Judging the actions of “whistle-blowers” versus “leakers”: Labels influence perceptions of dissenters who expose group misconduct

Abstract

Although moral and collective concerns have been found to predict expressions of dissent, little research has examined conditions under which dissenters are perceived as acting out of such concerns. Three studies tested whether judgments of dissenters who expose group misconduct can depend on subtle labeling differences. In Study 1, participants rated their actions as more morally based, and themselves as more likely to express dissent, after reading a scenario in which they were labeled a "whistle-blower" (vs. "leaker"). In Studies 2-3, participants who read a passage describing an employee of an organization (Study 2) or a well-known individual (Edward Snowden, Study 3) as a "whistle-blower," relative to "leaker," viewed these individuals as more morally and collectively concerned, which in turn mediated perceived deservingness of punishment. Implications for the factors that lead dissenters to be judged positively, for psychological effects of labels, and for generalizability across contexts are discussed.

Good refugees, bad migrants? Intergroup helping orientations toward refugees, migrants, and economic migrants in Germany

“…Classifying people into categories helps us to simplify the complex social world but also contributes to intergroup biases, leading to stereotyping and discrimination (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). Evidence from social psychological research shows that prejudice and stereotypes toward a social group can change as a function of the group label (Galinsky et al, 2013;Hall, Phillips & Townsend, 2015;Rios & Ingraffia, 2016).…”

Shaping Responses to Torture: What You Call It Matters

“…Research on labeling effects in other domains tentatively supports our argument that responses to interrogation techniques may be affected by whether the techniques are labeled as “torture.” Perceptions of individuals who engage in certain actions, such as exposing group misconduct, can fluctuate as a function of how the individuals are labeled (e.g., as a “whistle-blower” vs. “leaker”; Rios & Ingraffia, 2016). Similarly, the labels ascribed to out-groups can affect stereotyping and prejudice.…”

Norm violators as threats and opportunities: The many faces of deviance in groups

“…Consistent with this latter possibility, several papers in the Special Issue examined "positive" forms of deviance. These include Rios and Ingraffia's (2016) whistle-blowers, who, though they initially cause problems for the group, can stimulate changes that improve the group in the long run; Kane and Rink's (2016) newcomers, who bring potentially useful knowledge that can enhance group performance; Gunia and Kim's (2016) norm violators, who stimulate other members to work hard; O'Connor and Monin's (2016) moral rebels, who, though often rejected, may liberate others from social pressure (cf. Allen, 1975;Monin & O'Connor, 2011); and Dupuis et al's (2016) dissenters, whose behavior can serve a protective group function.…”

“…Consistent with this latter possibility, several papers in the Special Issue examined "positive" forms of deviance. These include Rios and Ingraffia's (2016) whistle-blowers, who, though they initially cause problems for the group, can stimulate changes that improve the group in the long run; Kane and Rink's (2016) newcomers, who bring potentially useful knowledge that can enhance group performance; Gunia and Kim's (2016) …”