Hero or Victim: The Consequences of Moral Stigma on Necessary Evil Practitioners

Abstract

Necessary evil practitioners (NEPs) perform tasks that cause harm for a greater societal good, placing them in morally complex roles. Across three studies, this research examined how NEPs apply moral accounting to justify their harm-doing, and how this shapes their hero versus victim self-identification. Results showed moral accounting predicted greater hero identification, which promoted prosocial outcomes such as restitution support for their targets of harm and greater work transparency. Under elevated levels of perceived moral stigma, the pathway from hero to victim identification counteracted these prosocial effects, rendering them statistically non-significant. These findings contribute to both the theoretical and practical understanding of enacting necessary evil tasks, as they relate to occupational stigma and relevant work outcomes.