Hypocrisy and Moral Justification: Do Consequences and Reasons Make a Difference?

In this experiment, we examined if an act of hypocrisy would be judged as more morally justified if it (a) led to a lenient consequence versus a harsh consequence for another person and (b) was done for an other-focused versus self-focused reason. The experiment was implemented via an online study that used a 3 x 3 between-groups factorial design that manipulated the consequences of, and reasons for, an act of hypocrisy. We found that hypocrisy that led to a harsh consequence for another person was viewed as less morally justified than the same harsh act that occurred in the absence of hypocrisy, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.56, or when hypocrisy led to a lenient consequence for another person, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = -.87. The reason given for the hypocritical act did not impact perceptions of moral justification, p = .67, η2 < .01, nor was there an interaction between consequences and reason, p = .49, η2 = .03. These results support the hypothesis that hypocrisy was judged negatively because it led to harsh consequences for others; however, our research leaves open the question of whether hypocrisy can be explained away with a compelling reason or not.