Reputation Drives Morally Questionable Punishment

Language:English

Abstract

Critics of outrage culture allege that reputation fuels morally questionable punishment, but is this actually true? Across three studies, we investigated the willingness of liberal subjects to punish a university professor facing sexual harassment allegations. In our ambiguous (vs. unambiguous) condition, the alleged transgressions were less severe and supported by weaker evidence, leading many subjects to question the merits of punishment. Yet subjects nonetheless expected a liberal peer to reward them for punishing (Study 1) and punished at higher rates when their behavior was public (Studies 2-3). Indeed, when closely equating the strength of reputational incentives, reputation fueled ambiguously-deserved punishment just as readily as clearly-merited punishment (Study 2). Furthermore, the power of reputation to encourage ambiguously-deserved punishment extended even to individuals who, before reputational incentives were introduced, reported questioning its morality (Study 3). These results highlight the force of reputation and speak to debates surrounding virtue signaling and outrage culture.