Leniency for out‐group offenders

Abstract

The present research investigates leniency for out‐group offenders and differentiates it from the black sheep effect. The authors assume that leniency for out‐group offenders can be used by in‐group members to protect their group's image by displaying that they are not prejudiced. Thus, leniency should disappear when in‐group members have otherwise shown that they are not prejudiced (i.e., moral credentials). In two experiments, offenders' group membership and participants' opportunity to establish moral credentials were manipulated. Results showed that out‐group offenders received the lowest punishment severity ratings (Studies 1 and 2). However, this leniency effect vanished when participants had established moral credentials by either endorsing the participation of out‐group members in lobby groups (Study 1) or writing about a positive experience with an out‐group member (Study 2). These findings suggest that lenient punishments for out‐group offenders may sometimes reflect a relatively easy strategy to display the in‐group as being unprejudiced. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The patronizing character and status‐preserving function of leniency for outgroup offenders

“…One limitation of the present research is that the samples of both studies consisted of students and are therefore limited with regard to their demographic representativeness. However, previous studies showed that demographic variables do not have a strong influence on punitive attitudes (Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, ) and the findings of Braun and Gollwitzer () provide evidence for the leniency effect in a sample that was more diverse regarding age, education, and profession. Still, it would be beneficial to examine the effects of status stability and the negative effects of intergroup leniency in a truly representative sample to capture their full scope in society.…”

“…Whereas the findings by Braun and Gollwitzer () suggest that outgroup leniency can be strategic , they do not necessarily provide evidence that such leniency is also patronizing . Conceptually, patronizing means treating someone ‘…with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority’ (Oxford Dictionaries, n.d.).…”

“…Participants were informed that the same bus stop had been destroyed 7 months ago by 28‐year‐old Sebastian M., who had been sentenced to 18 months in prison for wilful damage of property and arson. The offenders’ names were used as indicators of their group membership (see Braun & Gollwitzer, ). Information about the sentence the ingroup offender received was included to provide participants with a benchmark, which allowed us to present the sentence for the outgroup offender as being more lenient, harsher than, or similar to the sentence for the ingroup offender.…”

“…In this research, we examine such differential treatment of offenders from disadvantaged groups from a psychological perspective. In contrast to the benevolent intention of Canadian legislators, we assume that leniency for outgroup offenders can – under certain circumstances – serve ingroup members as a way to preserve the image of their ingroup and provide them with an easy and low‐cost opportunity to maintain a positive social identity (Braun & Gollwitzer, ; Gollwitzer, Keller, & Braun, ). This leniency is therefore referred to as ‘patronizing leniency’ to account for the fact that it can be strategic and reflect ingroup‐serving goals instead of honestly positive intergroup behaviour (Gollwitzer et al ., ).…”

“…More direct empirical evidence for the assumption that outgroup leniency may reflect a socially desirable response comes from two studies (Braun & Gollwitzer, ) showing that outgroup offenders were punished more leniently than ingroup offenders and offenders whose group membership was not explicitly mentioned . Notably, outgroup leniency disappeared when participants had been given an alternative opportunity to establish ‘moral credentials’ (cf.…”