CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 120Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEthics in Business and Education

Groups and morality.

Leach, Colin Wayne, Bilali, Rezarta, Pagliaro, Stefano·2015·APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 2: Group processes.
DOI 10.1037/14342-005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Across social and personality psychology, there is renewed interest in morality. Consistent with these fields’ general emphasis on subjective psychological processes, recent work tends to view any thought, feeling, or behavior that includes a notion of right and wrong as moral (for a review, see Haidt & Kesebir, 2010). This makes moral psychology an unusually diverse topic. Therefore, this chapter reviews a wide swath of relevant work, on topics ranging from personality, self-perception, and self-esteem; to social cooperation, trust, and interdependence; to stereotypes, prejudice, and group identity. Although social and personality psychologists examine individuals’ use of specific notions of right and wrong—based on such concepts as justice, trustworthiness, warmth, cooperation, and harm— they tend to avoid the question of whether individuals’ subjective notions of right and wrong are actually moral in an objective sense (Blasi, 1990). In this respect, psychology diverges sharply from a philosophical or ethical approach, which typically compares individuals’ subjective notions of morality to a conception of morality that is defined objectively by principle or shared practice (Blasi, 1990; for discussions in philosophy, see MacIntyre, 1984; Rawls, 1971). Given that morality is not defined objectively in social and personality psychology, we must attend closely to which notions of right and wrong researchers consider to be in the moral domain. As explained in the following section, some notions of morality, such as trustworthiness and justice, are more compatible with an objective sense of the concept, given their basis in principles or shared practices. Perhaps because social psychology defines moral thought, feeling, and behavior as that which individuals subjectively consider right or wrong, the focus has been on individuals in general (for reviews, see Haidt & Kesebir, 2010; Monin & Jordan, 2009; Pagliaro, 2012). Thus, the morality of particular individuals has been relatively neglected by social psychologists. The first section discusses the roots of the individual approach to morality in social psychology. It also reviews distinct approaches to moral personality and honor, which focus on individuals’ particular moral self-views. Although moral personality may appear to have little to do with groups, individual ideas about morality rely on some reference to what a moral person is like (for a general discussion, see Harre, 1993). And, whatever their particularities, individuals are moral or immoral in their families, in their neighborhoods, in their workplaces, and in their countries. Thus, even individual morality operates within groups. For these reasons, and others that will be discussed, understanding groups and morality is essential to understanding morality in general. Thus, the second section reviews four of the central ways in which groups are important to morality. The third section reviews the ways in which perceived morality is important to examinations of stereotypes and prejudice toward out-groups. The fourth section

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/14342-005

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People who do what is 'right' are respected and publicly admired, while those who do what is 'wrong' are devalued and socially excluded.

    “People who do what is 'right' are respected and publicly admired, while those who do what is 'wrong' are devalued and socially excluded 163 .”

    From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [163]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 144 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Leach, C. W., Bilali, R., & Pagliaro, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (IT)
ORCID
Venue
APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 2: Group processes.
Publisher
American Psychological Association
Published
2015
Pages
123-149
DOI
10.1037/14342-005
OpenAlex
W2496781944
Cited by
120
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
45.80
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Psychological Association eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
moral psychology, moral personality, honor, moral self-perception, self-esteem, social cooperation, trust, interdependence, stereotypes, prejudice, group identity, moral objectivity, moral emotions, moral behavior, moral reasoning, moral motivation, moral self, moral socialization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review