Everyone should get the same, but we should get more: Group entitlement and intergroup moral double standard

Abstract

Double standard—that is, employing a separate set of norms according to the actor’s and observer’s identity—is common in various contexts, but has not been given much empirical attention in the context of violent conflicts. We introduce group entitlement as a predictor of moral double standard in intergroup conflict. Three studies were conducted to test our research hypothesis. In Study 1, (Jewish Israelis) group entitlement predicted more lenient punishment for ingroup transgressors compared with unspecified outgroup transgressors. In Study 2, (Jewish Israelis) group entitlement predicted lower support for basic human rights for outgroup members compared with ingroup members. Study 3 replicated the results of Study 2 in the context of White Americans and African Americans, and showed that when presented with false feedback indicating substantial double standard among White Americans, high-group-entitlement participants experienced lower levels of moral emotions regarding the purported gap and were less willing to amend their responses compared with low-group-entitlement respondents. Implications of group entitlement in various contexts, its relation to existing constructs, and potential implications are discussed.