Ambiguity under scrutiny: Moral judgment of microaggressions

Abstract

Microaggressions are subtle, offensive comments directed at minority group members that are characteristically ambiguous in meaning. In two studies, we explored how observers interpret such ambiguous statements by comparing microaggressions to faux pas, offenses caused by the speaker having an incidental false belief. In Study 1, we compared third-party observers’ blame and intentionality judgments of microaggressions with those for social faux pas. Despite judging both offenses not to be caused intentionally, participants judged microaggressions as more blameworthy. In Study 2 microaggressions without explicit mental state information exhibited a similar profile of judgments as those accompanied by explicit prejudiced or ignorant beliefs. Although they are, like faux pas, judged not to cause harm intentionally, microaggressive comments appear to be judged as more blameworthy on account of enduring prejudice thought to be lurking behind a speaker’s false or incorrect beliefs. Our studies demonstrate a distinctive profile of moral judgment for microaggressions.