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

Abstract

This research investigates cases in which leniency for offenders from low-status (out)groups reflects a strategy of high-status (in)groups to consolidate intergroup status differentials. In Study 1, we found that participants from a high-status ingroup recommended a more lenient punishment for a low-status outgroup offender only when intergroup status differentials were likely to remain stable. This leniency, however, disappeared when status differentials were fragile. In Study 2, we found that patronizing leniency can even consolidate intergroup status differentials: When participants learned that their ingroup had punished an outgroup offender leniently, they considered an outgroup member who legitimately complained about discrimination more as being a hypersensitive complainer than when they learned that their ingroup had punished the outgroup offender more harshly or similarly as an ingroup offender. These findings suggest that leniency for outgroup offenders can indeed be used strategically by the ingroup to secure its advantaged status.

Do you get us? A multi-experiment, meta-analytic test of the effect of felt understanding in intergroup relations

“…Combined with the non-threatening, highwarmth element of the stereotype of older adults (Cuddy et al, 2007(Cuddy et al, , 2008, this outgroup's lack of understanding of the ingroup's perspectives was potentially seen as an endearing expression of confusion or lack of more general comprehension and agency. While this unexpected pattern has no direct analogue in the literature on felt understanding at an interpersonal level, it does echoes other research demonstrating that potential challenges or transgressions by lower-status outgroups can be strategically met with relatively positive, benevolent reactions by ingroup members (Braun & Gollwitzer, 2016;Jackman, 1994;Livingstone et al, 2015;Saguy et al, 2008): in Study 5 in particular, the apparently more negative condition (they misunderstand us) produced the more 'positive' response. In contrast, all of the other intergroup contexts involved outgroups (e.g., men; rival universities; opposing political groupings) who are typically viewed differently in terms of status and dependence, and thus stereotyped quite differently in terms of competence and warmth.…”

“…Importantly, the stable low status of an outgroup has been shown in other research to paradoxically produce more ostensibly benevolent, positive responses when such an outgroup presents some sort of challenge to the ingroup. This patronizing benevolence effect has been shown to serve strategic, status-maintaining functions (e.g., (Braun & Gollwitzer, 2016;Jackman, 1994;Livingstone et al, 2015;Saguy et al, 2008), and echoes the effect in Study 5 in particular: the apparently more negative condition (they misunderstand us) produces the more 'positive' response..…”

“…Outgroups viewed in this way tend to evoke relatively benevolent (but patronizing) responses among perceivers (Cuddy et al, 2007), and the stable low status of an outgroup has been shown in other research to paradoxically produce more ostensibly benevolent, positive responses when such an outgroup presents some sort of challenge to the ingroup. This patronizing benevolence effect has been shown to serve strategic, statusmaintaining functions (e.g., (Braun & Gollwitzer, 2016;Jackman, 1994;Livingstone et al, 2015;Saguy et al, 2008),…”

Downstream Consequences of Post-Transgression Responses: A Motive-Attribution Framework

“…SVO has been used to explain individual behavior in interdependence situations, that is, situations in which an individual’s outcome depends not only on their own actions and choices but also on the choices that other individuals make ( H. H. Kelley & Thibaut, 1978 ). Post-transgression interactions between victim and transgressor are examples of such interdependence situations: The likelihood that the victim–transgressor relationship either heals or breaks depends not only on victims’ post-transgression actions and choices but also on how transgressors interpret these actions and respond to them ( G. S. Adams, 2016 ; Braun & Gollwitzer, 2016 ; Martin et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Finally, forgiveness may reflect a competitive orientation: By forgiving, the victim can assume a position of moral superiority, refusing to be drawn to the low moral level of the transgressor ( Wenzel & Okimoto, 2012 ) or making the transgressor feel indebted ( Kelln & Ellard, 1999 ). In intergroup contexts, treating offenders from a low-status outgroup more leniently than ingroup offenders may reflect an ingroup’s strategy to display their generosity and, thus, to cement the status differential between the ingroup and the outgroup (“patronizing leniency”; Braun & Gollwitzer, 2012 , 2016 ). Relatedly, forgiveness may be expressed with the intent to “devaluate the attacker” ( Heider, 1958 , p. 269), to induce shame and guilt, or to threaten the transgressor’s self-esteem and social status ( Exline & Baumeister, 2000 ).…”