Who Do We Inform? The Role of Status and Target in Intergroup Whistle-blowing

Abstract

In two experiments ( n = 87 and n = 90), we showed that strongly identifying members of a low status group are more likely to actively inform the ingroup rather than the outgroup about an outgroup transgression, and consider it as more loyal to the ingroup to do so. Moreover, strongly identifying members of a high status group are more likely to actively inform the outgroup rather than the ingroup about an outgroup transgression, and consider this to be more loyal to the ingroup. The results are in support of the notion that, depending on a group’s existing status position, negative outgroup information can be used to enhance or confirm the ingroup’s standing, affecting whether the ingroup or the outgroup will initially be informed about an outgroup transgression.

Self-censorship of Conflict-related Information in the Context of Intractable Conflict

“…This means that when information recipients are perceived as socially distant (e.g., out-group NGOs), participants are significantly more willing to self-censor in comparison to when the information recipients are perceived as close (e.g., family and close friends). This effect corresponds with the literature of in-group criticism which asserts that when the audience is comprised of out-group recipients, the criticism and its source are generally perceived more negatively, as causing more damage, and as less appropriate (Elder, Sutton, and Douglas 2005;Hopman and van Leeuwen 2009;Hornsey et al 2005). Accordingly, reporting in-group transgressions or misconducts to out-group members is viewed as a violation of an implicit norm that group members shouldn't air the group's ''dirty laundry'' out in the open (Elder, Sutton, and Douglas 2005).…”

“…First of all, one important circumstantial factor that is hypothesized to have an effect on individuals’ willingness to self-censor (WSC) is the characteristics of the potential audience (i.e., information recipients). Hopman and van Leeuwen (2009) stated that group members are more inclined to report in-group transgressions or become whistle-blowers (e.g., Hersh 2002), when they perceive that doing so will result in a positive outcome for the in-group (e.g., the group will be able to protect its integrity and morality and strengthen its standing in front of relevant out-groups). Moreover, reporting transgressions to in-group members can have a constructive effect because it offers the group an opportunity to correct the impairment, while preventing out-groups from achieving related gains.…”

Individual Differences in Third‐Party Interventions: How Justice Sensitivity Shapes Altruistic Punishment

“…Such kinds of confrontations reflect social behaviors such as whistle blowing (e.g., Hopman & van Leeuwen, 2009), civil courage, or other costly forms of bystander intervention (Latané & Nida, 1982;Levine & Crowther, 2008) against witnessed norm violations.…”

“…In such situations, people typically engage in a decision of whether they should enter the scene to confront the transgressor. Such kinds of confrontations reflect social behaviors such as whistle blowing (e.g., Hopman & van Leeuwen, 2009), civil courage, or other costly forms of bystander intervention (Latané & Nida, 1982; Levine & Crowther, 2008) against witnessed norm violations.…”

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

“…The present studies also add a different perspective to a recent line of studies investigating individuals' perceptions of outgroup deviants and the strategies used by the outgroup in response to the rule-breaking (e.g. Hopman & van Leeuwen, 2009;van Leeuwen, van den Bosch, Castano, & Hopman, 2010). Lastly, our findings contribute to the growing literature on moral identity (e.g.…”