In many public situations, we make
judgments about people’s commitment to carry through on their stated
views. Politicians express commitments
to issues ranging from immigration to gay marriage. Corporate leaders give their views on fair
labor practices and innovation.
After hearing these views
expressed, we have to make judgments about how likely these people are to
follow through on their commitments. These
expectations influence our support of politicians and companies. They also help us to predict what will happen
in the future.
When making statements about
difficult issues, there are often two different types of justifications people
may give for their beliefs. One type of
justification is consequential. It focuses on the outcomes related to a position. For example, a business leader might be
opposed to child labor, because it harms children. A second significant type of justification is
deontological—it focuses on broad
rights and responsibilities. A second
business leader might be opposed to child labor because forcing children to
work long hours is unjust.
A fascinating paper by Tamar Kreps
and Benoit Monin in the November, 2014 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin examined how these
views influence people’s perception of the moral commitment of the
speaker.
In one study, participants read
actual statements from State of the Union addresses given by Bill Clinton and
George W. Bush. Participants did not
know which president spoke these words, only that they came from presidential
speeches. The statements took positions
and then defended them either because of the positive outcome associated with
the position (a consequentialist defense) or because of the rights or justice
associated with it (a deontological defense).
A control group of statements had no justification for the
position. After reading each statement,
participants rated whether the issue was a moral issue for the speaker.
Participants felt that statements
justified by rights and justice were more strongly based in morality than those
statements justified by their outcomes. Indeed,
statements justified by their outcomes were judged as less strongly based in
morality than those with no justification at all.
This result suggests that
positions that are based on beneficial outcomes are seen as pragmatic positions
rather than moral ones.
Another study in this paper
explored this phenomenon further. In
this study, participants read statements that were said to have been made by a
manager at a company. In addition to
rating whether the speaker had a moral basis for the position, they also rated
the speaker’s authenticity in holding that position, their commitment to the
position, and how generally they support that issue.
As before, when the speaker gave a
justification based on rights and justice, that had a stronger moral basis than
when the speaker gave a justification based on outcomes. In addition, participants felt that positions
based on rights and justice were more authentic, more strongly held, and
reflected a more general commitment than those based on outcomes.
Why does this happen?
When people focus on the benefit
of the outcome of a position, then it suggests that if someone were able to avoid
the bad outcome, then the person’s judgment would be flipped. For example, it seems reasonable that a
business leader who opposes child labor because it is bad for children’s
long-term education might be convinced to support child labor if accommodations
were made that gave the children more education. The consequentialist view suggests that the
leader does not have a broad moral argument against the practice, but rather a
narrow pragmatic one.
These findings also have
implications for people who are trying to express a position. If you want other people to believe that your
support for an issue is ironclad, then you should justify it based on broad
principles of justice and rights. If you
want to signal that you might be willing to compromise on an issue, then you
should frame your justification based on outcomes.