Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
权力如何影响道德判断行为:情境卷入的效应
郑睦凡;赵俊华
(武汉大学哲学学院心理学系, 武汉 430072)
How Power Influences Moral Judgement: The Effect of Situational Involvement
ZHENG Mufan;ZHAO Junhua
(Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China)
全文: PDF(368 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

情境卷入使不同权力者与道德两难事件发生联系, 并做出对他们有利的道德判断。为了验证这种假设, 本研究首先采用无序句子任务分别启动高低权力, 结果发现人称指向和权力差异对被试的道德判断行为没有影响, 权力感主效应不显著, 人称指向主效应不显著, 两变量交互作用也不显著, 这其中的原因可能是被试对卷入道德事件的体验不够深刻。为此, 在实验二中, 我们一方面变化道德事件与自身体验的相关性, 另一方面提高启动任务的情境性, 结果发现不管道德事件中主人公是否和自己相关, 当被试均有高情境卷入时, 高低权力造成的道德判断行为差异消失了。实验三和实验四则进一步证实, 在自然权力状态下, 道德事件本身也会引起被试的情境卷入感, 高情境卷入不但可以消解高低权力者道德判断行为的差异, 还可以分化同是高权力者在道德判断行为上的一致性。以上研究证明, 在面对道德两难事件时, 不同权力者都会做出对他们有利的判断, 但这取决于判断者卷入该事件情境的程度。情境卷入程度低时, 被试倾向基于规则的道德判断, 情境卷入程度高时, 被试倾向基于结果的道德判断。这说明道德判断是适应环境的一种手段。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
郑睦凡
赵俊华
关键词 权力道德判断情境卷入基于规则基于结果    
Abstract

Previous studies found that when subjects were given a moral dilemma to resolve, high-power participants prefer Rule-based Judgment, while low-power participants prefer Outcome-based Judgement. Lammers and Stapel (2009)attributed this to the benefits attained or retained from the type of judgment, but they did not conduct further research to explain why power-holders felt their benefits were threatened. According to the Evolution of Moral Mechanisms (Krebs 2005), situational involvement connects the power-holders with the moral dilemma story, and compels them to choose the moral judgment that would be advantageous for themselves. Four studies were conducted to explore the relationship between a power-holders’ moral dilemma judgment and situational involvement. Experiment 1 used a disorder sentence task to prime power feelings, and the results showed that the factor of protagonist was not significant as a main effect (F(1,107)=0.38, p=0.54), nor did it interact significantly with the factor of power (F(1,107)=2.27, p=0.14), and no main effect of power (F(1,107)=0.07, p=0.79). In light of moral evolutionary perspectives, we speculate that participants may need more situational priming to elicit their feeling of power, so this paper strengthened the relationship between the moral event and self-experience, and made the priming task more situationalized in experiment 2. Therefore, the differences of moral judgment styles between high and low-power participants disappeared (t(58)=0.56, p=0.58). Furthermore, in experiment 3 and 4, the different situation exposure to moral events can bring different moral judgments among high power participants (t(60)=-4.30, p<0.001), even in natural power conditions without artificial power priming task before presenting moral events. In brief, situational involvement considerably influences the power holders’ moral judgments. When the power holders were presented with a moral dilemma event in which they had personally experienced it, they would shift their moral judgment style from rule-based to outcome-based, which demonstrates that moral judgment is a biological adaptive strategy to a person’s environment.

Key wordspower    moral judgements    situational involvement    rule-based    outcome-based
收稿日期: 2013-03-07      出版日期: 2013-11-25
基金资助:

武汉大学自主科研项目(人文社会科学)研究成果, 得到“中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金”、武汉大学“985工程”认知与神经信息科学平台项目 (904273258)资助。

通讯作者: 赵俊华   
引用本文:   
郑睦凡;赵俊华. 权力如何影响道德判断行为:情境卷入的效应[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01274.
ZHENG Mufan;ZHAO Junhua. How Power Influences Moral Judgement: The Effect of Situational Involvement. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(11): 1274-1282.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01274      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2013/V45/I11/1274
[1] 杨文琪;李强;郭名扬;范谦;何伊丽. 权力感对个体的影响:调节定向的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 404-415.
[2] 罗俊; 叶航;郑昊力;贾拥民;陈姝; 黄达强. 左右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图信息加工能力的共同作用——基于经颅直流电刺激技术[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(2): 228-240.
[3] 靳菲; 朱华伟;. 消费者的权力感与冲动购买[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(7): 880-890.
[4] 郑晓明; 刘鑫. 互动公平对员工幸福感的影响:心理授权的中介作用与权力距离的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 693-709.
[5] 陆欣欣;孙嘉卿. 领导−成员交换与情绪枯竭:互惠信念和权力距离导向的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(5): 566-577.
[6] 陈欢;毕圣;庞隽. 权力感知对怀旧偏好的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(12): 1589-1599.
[7] 容琰;隋杨; 杨百寅. 领导情绪智力对团队绩效和员工态度的影响——公平氛围和权力距离的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1152-1161.
[8] 杨惠兰;何先友;赵雪汝;张维. 权力的概念隐喻表征:来自大小与颜色隐喻的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(7): 939-949.
[9] 唐佩佩;叶浩生;杜建政. 权力概念与空间大小:具身隐喻的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 514-521.
[10] 童璐琼. 权力状态对消费者边界偏好的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(11): 1371-1378.
[11] 梁建. 道德领导与员工建言:一个调节-中介模型的构建与检验[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(2): 252-264.
[12] 甘甜;李万清;唐红红;陆夏平;李小俚;刘超;罗跃嘉. 经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(9): 1004-1014.
[13] 段锦云;黄彩云. 个人权力感对进谏行为的影响机制:权力认知的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(2): 217-230.
[14] 汝涛涛;莫雷;张婷;焦鸿浩;黄玉兰. 基于规则的类别学习中言语标签和动作标签的建构[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(12): 1334-1344.
[15] 李小平,杨晟宇,李梦遥. 权威人格与权力感对道德思维方式的影响[J]. , 2012, 44(7): 964-971.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn