Self-licensing

Last updated October 22, 2024

Self-licensing (also moral self-licensing, moral licensing, or licensing effect) is a term used in social psychology and marketing to describe the subconscious phenomenon whereby increased confidence and security in one's self-image or self-concept tends to make that individual worry less about the consequences of subsequent immoral behavior and, therefore, more likely to make immoral choices and act immorally.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] In simple terms, self-licensing occurs when people allow themselves to indulge after doing something positive first; for example, drinking a diet soda with a greasy hamburger and fries can lead one to subconsciously discount the negative attributes of the meal's high caloric and cholesterol content.^[7]

A large subset of this effect, the moral credential effect, is a bias that occurs when a person's track record as a good egalitarian establishes in them an unconscious ethical certification, endorsement, or license that increases the likelihood of less egalitarian decisions later. This effect occurs even when the audience or moral peer group is unaware of the affected person's previously established moral credential. For example, individuals who had the opportunity to recruit a woman or Black person in one setting were more likely to say later, in a different setting, that a job would be better suited for a man or a white person.^[5] Similar effects also appear to occur when a person observes another person from a group they identify with making an egalitarian decision.^[8]

Self-licensing can have negative societal consequences since it has a permissive effect on behaviors such as racial prejudice and discrimination, selfishness, poor dietary and health habits, and excessive energy consumption.

But recent scholarship has failed to replicate seminal studies of the licensing effect, and meta-analysis found it to be exaggerated by publication bias.^[9]^[10] Furthermore, where licensing typically assumes that a good deed is the cause that makes subsequent transgressions more likely, an alternative (or additional) account is that people are faced with a temptation to do something morally dubious, and use a prior good deed as an excuse or reason why it is allowed for them to indulge.^[11]

Definitions

Researchers Uzma Khan and Ravi Dhar describe the phenomena as follows:

[A] prior choice which activates and boosts a positive self-concept subsequently licenses the choice of a more self-indulgent option, [by reducing] negative self-attributions associated with the purchase of relative luxuries. [...] We show that consumers may be unaware of how their prior decisions influence their subsequent choices. In other words, the process underlying the licensing effect may be largely nonconscious.^[3]

Similarly, Anna Merritt and colleagues have explained that

Past good deeds can liberate individuals to engage in behaviors that are immoral, unethical, or otherwise problematic, behaviors that they would otherwise avoid for fear of feeling or appearing immoral.^[2]

Group membership

It has been found that moral credentials can be obtained vicariously. That is, a person will behave as if they, themselves, have moral credentials, when that person observes another person from a group they identify with making an egalitarian decision.^[8] In research that draws on social identity theory, it was also found that group membership moderates the effectiveness of moral credentials in mitigating perceptions of prejudice. Specifically, it was observed that displays of moral credentials have more effect between people who share in-group status.^[12]

Examples

Research suggests that self-licensing affects moral self-regulation and individual behavior in a variety of contexts; for example, it can influence consumer purchases, political opinions, charitable giving, energy policy and home energy use, job hiring, racial attitudes, health-related decision-making, risky sexual behavior, alcohol consumption, and dietary supplement use.^[3]^[7]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17] Washington Post staff writer Michael Rosenwald described the following everyday examples of self-licensing behavior:

We drink Diet Coke – with Quarter Pounders and fries at McDonald's. We go to the gym – and ride the elevator to the second floor. We install tankless water heaters – then take longer showers. We drive SUVs to see Al Gore's speeches on global warming.^[13]

In a large experience sampling study, Hofmann and colleagues found evidence for moral licensing in people's everyday behavior outside of the lab, noting that "committing a moral act earlier in the day was associated with an above-average likelihood of a subsequent immoral act and a decreased likelihood of a subsequent moral act."^[18]^: 1343

Dietary supplement use and unhealthy behavior

A 2011 study published by researchers in Taiwan indicated that people who take multivitamin pills, especially those who believe that they are receiving significant health benefits from supplement use, are more prone to subsequently engage in unhealthy activities.^[15]^[16]^[17] Participants in the study were divided into two groups, both of which were given placebo pills; one group was correctly informed that the pills contained no active ingredients and the other group was told that the pills were multivitamin supplements. Survey results showed that participants who thought that they had received a multivitamin were predisposed to smoking more cigarettes and more likely to believe that they were invulnerable to harm, injury, and disease as compared with subjects who knew that they were given a placebo. Participants who believed they were given a multivitamin were also less likely to exercise and to choose healthier food, and had a higher desire to engage in "hedonic activities that involve instant gratification but pose long-term health hazards", such as casual sex, sunbathing, wild parties, and excessive drinking. In the 'multivitamin' group, the more supplements a participant used, the less likely they were to exercise, and smoking was highest among participants who expressed a conscious belief that multivitamins increased health.

The study's authors argued that because dietary supplements are perceived as conferring health advantages, use of such supplements may create an illusory sense of invulnerability that disinhibits unhealthy behaviors. Overall, the study shows that people who take supplements may feel that merely taking a pill is a sufficient contribution to healthy living to enjoy other activities without regard to health, and it exposes a potential hypocrisy among supplement users.^[17] The authors advised:

Smokers who take dietary supplements can fool themselves into thinking they are protected against cancer and other diseases. Reminding health conscious smokers that multivitamins don't prevent cancer may help them control their smoking or even encourage them to stop.^[19]

Commenting on the implications of the study, Ben Goldacre said this:

Believing, incorrectly, that you've done something healthy by taking a vitamin pill makes you more likely to take genuine, concrete, real-world risks with your health. It's a chilling thought, but ideas aren't without impact, and every time we humour a harmless myth – that vitamin pills are healthy, that some fashionable berry prevents cancer – we might be doing more harm than we think.^[16]

Consumer purchasing decisions

Researchers Khan and Dhar investigated the influence of self-licensing on consumer decisions regarding the purchase of luxury goods. They reasoned that "relative preferences for a luxury option will be higher if people's prior decisions provide a boost to their relevant self-concept". Due to the self-licensing effect, "a prior intent to be virtuous boosts respondents' self-concepts, thus reducing negative self-attributions associated with the purchase of relative luxuries". Furthermore, they predicted that consumers may be unaware of how their prior decision influences their subsequent choices; i.e. the process underlying the licensing effect may be largely nonconscious.^[3] In the study, some participants were first asked to select from a list a charity organizations for which they would willingly volunteer three hours a week. Later, these people—and participants who hadn't been asked to volunteer—were asked whether they would buy designer jeans or an identically priced vacuum cleaner, assuming that they had enough money to buy only one. Participants who were asked to imagine having committed the charitable act before shopping were more than twice as likely to choose the jeans. The authors noted that "People don't even have to do good for this effect to happen ... Even if they plan to do something good, it will give them a boost in their self-image. Any type of situation where you have guilt involved, you will see this, and so this happens in luxury goods."^[7]^[13]

A study by University of Toronto behavioral marketing professor Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong found that people who bought green products were more likely to cheat and steal than those who bought conventional products.^[13]^[20] The researchers conducted an experiment in which they asked college students to shop for products online from either an eco-friendly or a conventional store. Each subject was then asked to divide a small sum of money between themselves and a stranger in a paradigm known as the dictator game, in which participants can cheat to make more money. The shoppers from the green store were more dishonest than those at the conventional store, which brought them higher earnings in the game. The authors suggested that the results could be accounted for by the licensing effect, noting that "When we engage in a good deed, that gives us a kind of satisfaction. With that self-satisfied feeling can come tacit permission to behave more selfishly next time we have the opportunity". The authors added that "purchasing green products may license indulgence in self-interested and unethical behaviors", and concluded:

We find that mere exposure to green products and the purchase of them lead to markedly different behavioral consequences. In line with the halo associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products; however, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products.

However, subsequent research not only failed to replicate Mazar & Zhong's findings, but found that green consumption had no subsequent licensing effect on dishonesty.^[21]

Energy use

Researchers have invoked the self-licensing effect to explain why consumers who opt for energy-efficient products increase their energy usage so as to offset any potential gains. Energy economist Lucas Davis published a study showing that after getting high-efficiency washers, consumers increased clothes washing by nearly 6 percent.^[22] Other studies have shown that people leave energy-efficient lights on longer than conventional lights, and that many people who make their homes more energy efficient turn their heating up and ultimately see no reduction in energy costs.^[13]

Political opinions and racial preference

The self-licensing effect was examined by Monin and Miller in a 2001 study which demonstrated that when Princeton undergraduates established "non-prejudiced" credentials, they were more willing to express "prejudiced-sounding" opinions to an audience—even knowing the audience was unaware of their credentials.^[5] Subsequent research by Monin and Daniel Effron, using subjects paid in candy or cash and excluding those who preferred Republican presidential candidates in the 2004 or 2008 election, showed that the opportunity to endorse Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election made those who did so more likely to express preferences favoring whites over blacks in hypothetical situations, such as hiring a police chief for a department experiencing racial tension. However, Monin and Effron cautioned that their "experimental tasks left ambiguous the extent to which these preferences represented prejudice."^[23]^[24]

Meta-analyses and replications

Three meta-analyses have been published on self-licensing.^[6]^[25]^[10] Two of these meta-analyses suggest that the self-licensing effect might be moderated by culture,^[25]^[10] and the most recent of these meta-analyses suggest that previous estimates of the effect may be exaggerated due to publication bias ^[10] (consistent with recent publication of failures to replicate the original finding^[9]^[26]^[21]).

Related Research Articles

A dietary supplement is a manufactured product intended to supplement a person's diet by taking a pill, capsule, tablet, powder, or liquid. A supplement can provide nutrients either extracted from food sources, or that are synthetic. The classes of nutrient compounds in supplements include vitamins, minerals, fiber, fatty acids, and amino acids. Dietary supplements can also contain substances that have not been confirmed as being essential to life, and so are not nutrients per se, but are marketed as having a beneficial biological effect, such as plant pigments or polyphenols. Animals can also be a source of supplement ingredients, such as collagen from chickens or fish for example. These are also sold individually and in combination, and may be combined with nutrient ingredients. The European Commission has also established harmonized rules to help insure that food supplements are safe and appropriately labeled.

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as the mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions and actions are inconsistent or contradictory. This may ultimately result in some change in their cognitions or actions to cause greater alignment between them so as to reduce this dissonance. Relevant items of information include peoples' actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things. According to this theory, when an action or idea is psychologically inconsistent with the other, people do all in their power to change either so that they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.

A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors. When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more credit for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting their self-esteem from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem. For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions might be exhibiting a self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.

A multivitamin is a preparation intended to serve as a dietary supplement with vitamins, dietary minerals, and other nutritional elements. Such preparations are available in the form of tablets, capsules, pastilles, powders, liquids, or injectable formulations. Other than injectable formulations, which are only available and administered under medical supervision, multivitamins are recognized by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a category of food.

Nootropics, colloquially brain supplements, smart drugs and cognitive enhancers, are natural, semisynthetic or synthetic compounds which purportedly improve cognitive functions, such as executive functions, attention or memory.

Criminal psychology, also referred to as criminological psychology, is the study of the views, thoughts, intentions, actions and reactions of criminals and suspects. It is a subfield of criminology and applied psychology.

Moral Psychology is the study of human thought and behavior in ethical contexts. Historically, the term "moral psychology" was used relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development. This field of study is interdisciplinary between the application of philosophy and psychology. Moral psychology eventually came to refer more broadly to various topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind. Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral satisficing, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character, altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement.

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is a psychological theory that links beliefs to behavior. The theory maintains that three core components, namely, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control, together shape an individual's behavioral intentions. In turn, a tenet of TPB is that behavioral intention is the most proximal determinant of human social behavior.

Self-control is an aspect of inhibitory control, one of the core executive functions. Executive functions are cognitive processes that are necessary for regulating one's behavior in order to achieve specific goals. Defined more independently, self-control is the ability to regulate one's emotions, thoughts, and behavior in the face of temptations and impulses. Thought to be like a muscle, acts of self-control expend a limited resource. In the short term, overuse of self-control leads to the depletion of that resource. However, in the long term, the use of self-control can strengthen and improve the ability to control oneself over time.

In psychology, self-efficacy is an individual's belief in their capacity to act in the ways necessary to reach specific goals. The concept was originally proposed by the psychologist Albert Bandura in 1977.

Megavitamin therapy is the use of large doses of vitamins, often many times greater than the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) in the attempt to prevent or treat diseases. Megavitamin therapy is typically used in alternative medicine by practitioners who call their approach orthomolecular medicine. Vitamins are useful in preventing and treating illnesses specifically associated with dietary vitamin shortfalls, but the conclusions of medical research are that the broad claims of disease treatment by advocates of megavitamin therapy are unsubstantiated by the available evidence. It is generally accepted that doses of any vitamin greatly in excess of nutritional requirements will result either in toxicity or in the excess simply being metabolised; thus evidence in favour of vitamin supplementation supports only doses in the normal range. Critics have described some aspects of orthomolecular medicine as food faddism or even quackery. Research on nutrient supplementation in general suggests that some nutritional supplements might be beneficial, and that others might be harmful; several specific nutritional therapies are associated with an increased likelihood of the condition they are meant to prevent.

Omission bias is the phenomenon in which people prefer omission (inaction) over commission (action) and people tend to judge harm as a result of commission more negatively than harm as a result of omission. It can occur due to a number of processes, including psychological inertia, the perception of transaction costs, and the perception that commissions are more causal than omissions. In social political terms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes how basic human rights are to be assessed in article 2, as "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." criteria that are often subject to one or another form of omission bias. It is controversial as to whether omission bias is a cognitive bias or is often rational. The bias is often showcased through the trolley problem and has also been described as an explanation for the endowment effect and status quo bias.

Ego depletion is the idea that self-control or willpower draws upon conscious mental resources that can be taxed to exhaustion when in constant use with no reprieve. When the energy for mental activity is low, self-control is typically impaired, which would be considered a state of ego depletion. In particular, experiencing a state of ego depletion impairs the ability to control oneself later on. A depleting task requiring self-control can have a hindering effect on a subsequent self-control task, even if the tasks are seemingly unrelated. Self-control plays a valuable role in the functioning of the self on both individualistic and interpersonal levels. Ego depletion is therefore a critical topic in experimental psychology, specifically social psychology, because it is a mechanism that contributes to the understanding of the processes of human self-control. There have both been studies to support and to question the validity of ego-depletion as a theory.

Optimism bias or optimistic bias is a cognitive bias that causes someone to believe that they themselves are less likely to experience a negative event. It is also known as unrealistic optimism or comparative optimism.

In social psychology, illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein people overestimate their own qualities and abilities compared to others. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits. Overestimation of abilities compared to an objective measure is known as the overconfidence effect.

Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded. Norms are implicit, specific rules, guidance shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others. People often choose to conform to society rather than to pursue personal desires – because it is often easier to follow the path others have made already, rather than forging a new one. Thus, conformity is sometimes a product of group communication. This tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or in society as a whole and may result from subtle unconscious influences, or from direct and overt social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or when watching television, even if alone.

Elevation is an emotion elicited by witnessing actual or imagined virtuous acts of remarkable moral goodness. It is experienced as a distinct feeling of warmth and expansion that is accompanied by appreciation and affection for the individual whose exceptional conduct is being observed. Elevation motivates those who experience it to open up to, affiliate with, and assist others. Elevation makes an individual feel lifted up and optimistic about humanity.

The psychology of eating meat is an area of study seeking to illuminate the confluence of morality, emotions, cognition, and personality characteristics in the phenomenon of the consumption of meat. Research into the psychological and cultural factors of meat-eating suggests correlations with masculinity, support for hierarchical values, and reduced openness to experience. Because meat eating is widely practiced but is sometimes associated with ambivalence, it has been used as a case study in moral psychology to illustrate theories of cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement. Research into the consumer psychology of meat is relevant to meat industry marketing, as well as for advocates of reduced meat consumption.

Do-gooder derogation is a phenomenon where a person's morally motivated behavior leads to them being perceived negatively by others. The term "do-gooder" refers to a person who deviates from the majority in terms of behavior, because of their morality.

References

↑ Sachdeva, S; Iliev, R; Medin, D. L. (2009). "Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation". Psychological Science. 20 (4): 523–528. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.296.4489 . doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02326.x. PMID 19320857. S2CID 30362764.
1 2 Merritt, Anna C.; Effron, Daniel A.; Monin, Benoît (2010). "Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad" (PDF). Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 4 (5): 344–357. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x. S2CID 18262436. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-05-29.
1 2 3 4 Khan, Uzma; Dhar, Ravi (2006). "Licensing effect in consumer choice" (PDF). Journal of Marketing Research. 43 (2): 259–266. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.313.4564 . doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.2.259. S2CID 47747949. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-04-01. Executive summary.
↑ Clot S; Grolleau G; Ibanez L (December 2011). "Do Good Deeds Make Bad People?" (PDF). INRA-IDEI Seminar; Toulouse, France. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-02-18. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
1 2 3 Monin, B; Miller, D. T. (2001). "Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (1): 33–43. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33. PMID 11474723. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-04-30.
1 2 Blanken, Irene; van de Ven, Niels; Zeelenberg, Marcel (25 February 2015). "A Meta-Analytic Review of Moral Licensing". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 41 (4): 540–558. doi:10.1177/0146167215572134. PMID 25716992. S2CID 65216.
1 2 3 Kuo, Iris (February 1, 2006). "'Licensing effect' seen in dieting, charity, hiring". Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. Archived from the original on May 29, 2016. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
1 2 Kouchaki, M. (2011). "Vicarious moral licensing: The influence of others' past moral actions on moral behavior". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (4): 702–715. doi:10.1037/a0024552. PMID 21744973.
1 2 Blanken, Irene; van de Ven, Niels; Zeelenberg, Marcel; Meijers, Marijn (2014). "Three attempts to replicate the moral licensing effect". Social Psychology. 45 (3): 232–238. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000189 . S2CID 53072098.
1 2 3 4 Kuper, Niclas; Bott, Antonia (2019). "Has the evidence for moral licensing been inflated by publication bias?". Meta-Psychology. 3. doi: 10.15626/MP.2018.878 .
↑ Van de Ven, Niels; Blanken, Irene; Zeelenberg, Marcel (2018). "Temptation-based reasoning: When tempted, everything becomes a (better) reason to indulge". Journal of Marketing Behavior. 3 (3): 185–209. doi:10.1561/107.00000047. S2CID 149841080.
↑ Krumm, A. J.; Corning, A. F. (2008). "Who Believes Us When We Try to Conceal Our Prejudices? The Effectiveness of Moral Credentials With In-Groups Versus Out-Groups". The Journal of Social Psychology. 148 (6): 689–709. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.6.689-710. PMID 19058658. S2CID 45138670.
1 2 3 4 5 Rosenwald, Michael S (July 18, 2010). "Why going green won't make you better or save you money". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-05-06. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
↑ Chernev, Alexander (2010). "The Dieter's Paradox" (PDF). Journal of Consumer Psychology. 21 (2): 178–183. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.08.002. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-06-17. Retrieved 2012-08-09.
1 2 Chiou, W. B.; Yang, C. C.; Wan, C. S. (2011). "Ironic effects of dietary supplementation: illusory invulnerability created by taking dietary supplements licenses health-risk behaviors". Psychological Science. 22 (8): 1081–1086. doi:10.1177/0956797611416253. PMID 21764996. S2CID 206585677. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 29, 2016.
1 2 3 Goldacre, Ben (August 26, 2011). "Vitamin pills can lead you to take health risks". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 2017-08-12. Retrieved 2012-08-09. Cites Chiou, Yang & Wan (2011).
1 2 3 LaRue Huget, Jennifer (April 25, 2011). "The flip side of dietary supplement use". Washington Post . Archived from the original on 2017-11-07. Retrieved 2012-08-09. Cites Chiou, Yang & Wan (2011).
↑ Hofmann, W.; Wisneski, D. C.; Brandt, M. J.; Skitka, L. J. (11 September 2014). "Morality in everyday life". Science. 345 (6202): 1340–1343. Bibcode:2014Sci...345.1340H. doi:10.1126/science.1251560. PMID 25214626. S2CID 31731176.
↑ "'Licensing effect' negating the benefit of vitamins". Health Daily. August 4, 2011. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Cites Chiou, Yang & Wan (2011).
↑ Mazar, N; Zhong, C. B. (2010). "Do Green Products Make Us Better People?" (PDF). Psychological Science. 21 (4): 494–498. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.333.6172 . doi:10.1177/0956797610363538. PMID 20424089. S2CID 5728562. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-05-29.
1 2 Urban, Jan; Bahník, Štěpán; Kohlová, Markéta Braun (June 2019). "Green consumption does not make people cheat: Three attempts to replicate moral licensing effect due to pro-environmental behavior". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 63: 139–147. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.011. S2CID 150896694. Archived from the original on 2020-02-11. Retrieved 2021-05-24.
↑ Davis, Lucas W. (2008). "Durable goods and residential demand for energy and water: evidence from a field trial" (PDF). RAND Journal of Economics. 39 (2): 530–46. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.362.4760 . doi:10.1111/j.0741-6261.2008.00026.x. JSTOR 25474381. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-05-29.
↑ Effron, Daniel A.; Cameron, Jessica S.; Monin, Benoît (2009). "Endorsing Obama licenses favoring Whites" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 45 (3): 590–593. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-04-01. Retrieved 2021-07-04.
↑ "Backing Obama gives some voters license to favor whites over blacks, study shows". Stanford University News Service. March 2, 2009. Archived from the original on 2018-01-19. Retrieved 2012-08-09. Cites Effron, Cameron & Monin (2009).
1 2 Simbrunner, Philipp; Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. (16 August 2017). "Moral licensing: a culture-moderated meta-analysis". Management Review Quarterly. 67 (4): 201–225. doi: 10.1007/s11301-017-0128-0 .
↑ Rotella, Amanda; Barclay, Pat (July 2020). "Failure to replicate moral licensing and moral cleansing in an online experiment" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 161: 109967. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109967. S2CID 216437024.