A new theory explains our moral reaction to hypocrisy, researchers report.
The new study uses elements of philosophy, psychology, and game theory to develop a model of hypocrisy that helps distinguish genuine criticism from grandstanding opposition.
Hypocrisy, the contradictory behavior between what we say and what we do, is a peculiar moral judgement, according to Alexander Schaefer, an assistant professor of philosophy in the University at Buffalo, and the corresponding author of the paper, cowritten with Matthew Jeffers, an independent scholar.
Al Gore, for instance, is criticized by right-leaning commentators for being an environmentalist who owns a big home and travels on jets; yet, these criticisms come from people who otherwise have no problem with someone who lives extravagantly.
It’s not the action that bothers us, but the inconsistency between words and actions. And though hypocrisy can cause harm, we tend to react to hypocrisy regardless of its potential to do so. These factors have contributed to a norm meant to maintain the integrity of moral communication by stopping or disincentivizing false moral signaling.
To advance this understanding, the authors developed a model, detailed in the journal Utilitas, that has implications for how we should evaluate claims of hypocrisy.
“If you can identify the purpose or function of hypocritical blame, it can help you evaluate when it’s being misused for political purposes and when it’s being properly applied,” he says.
“Understanding this function lets you evaluate or judge whether the reaction is merely about attracting attention or functioning to maintain moral communication.”
Schaefer and Jeffers reviewed the psychological literature but couldn’t find anything to explain a mechanism that demonstrated how the norm evolved. So, they turned to game theory to develop a model of moral communication that sends both true- and false-signaling. In the model, there are two people who like to cooperate, but one of them might not adhere to the norm. How much do you have to increase blame to disincentivize this person from sending a false signal?
“If there’s a cost, and the moral reaction is damaging enough, you can create an equilibrium where people are sending honest signals,” says Schaefer.
“If the cost is too low, if there’s a lack of moral outrage, then you have a breakdown in the integrity of moral communication.
“Societies that fail to develop the hypocrisy norm risk falling prey to crises of trust in which potential cooperators cannot reliably identify those who share their norms.”
Schaefer says the paper is a first step in the development of a new hypocrisy theory, with future work conducting experiments that allow competing theories of the hypocrisy norm to be measured against one another.
“Analyzed functionally, the hypocrisy norm is like a tool, or a technology used for certain tasks,” says Schaefer.
Source: University at Buffalo
