Wielding a Double-edged Sword: Public Moral Advocates are Derogated Yet Influential

Individuals who publicly challenge a group's wrongdoing (e.g., whistleblowers, group critics, and individuals who receive authorization to declassify group information) are frequently reviled by group members. Past research suggests that these moral advocates are derogated because they implicitly reproach group members or make them feel immoral. Because moral advocates who take a public stand against wrongdoing expose or highlight a group's problematic practices, however, group members may instead derogate these advocates because the advocates make the group look immoral in the eyes of others. I examined this directly. I also examined whether threatening the group's social image may allow moral advocates to succeed in promoting change within the group, despite being derogated. Moral advocates who publicly challenged group wrongdoing were derogated by group members but were nevertheless successful in raising concern about the need for group change. Moral advocates who challenged wrongdoing privately and therefore posed less of a threat to the group's social image evaded derogation but were also unsuccessful in promoting change. Social image concerns rather than moral reproach or moral integrity concerns mediated these effects. Thus, public moral advocates wield a double-edged sword: Publicly threatening the group's social image leads moral advocates to be derogated, but it also enables them to promote group change.Ph.D