바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1229-067X

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.32 No.2
Citation Share

누가 결과주의적 결정을 내리는가? 권력이 윤리적/정책적 의사결정에 미치는 영향

The Effects of Power on Ethical Decision Making: Who Shows Outcome-based Decision?

한국심리학회지: 일반 / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2013, v.32 no.2, pp.489-506
정은경 (백석대학교)
정은경. (2013). 누가 결과주의적 결정을 내리는가? 권력이 윤리적/정책적 의사결정에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 32(2), 489-506.
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구는 상사와 부하라는 권력관계가 윤리적, 정책적 의사결정에 미치는 영향을 살펴보았다. 권력의 영향에 대한 연구들은 단순히 권력은 부패한다는 관점이 아니라 권력이 사람들의 인지, 정서, 행동 등에 미치는 다양한 효과를 연구하는데 집중되고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 지금까지의 대부분 연구들의 결과는 역시 권력을 가진 사람들이 그렇지 않은 사람들보다 비윤리적이기 쉬울 가능성을 제시하고 있다. 본 연구는 권력감이 높은 사람들이 규칙기반적 사고를, 권력감이 낮은 사람들이 결과기반적 사고를 한다는 기존연구(Lammers & Stapel, 2009)를 바탕으로, 실제로 기업의 윤리적 의사결정 과제와 조직의 정책결정 과제에서도 이러한 결과가 나타나는지를 검증해보고자 하였다. 또한 권력과 결과주의적 의사결정을 지각된 이득과 지각된 위험이 매개하는지도 살펴보았다. 연구 1에서는 기업에서 발생할 수 있는 윤리적 문제를 담은 3개 시나리오를 사용하여 권력감이 낮은 사람들이 더 결과주의적인(여기서는 비윤리적인) 결정을 내리는지를 검증하였다. 의사결정과 예상되는 후회 및 죄책감이 종속변인으로 사용되었는데, 모두에서 예상대로 권력감이 낮은 사람들이 높은 사람들보다 더 결과주의적인 결정을 내리는 것으로 나타났다. 연구 2에서는 다수 국민의 유익을 위해 소수 국민의 손실을 감수해야하는 국가 정책 시나리오 3개 시나리오가 사용되었다. 예측대로 권력감이 낮은 사람들이 더 결과주의적인 결정을 내렸으며 지각된 이득이 매개효과를 갖는 것으로 나타났다. 반면 지각된 위험의 매개효과는 나타나지 않았다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 조직내에서의 권력의 영향과 윤리적 의사결정간의 관계와 추후 연구방향이 논의되었다.

keywords
Power, Ethical decisions, Policy decisions, Outcome-based decisions, Perceived gains, Perceived risks, 권력, 윤리적 의사결정, 정책 의사결정, 결과주의, 지각된 이득, 지각된 위험

Abstract

Current research explored how power influences ethical decision and policy decision. In contrast to a plenty of research making it possible to postulate that power leads one to make unethical decision, a few studies have suggested that the relation between power and ethical decision be not simple like that. The author conducted 2 experiments to test the idea that the powerless show more outcome-based (consequentialist) ethical decision than the powerful do. In addition, it was another aim of this research to test that perceived gains and risks would mediate the relationship between power and ethical decision. In both study 1 (using 3 ethical business scenarios) and study 2 (using 3 policy scenarios), low power increases outcome-based decisions, whereas high power increases rule-based decisions, as expected. Also, the mediation effect of perceived gains is found, but the one of perceived risk is not. The implications and limitations of this study and the directions for the future research were discussed.

keywords
Power, Ethical decisions, Policy decisions, Outcome-based decisions, Perceived gains, Perceived risks, 권력, 윤리적 의사결정, 정책 의사결정, 결과주의, 지각된 이득, 지각된 위험

참고문헌

1.

정은경, 김봄메, 손영우 (2011). 조절초점이 위험감수에 미치는 영향: 지각된 이득의 매개효과를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25, 209-221.

2.

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377.

3.

Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 55-89.

4.

Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, Optimism, and the Proclivity for Risk. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36: 511-536.

5.

Baron, J. (1992). The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 63, 320-330.

6.

Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1994). Reference Points and Omission Bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 475-498.

7.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

8.

Brauer, M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 601 -616.

9.

Brauer, M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 601 -616.

10.

Connolly, T., & Reb, J. (2003). Omission bias in vaccination decisions: Where's the “omission”? Where's the “bias”? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 186-202.

11.

Depret, E., & Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation. In: G. Weary, F. Gleicher & R. L. Marsh (Eds.), Control Motivation and Social Cognition. New York: Springer-Verlag.

12.

Ebenbach, D. H., & Keltner, D. (1998). Power, emotion, and judgmental accuracy in social conflict: Motivating the cognitive miser. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 7-21.

13.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.

14.

Fiske, S. T., & Depret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence, and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. In: W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

15.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp.150–167). AnnArbor,MI: InstituteforSocialResearch.

16.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). Power and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.

17.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. & Liljenquist, K. 2008. Power Reduces the Press of the Situation: Implications for Creativity, Conformity, and Dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450-1466/.

18.

Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 5-20.

19.

Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power on perceived and objective group variability: Evidence that more powerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 708-721.

20.

Halpin,A. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

21.

Inesi, M. E. (2010). Power and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 58-69.

22.

Jordan, J. (2009). A social cognition framework for examing moral awareness in managers and academics. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 237 -258.

23.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

24.

Keltner, D., & Robinson, R. J. (1996). Extremism, power, and the imagined basis of social conflict. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 101-105.

25.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H, & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.

26.

Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33-41.

27.

Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Oxford: University of Chicago Press

28.

Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 279-289.

29.

Malamuth, N. (1996). Research on the confluence model of sexual aggression based on feminist and evolutionary perspectives. In Buss, D., & Malamuth, N. (Eds.). Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives. (pp. 269-295). New York: Oxford University Press.

30.

Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549-565.

31.

Reidenbach, R. E., Robin, D. P., & Dawson, L. (1991). An application and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale to selected marketing practices and marketing groups. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 83-92.

32.

Russel, B. (1938). Power, a new social analysis. London: Unwin Books.

33.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Simon, B. & Oakes, P. (2006). Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination. Human Relations, 59, 105-139.

35.

Soane, E., Dewberry, C., & Narendran, S. (2010). The role of perceived costs and perceived benefits in the relationship between personality and risk-related choices. Journal of Risk Research, 13, 303-318.

36.

Sondak, H., & Bazerman, M. H. (1991). “Power Balance and the Rationality of Outcomes in Matching Markets”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 1-23.

37.

Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 1-22.

38.

Wojciszke, B., & Struzynska-Kujalowicz, A. (2007). Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition, 25, 510-532.

39.

Wroe, A. L., Bhan, A., Salkovskis, P., & Bedford, H. (2005). Feeling bad about immunising our children. Vaccine, 23, 1428-1433.

한국심리학회지: 일반

논문 투고 OA 정책