The Harsh Reality of Judging Our Own: Why We’re Tougher on Those Closest to Us

We often assume that those closest to us—our friends, family, and colleagues—receive a gentler touch when it comes to judgment. But a new study from Cornell University reveals a surprising twist: we reserve our harshest moral judgments for those within our social circles.

Morality Judgment within Groups

Moral codes are the invisible glue that holds communities together, setting standards for right and wrong. The recent findings, led by Simone Tang, suggest that our deep connections within a group make us believe its members are inherently more trustworthy. Yet, when someone within that circle falters morally, we react more harshly than we might toward a stranger. Why? Because a single person's actions could potentially tarnish the entire group’s reputation, and in a bid to safeguard that collective image, we become stricter with our own.

The Dynamics of Ingroup vs. Outgroup

In this study, people were categorized into two groups: the "ingroup" (those we share common ties with, such as political views or national identity) and the "outgroup" (those who differ from us). While it seems intuitive to think we would go easy on our peers, the research shows the opposite when it comes to moral violations.

Engaging over 2,300 participants, including university students and members of American online communities, the study presented scenarios involving moral failings like gender discrimination and non-moral issues like lateness. The results? Ingroup members who committed moral transgressions were judged more harshly than those in the outgroup. It seems that preserving the moral fabric of our inner circle is a top priority, prompting stricter responses to misconduct.

Real-world Implications

This newfound understanding goes beyond personal relationships. The research offers fresh insight into the increasing polarization in society, especially in politics. Tang explains that, contrary to the idea of "us versus them," we may harshly judge adversaries because we still view them as part of a broader group, like fellow citizens. This perspective shift suggests that internal divisions within large societal groups may stem from a desire to maintain group integrity, even when we disagree.

The study offers a sobering reminder: we may judge those closest to us more harshly not because we care less, but because we care more—about the group, its values, and what it represents.