We need to be more tolerant of hypocrisy
Why hypocrisy is so intuitive and why attacking it can backfire--an interview + book giveaway with Michael Hallsworth
In our society, hypocrisy may as well be one of the seven deadly sins. From corporate inconsistencies, celebrity scandals to political conflicts, people tend to be quick to notice hypocrisy, call it out and cancel others despite biased accusations. Perhaps the relentless attention to hypocrisy is doing more harm than good, and fools us into disconnecting with others who show even slight inconsistencies. Michael Hallsworth, a behavioral scientist and Distinguished Lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania explains how these traps work in his new book, The Hypocrisy Trap.
One of the most dangerous forms of hypocrisy explored in the book is “double standards hypocrisy,” where people judge their own group leniently while condemning out-group members for the very same behavior. Decades of research has found that when people are placed into arbitrary groups, we almost instantly favor our own group and derogate the other. Another form of hypocrisy that threatens fair democratic processes is characterized by profound distrust, what researchers call “democratic hypocrisy” — when people are willing to bend or break democratic rules to stop political opponents from winning.
In our interview, Michael explains why hypocrisy is so intuitive, why attacking it can backfire, and why tolerating some inconsistency may be necessary to preserve trust, cooperation, and democracy itself.
We must become more discerning. We need to tolerate some forms of hypocrisy—like the everyday compromises that allow societies to function, or the imperfect attempts of people striving to be better.
— Michael Hallsworth
You can learn more about The Hypocrisy Trap here and order a copy now! Plus, we are giving away 2 free physical copies to The Power of Us subscribers. To enter the giveaway, check out the details following the interview…
What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?
My book, The Hypocrisy Trap, argues that our accusations of hypocrisy are deeply entangled with our group identities. One of the most dangerous forms of hypocrisy I explore is “double standards hypocrisy,” where we judge our own group leniently while condemning outsiders for the very same behavior. We are all susceptible to this. Decades of research show that we can be placed into arbitrary groups and, almost instantly, we start favoring our own side and derogating the other.
This dynamic is supercharged in modern politics. We see our political opponents not just as wrong, but as an existential threat to the nation. This profound distrust leads to what researchers call “democratic hypocrisy”. People become more willing to bend or break democratic rules to stop the other side from winning. A fascinating and disturbing study found that the people who most fear that their opponents will destroy democracy are the most willing to sabotage it themselves to “save” it. We tell ourselves we are the true defenders of our group’s values, which paradoxically justifies abandoning those values to defeat our enemies.
This isn’t just about politics; it’s baked into our evolutionary past. In our hunter-gatherer bands, we developed a fierce loyalty to our in-group and a suspicion of outsiders, which was essential for survival. The problem is that these ancient instincts are a poor fit for modern, diverse societies where we need to cooperate across group lines. My book reveals how these deep-seated group dynamics fuel our accusations and how the resulting hypocrisy trap threatens to pull our societies apart by escalating conflict and undermining the principles of democracy.
What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?
The most critical takeaway is the concept of the “hypocrisy trap” itself. We instinctively believe that the cure for hypocrisy is to relentlessly seek it out and condemn it furiously. My book argues this is a dangerous mistake. Instead, our drive to destroy all hypocrisy often ends up creating more of it, or something far worse .
Here’s how the trap works. First, our accusations can create more hypocrisy. When we call someone out, we often tell ourselves we’re motivated purely by principle. But we’re also driven by the satisfying feeling of superiority that comes from taking someone down. A gap emerges between our pristine self-image and our mixed motives—which is a form of hypocrisy itself. This can lead to a “purity spiral,” where ever-stricter standards are enforced with cruel fanaticism.
The other danger is that we exhaust the concept of hypocrisy by overusing it for the slightest inconsistency. Accusations lose their power to shame and become just another meaningless term of abuse. When this happens, we slide into a bleak world of “Brazen Power Plays,” where no one cares about being called a hypocrite and power becomes the only thing that matters.
So, the core message is that we must become more discerning. We need to tolerate some forms of hypocrisy—like the everyday compromises that allow societies to function, or the imperfect attempts of people striving to be better. This allows us to save our outrage for the most corrosive forms that truly harm us all.
Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?
The idea for the book started at my kitchen table. My seven-year-old daughter, Alice, caught my wife sneaking a bit of Christmas pudding from the fridge just after she’d told Alice we’d all had too many sweets . With the brilliant intuition of a child, Alice immediately declared, “You’re like the Prime Minister having the party when he had told people not to have parties!”. She’d instantly connected a minor domestic inconsistency to the massive “Partygate” scandal that was consuming the UK, where leaders who set strict lockdown rules were caught repeatedly breaking them . It struck me how powerfully and intuitively we grasp hypocrisy, but also how complex and fraught it is.
Researching and writing forced me to move beyond a simple, judgmental view. I came to see hypocrisy not as a straightforward personal failing but as a complex social process. I learned that our expectations of perfect consistency in ourselves and others are often unrealistic and even counterproductive. The process made me more sympathetic to the idea of “Everyday Compromises” and more forgiving of people who are trying to be better but falling short.
What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?
Readers will likely find the central argument provocative: that we need to be more tolerant of hypocrisy. We’re taught that hypocrisy is one of the worst vices, the “only unforgivable sin” as the philosopher Judith Shklar put it. My book argues that this view is not only wrong, but dangerous. An all-out war on hypocrisy is self-defeating and threatens the foundations of our democracies.
Another controversial idea is that our furious reaction to hypocrisy often has less to do with moral principle and more to do with status competition. We enjoy taking hypocrites down because it gives us a satisfying hit of “sudden glory,” as Thomas Hobbes called it. We gain status when they lose it. This view challenges our self-perception as purely righteous crusaders against injustice.
Perhaps most provocatively, I challenge the Western ideal of the consistent, authentic self. Drawing on behavioral science, I argue that our minds are more like a collection of separate “apps” than a single, coherent CEO. Inconsistency isn’t a bug; it’s a feature of how our minds evolved to adapt to different contexts. This modular view of the mind suggests that demanding perfect consistency from ourselves or others is fundamentally at odds with our human nature.
Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?
The final third part of the book is all about how we can do things differently. For example, in terms of individual change, I stress the need to design your life for consistency, rather than just relying on willpower. We often think the solution to our own hypocrisy is to just try harder. But the people who are best at self-control don’t have more willpower; they structure their lives so they need less of it. For companies, I show how to talk about new initiatives in ways that minimize the risk of being accused of hypocrisy. And finally, I talk about how we need to change our expectations of politicians — and target those who claim to be able to remove hypocrisy from politics altogether.
🎁 Book Giveaway Details 📖
To enter Michael’s book giveaway for the Hypocrisy Trap, either…
Be a paid subscriber to the newsletter. Paid subscribers are automatically entered into all our book giveaways! We will have more book giveaways with different authors every month. You can subscribe or upgrade your subscription below.
If you are not a paid subscriber yet, simply leave a comment below about a time you felt enraged after you observed hypocrisy.
Note: Giveaway is open worldwide. Enter before November 2nd, 12 pm PST. One winner will be selected at random and emailed on November 3rd!
News and Updates
Jay gave a talk on social media and false polarization at the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine and Engineering last week. Over 700 people watched the talk live, and it is now available for free online if you want to check it out:
Check out our Ask Me Anything sessions for fall! Paid Subscribers can join us for our monthly live Q&A with Jay or Dom where you can ask us anything from workshopping research questions, career advice to opinions and recommendations on pop culture happenings—for paid subscribers only. Upgrade your subscription using the button below.
Sept 11th: 4:00 EST with JayOct 16th 4:00 EST with DomNov 6th 4:00 EST with JayDec 11th 4:00 EST with Dom
Catch up on the last one…
Last week, we debriefed a new pre-print from Jay’s lab about how social influences shape moral behaviors and values.
Why “doing what’s right” depends on who you are with
People strive to be “good,” praising values like honesty, generosity, and fairness. But when the moment comes to act, they often fall short. They loudly broadcast their views online but refrain from taking action in the real world. If morality is so central to our identities, why does it often fail to translate into behavior?
the interview has really got me thinking about how this plays out in my life.
I thought that it was interesting that the California Democratic voting population chose to overwhelmingly pass a bill in the midterm elections mandating gerrymandering after accusing Republicans of trying to destroy democracy in America.