False Signaling and Personal Moral Failings: Two Distinct Pathways to Hypocrisy with Unequal Moral Weight

Moral engagement is a key feature of human nature: we hold moral values, condemn those who violate those values, and attempt to adhere to them ourselves. Yet moral engagement can make us appear hypocritical if we fail to behave morally. When does moral engagement risk triggering ascriptions of hypocrisy? And when do hypocrites—moreso than ordinary wrongdoers—earn particular moral outrage? Across four studies (total n = 1,787), we provide evidence of two distinct pathways to hypocrisy: (1) violating a moral value that you have signaled to others that you adhere to (i.e., engaging in false signaling) and (2) violating a moral value that you genuinely hold (i.e., committing a personal moral failing). Furthermore, we show that these pathways have unequal moral weight, such that false signaling is evaluated more negatively. In Study 1, we confirm that paradigmatic hypocrites activate judgments associated with both pathways. In Studies 2-3, we investigate case studies designed to activate one pathway but not the other. We find evidence that both pathways are sufficient to trigger ascriptions of hypocrisy, but false signalers are more likely to be penalized for their hypocrisy (and thus deemed less moral than non-hypocritical transgressors). Finally, Study 4 demonstrates that a target who violates a stated value, but avoids activating either pathway, is judged as neither hypocritical nor immoral—confirming that at least one pathway is necessary for hypocrisy. Together, these findings suggest that false signaling and personal moral failings constitute two distinct pathways to hypocrisy with unequal moral weight.