Social identity and perceptions of torture: It's moral when we do it

Two studies examined the effects of social identity concerns on the moral justification of torture. British and American nationals read a media report concerning the torture of a terrorist suspect that they were led to believe had been perpetrated either by members of their own nation's security services or by another nation's security services. When the torture was perpetrated by the ingroup, participants described it as more morally justified than when the torture was perpetrated by the other nation's security services. This effect was mediated by participants' decreased empathy for the ingroup's torture victim (Study 1), as well as increased victim blame and perceiving the perpetrators as prototypical of their national group (Study 2). We consider how social identity concerns enable moral justification of harm doing.

► We examined the effects of social identity on moral justification of torture.
► Group members defended the morality of ingroup-perpetrated torture.
► Morality effects were mediated by victim empathy and blame, and perpetrator representativeness.
► Group members shift the standard of injustice by which ingroup-perpetrated torture is evaluated.