Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEmotions and Moral BehaviorEthics in Business and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 121 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Moral cleansing as hypocrisy: When private acts of charity make you feel better than you deserve.

Open access
O'Connor, Kieran, Effron, Daniel A., Lucas, Brian J.·2020·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/pspa0000195
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What counts as hypocrisy? Current theorizing emphasizes that people see hypocrisy when an individual sends them "false signals" about his or her morality (Jordan, Sommers, Bloom, & Rand, 2017); indeed, the canonical hypocrite acts more virtuously in public than in private. An alternative theory posits that people see hypocrisy when an individual enjoys "undeserved moral benefits," such as feeling more virtuous than his or her behavior merits, even when the individual has not sent false signals to others (Effron, O'Connor, Leroy, & Lucas, 2018). This theory predicts that acting less virtuously in public than in private can seem hypocritical by indicating that individuals have used good deeds to feel less guilty about their public sins than they should. Seven experiments (N = 3,468 representing 64 nationalities) supported this prediction. Participants read about a worker in a "sin industry" who secretly performed good deeds. When the individual's public work (e.g., selling tobacco) was inconsistent with, versus unrelated to, the good deeds (e.g., anonymous donations to an antismoking cause vs. an antiobesity cause), participants perceived him as more hypocritical, which in turn predicted less praise for his good deeds. Participants also inferred that the individual was using the inconsistent good deeds to cleanse his conscience for his public work, and such moral cleansing appeared hypocritical when it successfully alleviated his guilt. These results broaden and deepen understanding about how lay people conceptualize hypocrisy. Hypocrisy does not require appearing more virtuous than you are; it suffices to feel more virtuous than you deserve. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pspa0000195

Cites

120 of 121 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford Press.

Cited by

See all 65

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
O'Connor, K., Effron, D. A., & Lucas, B. J.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
O'Connor, Kieran
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020-09
Volume
119
Issue
3
Pages
540-559
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/pspa0000195
OpenAlex
W3019944746
Semantic Scholar
f76d5f29562a19cb162f7c8a389fd04c21177883
Cited by
65
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London Business School Research Online (London Business School) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
hypocrisy, moral cleansing, moral self-perception, guilt, false signals, moral self-presentation
MeSH terms
Adult, Altruism, Conscience, Female, Guilt, Humans, Deception, Male, Self Concept

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.