Reading time: 6 minutes
When we are in front of a choice to make, the human brain tries to find the easiest and less tiring way to reach a decision, in order to waste as little energy as possible. The shortcuts it finds are called heuristics, whose consequences are called biases. Facing a moral decision, the brain can save energy by exploiting the heuristic of self-licensing, in other words a self-attributed moral license.
Taking an ethically correct decision, which can be altruistic or one that benefits the common good, requires much more energy, both physical and mental, than a less correct one, more selfish or that damages others. Self-licensing consists in feeling freer to act in a “bad”, “negative” way, centered on the Self, when we have behaved in a “good”, “positive” way in the past. This allows people to act more selfishly, without feeling immoral or heartless.
Where it occurs
This phenomenon has been studied in depth and three researchers from Stanford University, Merritt, Effron, and Monin, present in one of their articles three contexts in which this effect has been analyzed by previous research.
The first field is the politically incorrect: researchers show some examples in which self-licensing allowed people to act in a racist or sexist way, leveraging past behaviors that were instead more correct and inclusive. For example, in a study by Monin and Milller, participants had to describe the perfect person for a job that, according to stereotypes, was considered “for men”. Who had the opportunity to express their disagreement about sexist statements or had hired a woman for a consulting job, which generated in this way the moral license, tended to prefer a man, rather than a woman, for the job, feeling free to follow the stereotype by virtue of previous “good” actions.
Following research has also showed that people actively look for an opportunity to act morally, if they know they need a moral license to do subsequent dubious actions.
The second context is selfishness: in an experiment conducted by Sachdeva, Iliev, and Medin, participants had the opportunity to donate for charity part of their retribution as volunteers for the study, after describing themselves with nine positive terms (kind, fair, etc.) or nine negative terms (selfish, rude, etc.). Who described themselves with positive words showed self-licensing, thus donating on average less than who described themselves negatively, which in turn showed the opposite effect: moral cleansing. In fact, they thought that, by donating more money for charity, they would have compensated for their previous negative actions or thoughts with a positive, altruistic behavior.
The last field is questionable consumer choices. It has been demonstrated that buying luxury items or frivolous goods is associated with a feeling of guilt. Therefore, researchers Khan and Dhar have asked participants to their study to imagine an action, positive or negative, then choosing to buy a luxury item (in that case a pair of designer jeans) or a necessity item (a new vacuum cleaner). Who thought of an altruistic action, such as volunteering, chose the luxury item more frequently than who thought of a negative action. In later studies, researchers have confirmed this effect in the world of nutrition too: participants tended to choose, between two options, a less healthy snack, when the researchers told them that they would have repeated the same choice one week later. Even the expectation of the moral license of a healthier choice a week later led them to reduce the feeling of guilt associated with a greedier snack in the short term.
The mechanisms of self-licensing
Research proposes two different functioning mechanism for self-licensing. The former is called version of the moral credits: every action is valued in credits, positive or negative, towards a moral bank account. Therefore, doing a positive action will increase the moral credit and, until there is a negative action that surpasses the positive credits gained, there will be no guilt. We will have negative feelings only when the net weight of “bad” actions surpasses that of “good” actions.
The second mechanism is similar, but there is a subtle difference that makes it clearly identifiable. It is called the version of moral credentials. In this case, doing a good action changes the meaning of subsequent behaviors. Therefore, while the first mechanisms mitigated guilt, the second makes it so that there is no feeling of guilt at all, because following actions are not considered negative. In fact, according to this model, the behavior is seen in a positive light, stripped of any undesired consequence or anything that may make the person feel guilty.
These two mechanisms, research suggests, do not exclude each other: they represent in fact two independent pathways to self-licensing that operate in different contexts, but they can also appear simultaneously.
How to exploit self-licensing
Although this effect was presented as something that allows people to commit negative actions, this does not mean that these actions are necessarily harmful to the self or the community. The moral license can in fact relieve the anxiety of saying something offensive, which can be a valid strategy to facilitate the discussion of sensitive topics, such as racism, sexism, or the social stigma that even now affects some pathologies. In addition, there are cases in which it is necessary to make a sacrifice, to save something else. Self-licensing can help a medical team with limited resources in choosing, between two equally sick patients, which one to save, and which one they have to let go.
Most moral behaviors require a great expenditure of time, energy and money, and it contrasts with our own desires, even those that are necessary for our own physical and mental health or that would anyway bring a benefit to society. Great artists have often committed selfish, “negative”, actions, and yet they have done that in order for everybody else to enjoy their works of art. Moral licensing allows people to reach their social and cultural objectives, such as surpassing some premises that limit their own education, or they would be overwhelmed by the anguish of not having done enough to “save the world”.
Carlo Sordini
Sources:
- Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x
- Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43.
- Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528.
- Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259–266.
- Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2007). Where there is a way, is there a will? The effect of future choices on self-control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 277–288.