Summary: A new study finds that leaders who base their positions on moral arguments but later reverse them are more likely to be judged harshly than those who originally argued on pragmatic grounds.
Source: American Psychological Association
Leaders who change moral positions are seen as hypocritical and less effective, study finds
Leaders who justify their positions with moral arguments may win respect at first, but if they later change those positions they tend to be judged more harshly than leaders who initially justified their views on pragmatic grounds. According to research published by the American Psychological Association, people view such moral turnabouts as hypocritical and are less likely to consider those leaders effective or worthy of future support.
“Leaders may choose to take moral stances, believing that this will improve audiences’ perceptions. And it does, initially. But all people, even leaders, have to change their minds sometimes,” said lead author Tamar Kreps, PhD, of the University of Utah. “Our research shows that leaders who change their moral minds are seen as more hypocritical, and not as courageous or flexible, compared with those whose initial view was based on a pragmatic argument. Due to this perception of hypocrisy, they are also seen as less effective and less worthy of support.”
The findings appear in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Across a series of 15 online experiments involving more than 5,500 U.S. participants aged 18 to 77, researchers presented respondents with scenarios in which political or business leaders changed their stance on an issue. In some scenarios, the leader’s original position was framed as a moral conviction; in others, it was framed as a pragmatic judgment (for example, a policy framed as beneficial for the economy).
Participants consistently rated leaders who had initially expressed moral justifications and later reversed those positions as more hypocritical than leaders whose original stance was pragmatic. In most cases, moral turnabouts were also judged less effective and less worthy of support. The effect persisted even when participants agreed with the leader’s new position, suggesting the perception of hypocrisy does not disappear simply because people endorse the change.
Researchers tested a range of factors that might weaken this pattern, but the effect proved surprisingly resilient. The team explored whether reusing the same moral language in a later statement, the absence of apparent political pandering, or individual differences such as belief in moral relativism would reduce perceived hypocrisy. None of these factors significantly altered the outcome: leaders who initially took moral positions and then reversed course were consistently seen as more hypocritical.
Kreps interprets these results as reflecting a common lay belief that moral commitments are especially strong and should remain stable over time. “All in all, these results paint a glum picture for initially moral leaders,” she said. “When leaders take a moral position, there appears to be little they can do to avoid being perceived as hypocritical should they find they later have to change their minds.”
There is, however, a limited pathway for leaders who must revise moral views. The research found some evidence that explaining a change as the outcome of a deeply personal, transformative experience—or framing it as the result of external forces beyond one’s control—helps moral leaders retain perceptions of effectiveness and supportworthiness. Even so, these justifications do not fully erase the impression of hypocrisy.
Based on these findings, Kreps advises caution: moral stances tend to be perceived as enduring, so leaders should reserve moral framing for positions they truly hold. “Taking an inauthentic moral view to try to pander to a moralizing audience could backfire if a leader needs to change that view later on,” she said.
Study: “Hypocritical Flip‑Flop, or Courageous Evolution? When Leaders Change Their Moral Minds” by Tamar A. Kreps, Kristin Laurin, and Anna C. Merritt. Published online June 8, 2017 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Methods: Meta‑analysis of 15 experiments with a combined sample of 5,552 U.S. adults (ages 18–77), testing responses to leaders who changed positions that were initially framed as moral versus pragmatic.
Key takeaway: Moral framings boost initial credibility but make later reversals riskier; only specific justifications—personally transformative experiences or external constraints—moderately reduce negative evaluations of effectiveness and support, without fully eliminating perceptions of hypocrisy.
Source: Penny Smith – American Psychological Association
Image source: NeuroscienceNews.com image in the public domain.