogation ... 17
Testing the full model ... 18
Serial Mediation: Moral vs. Imperfection... 19
Serial Mediation: Moral vs. Modesty ... 20
DISCUSSION ... 21
Limitations and Recommendations for the Future ... 23
Managerial Implications ... 24
Conclusion ... 24
REFERENCES ... 25
INTRODUCTION
Consumers have an important role in tackling the environmental challenges (McDonald et al., 2012; Pettie, 2010). Governments and organizations around the globe have set different targets for improvement to change the currently negative trend, and all consumers can contribute by making smart choices (McDonald et al.,2012; Hoekstra & Wiedmann, 2014). There are several ways in which consumers can take a stand and limit one own’s ecological footprint. For example, the food and drinks that one is consuming have a significant impact on the earth (Pettie, 2010). The western diet consists of plenty of unsustainable products and meat is one of the biggest sources for greenhouse gas emissions (Farchi et al., 2017).
Although, there is a pressing need for a change in consumption behaviours, research shows that people are not changing their behaviour by adopting ethical products (Prothero et al., 2011; Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2015; Enrich & Irwin, 2017). During the past years a lot of attention has been given to sustainability and ethical behaviour, especially in the Western countries, and people are in general aware of “what is right and what is wrong” when making choices. The aim of research about sustainable consumption and drivers for green behaviour is to motivate and influence consumers to go green (Pettie, 2010). However, environmental knowledge has according to Pettie (2010), only a small effect on behaviour. So, the information how to act sustainably is available and many have extensive knowledge in the matter, but still, most consumers are not acting accordingly, indicating that the underlying behaviour is more complex than initially anticipated.
their behaviour”. Thus, it is still unknown whether moral do-gooder derogation stem from being reminded of own shortcomings or if the judgement experienced in the situation is important.
The purpose of this thesis is to look in to the process of moral do-gooder derogation, and more specifically whether people derogate morally superiors due to the fear of being judged by the morally superior. The research question is therefore if the fear of being judged is a necessary
condition for moral do-gooder derogation to occur. If the derogation merely depends on the
person feeling threatened and not on the behaviour of the morally superior (the moral do-gooder), it might have an impact on the promotion of sustainable behaviour or products, especially since Zane et al. (2016) found that derogation can have an impact on future ethical behaviour for the consumers feeling threatened.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Moral Do-Gooder Derogation
Individuals constantly face situations where one’s own moral self-concept is challenged or when one is comparing own moral standards to other people (Howe & Monin, 2017; Minson & Monin, 2012; Cramwinckel, van Dijk, Scheepers & van den Bos, 2013). Monin (2007) suggests that consumers can feel threatened when confronted with situations where the other part is expressing, or acting more morally. Moral comparison can according to the author result in feelings such as moral shame, moral confusion, and imagined moral reproach. However, one can also feel inspired and motivated do the same, depending on the person (Monin, 2007). The act of expressing negative feelings about morally motivated persons is called do-gooder
derogation (Minson & Monin, 2012).
There are different explanations for the derogation. Zane et al. (2016) argues that derogation of morally superior persons is the result of negative social comparison. The social comparisons are essential in forming one’s self evaluations (Wood, 1989), but sometimes these comparisons can reveal unattractive features about oneself, especially when comparing behaviour with a superior person (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). To defuse the threat risen from the comparisons, different coping mechanisms are used (Mussweiler, Gabriel & Bodenhausen, 2000). Hence, when encountered with morally superior persons, one is reminded of own moral shortcomings. Thus to decrease the feeling of threat, one derogates this person (Fein & Spencer, 1997; Zane et al., 2016). Or metaphorically speaking, individuals have a devil on their shoulders reminding them of own shortcomings.
This anticipated judgement from those who do good, that the observers confronted with the moral do-gooders are feeling, is however unrelated to actual judgement. When meat-eaters were asked about their opinions on vegetarians, almost half of the respondents expressed negative associations. They also expected to be judged based on their morality by the vegetarians. The more supportive the meat-eaters were of eating meat, the more critical they were of vegetarians. This fear of being judged is exaggerated because the vegetarians are not looking down on the meat-eaters as much as the meat-eaters believe (Minson & Monin, 2012). The judgement is therefore suggested to be imagined due to the lack of evidence showing that the morally superior is actually judging the person behaving less ethically. Even when participants were not meeting the morally superior, neither during the study nor after, derogation was still observed (Monin et al., 2008: O’Connor & Monin, 2016). There is also no difference whether this is measured in a private or public setting, rejection was found to be the same (O’Connor & Monin, 2016). This suggest that the threatening situations are created in one’s imagination (O’Connor & Monin, 2016).
An observer confronted with a moral do-gooder is not derogating the person who do good in every situation, thus some factors increasing the likelihood for derogation have been identified. For example, the observer being involved is found to increase the likelihood for derogation in several studies (e.g. Monin et al., 2008; Zane et al., 2016). That is also the reason why some are inspired and positive towards morally superior, since they are not involved enough to feel threatened (Monin et al., 2008). Derogation will only happen if the person feels threatened which implies the presence of ethical values and relevance (Tesser, Millar & Moore, 1988). Furthermore, according to O’Connor and Monin (2016), the anticipated judgement is linked to the morally superior. Imagined judgement from people in the surroundings is according to the authors not motivation enough to cause a rejection of the morally superior. When a person is anticipating being judged by the morally superior, one feels threatened and defuses the threat by derogating (Minson & Monin, 2012). The higher the level of anticipated devaluation, the more the participants were derogating the morally superior. Thus, according to these authors, fear of judgement is a necessary requirement for derogation to take place (Minson & Monin, 2012).
self-threat can help for example environmentalists to inspire others, instead of causing irritation. Howe and Monin (2017) studied this and found that if physicians, instead of emphasizing their superiority, acknowledged that there are several ways to stay healthy, the participants found the doctors more appealing. This shows the importance of taking the self-threats into consideration when wanting to inspire.
Conceptual Model
Zane and al. (2016) argue that people derogate the morally superior because one is reminded of one’s moral shortcomings. O’Connor and Monin (2016) on the other hand argues that the derogation stems from the person’s fear of being judged. So, in one theory judgement is considered a necessary condition, and in the other one not. By testing whether or not judgment is a necessity for do-gooder derogation, it is expected to contribute to previous findings, by further exploring this discrepancy. The conceptual model represents a conceptualization of the of the pathway to derogation proposed by Minson and Monin (2012), namely that when a person is anticipating being judged by the morally superior, one feels threatened and defuses the threat by derogating (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Manipulation
Derogation
The effect of the manipulation is measured by the participants evaluation of the morally superior. Moral do-gooder derogation can be quantified this way since previous studies suggest that a participant feeling threatened will rate the morally superior lower than when no threat is present (e.g. Monin et al., 2008; Zane et al., 2016).
Anticipated Devaluation and Self-threat
The manipulations’ effect on the dependent variable, derogation, is anticipated to be mediated through anticipated devaluation and self-threat. This is based on the anticipation of a person to be judged by the morally superior, therefore feeling threatened and defusing the threat by derogating (Minson & Monin, 2012). Anticipated devaluation is used as a mediator in a similar setting in the work done by Howe and Monin (2017).
Monin et al. (2008) identified self-threat as the underlying factor in their work on reactions towards moral rebels, thus this factor is also used in this framework. Self-regard or self-evaluation have previously been used for measuring the effect of being exposed to morally superior behaviour (moral do-gooder derogation). When confronted with a morally superior person, Cramwinckel et al. (2013) found a decline in the self-evaluations. Also, Bolderdijk, Brouwer and Cornelissen (2017) measured self-threat by using the same framework as Cramwinckel et al. (2013) and concluded that the decrease in liking of the morally superior stems from the self-threat experienced in a threatening situation. Therefore, self-evaluation will be used as a mediator since it is a well-established way of measuring the wanted effect also in this context.
METHOD
The aim of the study is to investigate whether the fear of being judged is a necessary condition for moral do-gooder derogation to take place. This is done with a between study where the way the moral do-gooder is signaling judgement is manipulated (Aronson, Wilson & Brewer, 1998).
Context of the Study
The study is conducted in the context of vegetarianism versus meat eaters. There are several benefits with this setting. Firstly, this topic is closely related to the work already done by Minson and Monin (2012). Secondly, there is an ethical aspect to meat reduction, which is important when derogation is measured (Zane et al., 2016). Red meat is for example one of the biggest sources for greenhouse gas emissions, so an overall reduction of meat consumption would be beneficial for the environment (Farchi et al., 2017). Thus, not eating meat seems like the ethical and morally superior behaviour, providing a good context for this study. Thirdly, the respondents in the study need to be involved and the decision to buy meat or eat meat is something everyone is facing in their everyday life. In addition, it is possible to have the respondents in the study to eat meat during the experiment, increasing the involvement even further.
The Experiment
The study is part of a larger experiment, conducted together with three other master students, with a total of four different research questions and four different conditions. For this thesis, three of them were used (see Table 1). The survey based experiment consisted of different parts. First the participants were asked to taste and rate a snack containing meat. It was made clear that the snack contains meat, and everyone had the opportunity to decline. The tasting was done to create involvement before the essential part of the experiment.
Table 1. Overview over the whole experiment.
tasted, due to four different reasons (these comprised the four different conditions). The participants were then asked to rate Mary and answered several other questions. The complete survey can be seen in Appendix A. In this thesis the conditions moral, modesty and imperfection were used.
Manipulation and measurements of the variables The Independent Variable
The manipulation of how the moral do-gooder is signaling judgement was treated as the independent variable. The participants were divided into three different groups. In the first condition the participants met the moral Mary who refused to taste the snack because of moral reasons (see Picture 1). In this condition judgement was implicit by positioning reduced meat consumption as a moral action.
Picture 1. The moral Mary.
In the second condition the participants met the modest Mary who refused to taste the snack due to moral reasons (thus implicitly signaling judgement) but with an addition that she does not like to talk much about it (see Picture 2).
In the third condition the participants met the imperfect Mary who also refused to taste the snack due to moral reasons but with an addition that she does not imply that she is perfect, and she acknowledges that she struggled a lot (see Picture 3). As in the modest condition judgement was removed, but in another way, namely by implying imperfection.
Picture 3. The imperfect Mary.
In both the imperfect condition and the modesty condition, judgement is removed in a similar way as in the studies done by Howe and Monin (2017), where the doctors stated that there are several ways to stay healthy. Initially both the modesty condition and the imperfection condition were treated as the one condition were judgement is removed. The idea is that by implicitly stating that one is struggling or does not like to talk about it, the participants should have less reasons to feel judged, compared to the condition when Mary refused to taste the snack due to only moral reasons. Mary is stating that she cares about behaving in a moral way in all three conditions, but in order to make the comparisons clearer, the conditions are hereafter called the moral condition, the modest condition and the imperfection condition.
The survey also contained a manipulation check to confirm that the participants paid attention to why Mary refused to taste the snack. The participants had to choose the correct answer from five different options. The first option being that Mary did not eat meat because she believes it is immoral (moral condition). The second that Mary did not eat meat because she believes it is immoral, but that she initially struggled with not eating meat (imperfection condition). The third that Mary did not eat meat because she believes it is immoral, but that she does not like to talk about it (modest condition). The fourth that Mary did not eat meat because she does not like the taste of meat (selfish condition) and the fifth was that the participant forgot why Mary refused to taste the snack.
The Dependent Variable
by Monin et al. (2008) and Bolderdijk et al. (2017). The participants in the survey were asked to evaluate Mary, on 14 7-point bipolar scales, on the following characteristics: stupid– intelligent, weak–strong, insecure–confident, passive–active, cruel–kind, awful–nice, cold– warm, dishonest–honest, unfair–fair, unpleasant–pleasant, dependent–independent, stingy– generous, immature–mature, and low self-esteem–high self-esteem. For a more thorough evaluation of the morally superior, participants were also asked to rate, on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree), to rate how much they like A) Mary as a friend B) Mary as a colleague, and how much they C) respect Mary as a person.
These items were combined to one scale (α = .89, M = 5.00, SD = .74) The lower the combined average, the more the participants are derogating Mary.
The Mediators
The effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is suggested to be mediated, respectively, by anticipated devaluation and self-threat. A higher level of anticipated devaluation should lead to lower evaluations of the morally superior (Minson and Monin, 2012). The questions to gauge anticipated devaluation are inspired by Minson and Monin (2012) and Howe and Monin (2017). The participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (1=extremely immoral and 7=extremely moral), what Mary would think if she saw what the participants normally eat. On the same scale the participants also rated how immoral or moral vegetarians think that non-vegetarians are. In addition, the participants were asked to rate, on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree), to evaluate how Mary would like the participant A) as a friend B) as a colleague, and how much Mary C) respects the participant. The last three items are the counterpart of the three measurements for derogation.
These items were combined to one scale (α = .76, M = 3.87, SD = .93) The lower the combined average, the more the participants are anticipating devaluation from the morally superior, in this case from Mary.
themselves (reverse scored), angry with themselves (reverse scored), dissatisfied with themselves (reverse scored), self-critical (reverse scored), and guilty (reverse scored).
These items were combined to one scale (α = .88, M =5.48, SD = .72).
Participants and Data Analysis
The study took place in the virtual reality lab at the campus of University of Groningen between November 27th and December 12th, 2017. Participants were mainly gathered in collaboration with the FEB research lab. To get sufficient power in the analysis, participants were also recruited through social media by the students in charge of the experiment.
During the first part of the data collection process, the study was run together with another experiment conducted by a PhD student at the same university, and the participants were rewarded with four research point or eight euros for their participation. The last part of the data collection process was conducted independently from the other experiment and the participants were therefore rewarded with four euros due to the study being less time consuming. The reward of eight or four euros were only possible for University of Groningen students so there were also a few persons, recruited by the students running the study, participating without a reward.
RESULTS
A total of 315 persons participated in the study. Since only three of the four conditions are relevant for this thesis, the selfish condition was removed right from the start. In addition, 21 participants following a plant based diet were excluded. Seven participants who do not eat pork due to religious reasons were not excluded since they eat other kind of meat and could feel judged by Mary as well. The same goes for 9 participants who did not try the snack but who normally eat meat. 15 participants failed the manipulation check and were therefore excluded.
Before the scales were created a Missing Value Analysis was conducted. Two participants failed to answer all questions measuring derogation, hence missing the introduction of Mary, the manipulation of the study. Due to this these two participants were removed. The missing values could have been imputed with the mean value, but this usually leads to biased estimates so to avoid this, the participants were excluded instead (Donders, van der Heijden, Stijnen & Moons, 2006). The 13 outliers detected with a boxplot were not excluded, because the outliers were completely reasonable and within a possible range.
The cleaned and filtered dataset consist of 178 participants, 52 % male, the average age is 21.36 (min.=17, max.=34) and 27 different nationalities are represented. Firstly the difference between conditions regarding the variables in the conceptual model is examined and lastly the whole pathway to derogation is assessed via a serial mediation analysis.
Anticipated Devaluation
Figure 2. Mean with 95 % confidence intervals for the scale measuring anticipated
devaluation.
Gender was included as a covariate and the result from the analysis indicate that gender has a significant effect on anticipated devaluation (F(1,177) = 8.595, p = .004). Men are anticipating being judged to greater extent than women (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Mean for the scale measuring anticipated devaluation based on gender.
Self-threat
Figure 4. Mean with 95 % confidence interval for the scale measuring self-threat.
Also in this analysis, gender was included as a covariate and the interaction variable between the manipulation and gender is significant (F(2,177) = 5.74, p = .004). Men are rating themselves lower in the moral and in the modest conditions, while in the imperfection condition women are rating themselves lower (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Mean for the scale measuring self-threat based on gender.
Derogation
better than the participants in the moral condition. In general, the participants are rating Mary positively since the averages are around 5 on a scale from 1 to 7, where 7 is the positive trait.
Figure 6. Mean with 95 % confidence interval for the scale measuring do-gooder derogation.
Gender was included as a covariate and also for derogation, the gender is significant (F(1,177) = 6.55, p =.01). Men are rating Mary lower than women, in all three conditions (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Mean for the scale measuring do-gooder derogation based on gender.
Testing the full model
The purpose of the study is to investigate if the fear of being judged is a necessary condition
for moral do-gooder derogation to occur and the prediction was that the participants in the
full model is not tested with these two variables grouped together, instead the moral condition is contrasted with the two conditions separately.
The relationship between the variables was determined with a correlation matrix, which indicates a significant, moderate relationship between the variables measuring anticipated devaluation and the derogation (ρs = .39, p < .001) (see Table 2 for all values). The correlation is positive which means that when participants are anticipating being devaluated by the do-gooder, they are also evaluating Mary lower, or vice versa.
Table 2. Correlation matrix.
It was anticipated that when a person is anticipating being judged by the morally superior, one would feel threatened and defuse the threat by derogating the moral do-gooder. Furthermore, it was anticipated that there is a difference between responses depending on if the do-gooder signals judgement or not. Due to the previously discussed ANOVAs being insignificant, there are indications that anticipated evaluation and self-threat are not mediating the evaluations of the do-gooder, but since other effects might be significant the complete process is still examined with model 6 from PROCESS macro by Hayes.
Serial Mediation: Moral vs. Imperfection
Figure 8. Overview of the coefficients and significant effects in the serial mediation analysis
between the moral and imperfection conditions.
The serial mediation analysis (model 6) shows a significant effect from the manipulation (Moral vs. Imperfection) on the dependent variable, do-gooder derogation (t(131) = 2.38, p = .02). This suggest that the conditions are significantly predicting how the participants are rating Mary. In addition, there is a significant difference between how the participants in the two conditions are rating themselves (t(132) = -2.22, p =.03). The scores on the scale for anticipated devaluation are also significantly predicting how the participants are rating Mary which is not a surprise since the variables are also correlating (t(131) = 5.92, p <.001).
The effect from the manipulation on anticipated devaluation is insignificant (t(133) = .60, p = .55). The effect from anticipated devaluation on self-threat, or in other words the effect from the first mediator on the second mediator, is also insignificant (t(132) = .76, p = .45). Furthermore, the effect from self-threat on do-gooder derogation is insignificant (t(131) = 1.49, p = .14). Hence, no serial mediation effect is present due to all indirect effects being insignificant (see Figure 8) (95% CI [-0.13, 0.13]). There is also no single mediation due to all indirect effects being insignificant and zeros are included in the confidence intervals.
Serial Mediation: Moral vs. Modesty
Figure 9. Overview of the coefficients and significant effect in the serial mediation analysis
between the moral and modesty conditions.
DISCUSSION
The conceptual model represented a conceptualization of the pathway to derogation as proposed by Minson and Monin (2012) and the purpose was to look into if the fear of being judged is a
necessary condition for moral do-gooder derogation to occur. It was anticipated that when a
participant is presented to a moral do-gooder, the person would anticipate being judged, feel threatened and to diffuse the threat, resulting in derogation of the person. Furthermore, it was purposed that if a participant was informed that the morally superior is not judging, the person would not feel threatened and therefore not feel the need to derogate. An alternative explanation offered by Zane et al. (2016) was also considered, namely that people derogate due to being reminded of their own shortcomings, hence the degree of judgement in the contact with the morally superior would not matter.
The prediction was that the participants in the modesty and imperfection conditions would respond in a similar way and therefore be treated together as the condition where judgement is reduced in the analyses. The explanations for refusing to taste the meat made by Mary are similar (see Picture 2 and Picture 3), despite this, the participants in the conditions are rating Mary differently. This indicates that the way judgement is reduced or manipulated matters.
Furthermore, the analysis is not in line whit what was predicted. The comparisons between the three manipulations on the variables included in the model were all insignificant, suggesting that it does not matter if the moral do-gooder is signalling judgement or not for how the participants are for example evaluating Mary. This supports the findings of Zane et al. (2016) that derogation stems from being reminded of own shortcomings.
“modest-Mary” did not. Howe and Monin (2017) also suggest that a non-judgemental message is more appealing, but it is still unclear what kind of message that can be perceived the least judgemental.
There was no mediated effect in neither of the analyses, hence the pathway to derogation suggested in the conceptual model is not present in this study. Cramwinckel et al. (2013) suggest that the fear of being judged should cause a decrease in self-regard. The analysis in this study is not in line with that. The results suggest that the participants experiencing less judgement are rating themselves lower than the participants experiencing more judgement. So, the participants in the imperfection condition are for example rating themselves lower compared to the participants in the moral condition, opposite of what Cramwinckel et al. (2013) suggest.
Considering that a direct effect can be found (between moral and imperfection), but no difference on the scale measuring anticipated devaluation is present, raises a question whether the manipulation with the smiling Mary is working. Perhaps her smiling face and nice appearance are not threatening enough. It would be interesting to know whether the use of another rebel would end in different results, and this could thus be subject of future research. One other aspect indicating that the manipulation was not fully working is the result that suggests that the participants experiencing less judgement (imperfection) is rating themselves lower than the participants experience more judgement (moral). This should according to previous research indicate lower evaluation of Mary, which is not happening in this sample. One potential explanation for this inconsistency might be that when having Mary say that she is not perfect, she is reminding the participants in the study that they are not perfect either, resulting in lower results on the scale measuring self-regard. This is however not explaining how the participants are rating Mary. As indicated before, this inconsistency might be due to her nice appearance. Another explanation for the inconsistencies can be that vegetarianism is not considered threatening in the young sample since younger people are likely to have green values and express interest in sustainability (Lim, 2017).
is that women are rating themselves lower than men in imperfect condition. There is a significant difference between men and women in this sample, but it is unclear whether this is due to the moral do-gooder being a woman or if it is linked to women in general being more interested in sustainable solutions (Brough, 2016).
In general, there are few differences between how the participants are perceiving the threat, themselves and do-gooder Mary. However, when contrasting the moral condition to the imperfect condition, there are significant effects from the conditions on how the participants are rating themselves and how they are rating the moral do-gooder Mary, which suggests that fear of being judged is a necessary condition for moral do-gooder derogation to occur, as proposed my O’Connor and Monin (2016). Hence, only a devil on the shoulder is not enough for derogation to occur.
Limitations and Recommendations for the Future
Some limitations of this study have to be acknowledged. The study was conducted on the campus of University of Groningen which offers a young and educated sample, despite the sample consisting of many nationalities, it can be perceived as somewhat homogenous.
In addition to this general limitation there are a few study specific limitations. Firstly, the study was conducted together with three other master students which in this case means that the sessions of the experiment were run by different people. A flowchart was followed by all, but the impact of different persons running the experiment is not tested for. Secondly, during the experiment there was occasionally some technical issues with the screen and it is unclear if that influenced the last parts of the survey. Lastly, the research question in this thesis was studied within the framework of the large experiment so the manipulations for how the moral do-gooder signals judgement are not optimized for the purpose. The last point serves both as a limitation and as a recommendation for the future, because it would be interesting to study different approaches on how to present ethical behaviour without signalling judgement. Especially how to signal less judgement in communications directed to consumers, to optimize the message in terms of decreasing derogation and potentially inspire instead of causing irritation. The results indicate that judgement is necessary for derogation to occur, but the best practice for reducing judgement is still not known, thus further research is needed.
women in general being more interested in sustainable solutions, or due to some other factor not accounted for (Brough et al., 2016). The sample size for comparing the results between the genders, within the different conditions were small, thus it would be interesting to focus explicitly on impact of gender to get more knowledge in the matter.
Managerial Implications
Derogation can have an impact on future ethical behaviour for the consumers feeling threatened in situations when confronted with morally superior consumers (Zane et al., 2016). The goal should be, instead of irritating, to motivate and inspire. This study, like Howe and Monin (2017) proposes that by decreasing the perceived judgement, the probability for feeling inspiration instead of irritation will increase. There are both environmental and health related benefits with a plant based diet so in order to motivate consumers it is important to promote this behaviour the right way, and to limit the experienced threat seems to be one option. Hence, the notion that judgement is necessary for derogation to occur should be taken into consideration when promoting a plant based diet, but also other sustainable behaviour, products or services.
Furthermore, it is also important to pay attention explicitly to the message. In this study a difference between a modest approach and an imperfect approach was found. The prediction was that both modesty and imperfection could be used as the condition where judgement is reduced. This was however not the case indicating that the way judgement is signalled or reduced might have an impact on the effect of the message.
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Aronson, E, Wilson T.D. & Brewer M. B. (1998). Experimentation in Social Psychology.
The Handbook of Social Psychology 1:99-142.
Bolderdijk, J. W., Brouwer, C., & Cornelissen, G. (2017). When do morally-motivated consumers elicit inspiration instead of irritation? Working paper
Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Jingjing, M. A., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? the green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567-582.
Cramwinckel, F. M., van den Bos, K., & van Dijk, E. (2015). Reactions to morally motivated deviance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 150-156.
Cramwinckel, F. M., van Dijk, E., Scheepers, D., & van den Bos, K. (2013). The threat of
moral refusers for one's self-concept and the protective function of physical cleansing.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1049-1058.
Donders, A.G.T, van der Heijden, G.J.M.G, Stijnen, T and Moons, K.G.M. (2006). Review: A
gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59,
1087–1091.
Farchi S, De Sario M, Lapucci E, Davoli M, & Michelozzi P. (2017). Meat consumption reduction in Italian regions: Health co-benefits and decreases in GHG emissions. PloS ONE, 12(8): e0182960.
Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 31-44.
Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336
Howe LC, & Monin B. (2017). Healthier than thou? "practicing what you preach" backfires by increasing anticipated devaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
112(5), 718-735.
Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 78, 69-80.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91-103.
Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of
Marketing, 74(5), 18-31.
McDonald, S., Oates, C. J., Alevizou, P. J., Young, C. W., & Hwang, K. (2012). Individual strategies for sustainable consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4), 445-468.
Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 3(2), 200-207.
Monin, B. (2007). Holier than me? Threatening Social Comparison in the Moral Domain.
Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 20(1), 53-68.
Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 76-93.
Mussweiler T, Gabriel S, & Bodenhausen GV. (2000). Shifting social identities as a strategy for deflecting threatening social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79(3), 398-409.
O’Connor, K., & Monin, B. (2016). When principled deviance becomes moral threat: Testing alternative mechanisms for the rejection of moral rebels. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 19(5), 676-693.
Pettie, K (2010). Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms. Annual Review of Environment
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31-38.
Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social
comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 49–61.
Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2015). Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase behavior.
Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 436-450.
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231-248.
Zane, D. M., Irwin, J. R., & Reczek, R. W. (2016). Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? the effect of willful ignorance on judgments of others. Journal of
APPENDIX A The Survey
Movie and Taste Perceptions
The following survey has five sections; completing the survey takes approximately 10-15 minutes. Please read the questions carefully and answer in English!
Section 1 Did you taste the chips?
o Yes o No
If you refused to taste the chips, please indicate why and continue with Section 2:
--- In three words, please explain what the chips tasted like
--- --- --- In three words, please explain what kind of thoughts appear when eating the chips --- --- ---
Section 2 How often do you eat meat?
o Every day
o A few times a week o Once a week o Once a month
o Occasionally throughout the year o Never
How often do you eat fruits and vegetables? o Every day
o A few times a week o Once a week o Once a month
How often do you eat chips? o Every day
o A few times a week o Once a week o Once a month
o Occasionally throughout the year o Never
Do you have any special dietary preferences? o Lactose free o Gluten free o Vegetarian o Vegan o None o Other, namely: __________________
Please do NOT proceed until
you receive further
Section 3
Suppose another fellow participant in this study named Mary (see picture left) refused to eat the chips you tasted at the start of the study. She explained her reasoning with the following comment:
"I did not eat the chips, because they contain meat. I care about behaving
in a moral way as a consumer and therefore refuse to eat any meat.
Producing meat puts a strain on the environment, and is bad for animal welfare."
Mary
How would you describe Mary?
Stupid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Intelligent Weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strong Insecure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Confident Passive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Active Cruel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kind Awful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nice Cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Warm Dishonest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Honest Unfair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fair Unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant Dependent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Independent Stingy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Generous Immature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mature
"I did not eat the chips, because they contain meat. I care about behaving
in a moral way as a consumer and therefore refuse to eat any meat.
Producing meat puts a strain on the environment, and is bad for animal welfare."
If Mary saw what I normally eat, she would think I am:
Extremely immoral
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely moral
Please indicate the likelihood that you, like Mary, would become a vegetarian:
Extremely unlikely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely likely
Most vegetarians think that most non-vegetarians are:
Extremely immoral
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely moral
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree I would like Mary as a friend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would like to have Mary as a
colleague
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements:
Totally not applicable
Totally applicable I feel happy with myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel satisfied with myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel dissatisfied with
myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel self-critical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel guilty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel determined 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel angry with myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel disgusted with
myself
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I feel annoyed with myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel disappointed with
myself
Please remember watching the movie and imagine yourself as strongly as possible to being back in the theatre, seeing the movie for the first time.
While watching the movie, to what extent did you experience feelings of…
Not at all Very much Smallness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Humility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Respect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
While watching the movie, to what extent did you feel…
Not at all
Very much I admire people who
own expensive homes, cars and clothes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I like a lot of luxury in my life
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I’d be happier if I’d be able to afford more things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Delicious taste is an important consideration for me when purchasing food
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Can you remember why Mary refused to taste the chips?
Please do NOT look at the previous pages to look for the answer. It’s ok if you forgot. It’s important that you answer honestly.
o She doesn’t eat meat because she believes it is immoral.
o She doesn’t eat meat because she believes it is immoral. However, she initially struggled with not eating meat.
o She doesn’t eat meat because she believes it is immoral. However, she does not like to talk about it.
Section 4
Please indicate the likelihood that you would sign the petition shown above
Extremely unlikely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely likely
Section 5 How old are you?
--- What is your gender?
o Male o Female o Other
What is your nationality? ---
Devil on Your Shoulder?
The Impact of Judgement on Moral Do-gooder Derogation
Introduction
Moral rebels who deviate from the norm and act green is
necessary for the society to change, but are often rejected by
fellow consumers moral do-gooder derogation
Why?
Because they are reminded of own shortcomings?
(Zane et al., 2016)
Research
Method –
Study Design
The context of vegetarians vs. meat-eaters
Method –
Measurements
Mediator 1: Anticipated devaluation
(Minson & Monin, 2012; Howe & Monin, 2017)
5 different questions on how the participants think Mary would view
them
Mediator 2: Self-threat
(Cramwinckel et al., 2013; Bolderdijk et al., 2017)
14 questions about themselves
Dependent variable: Derogation
(Monin et al., 2008; Bolderdijk et al., 2017)
Participants' evaluation of the morally superior
Results and
Discussion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Moral Modesty Imperfection
Results and
Discussion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Moral Modesty Imperfection
Results and
Discussion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Moral Modesty Imperfection
