Authors : Moritz Gruban, Matthieu Légeret, Patrick Haack
Our study tests a core assumption in legitimacy research: that evaluators’ legitimacy judgements translate into corresponding behaviour. To examine the alignment between legitimacy judgements and actions, we conducted two experiments (Study 1 with 1,889 participants and Study 2 with 801 participants).
The experiments manipulated three factors: self-interest through incentives; alignment with social norms through framing; and whether participants were asked to make propriety judgements before acting. The results revealed important disconnects between what people judge as legitimate and how they behave. Specifically, norm violations and self-interest affected behaviour differently to how they affected judgements. Study 1 also revealed a ‘neutralisation effect’, whereby asking people to judge the legitimacy of an action beforehand weakened their subsequent behavioural response. Study 2 suggests that neutralisation depends on the population and social norms.
Our findings demonstrate that legitimacy judgements do not reliably translate into corresponding actions. This highlights the need to distinguish between the evaluative and behavioural manifestations of legitimacy, i.e. what people think is appropriate and what they actually do. By identifying the circumstances in which legitimacy judgements do and do not influence behaviour, our research advances the understanding of legitimacy as a behavioural phenomenon and provides methodological guidance for future experimental research.