바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.1
Citation Share

When Power Meets Moral Issues: Approach-Inhibition? or Promotion-Prevention?

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2014, v.28 no.1, pp.69-81
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.1.004

(2014). When Power Meets Moral Issues: Approach-Inhibition? or Promotion-Prevention?. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 28(1), 69-81, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.1.004
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Previous research on power revealed power is associated with the approach system. This paper tried to explore the relationships between power and regulatory focus, which seems similar motivational system with BAS/BIS(behavioral activation system/behavioral inhibition system). However, regulatory focus has been regarded as a different motivational system from BAS/BIS, in that regulatory focus can explain the goal state of an action or inaction. Three experiments were conducted. In Study 1 and 2, after manipulating power, participants read a moral dilemma and BAS/BIS and regulatory focus were measured subsequently. In Study 3, control group was included to clarify the changes of regulatory focus after power manipulation. Results showed power manipulation did not affect participants’ BAS/BIS scores after reading a moral scenario. Instead, it changed participants’ regulatory focus, in specific, prevention focus. Prevention focus was more decreased in high-power condition than in both low-power and control conditions. In addition, prevention scores were strongly higher than promotion scores in all the participants. The implications and limitations of this study and the directions for the future research were discussed.

keywords
권력, 도덕적 판단, 접근-억제, 조절초점, 예방초점, power, moral judgment, approach-inhibition, regulatory focus, prevention focus

Reference

1.

안서원, 박수애, 김범준 (2013). 돈과 권력이 대인간 거리에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 27, 47-58.

2.

정은경, 이지은, 손영우 (2010). 조절부합이 디자인과 도덕적 상황 평가에 미치는 영향. 감성과학, 13, 669-676.

3.

정은경 (2013). 누가 결과주의적 결정을 내리는가? 권력이 윤리적/정책적 의사결정에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 32, 489-506.

4.

Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200-212.

5.

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

6.

Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester:Wiley.

7.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.

8.

Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y. & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 173-187.

9.

Dean, L. M., Willis, F N., & Hewitt, J. (1975). Initial interaction distance among individuals equal and unequal in military rank. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 294-299.

10.

Fellner, B., Holler, M., Kirchler, E., & Schabmann, A. (2007). Regulatory Focus Scale (RFS):Development of a scale to record dispositional regulatory focus. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 109-116.

11.

Ferguson, A,. Ormiston, M. E., & Moon, H. (2010). From approach to inhibition: The influence of power on responses to poor-performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 305-320.

12.

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

13.

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

14.

Gray J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269–288.

15.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

16.

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

17.

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

18.

Leikas, S., Lönnqvist, J-E., Verkasalo, M. & Lindeman, M. (2009). Regulatory focus systems and personal values. European Journal of Social Psychology. 39, 415-429.

19.

Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 33, 200-212.

20.

Maner, J. K., Kaschak, M. P., & Jones, J. L. (2010). Social power and the advent of action. Social Cognition, 28, 122-132.

21.

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). A theory of explanation-based decision making. In G. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods(pp. 188-204). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

22.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.

23.

Smith, P. K., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Nonconscious effects of power on basic approach and avoidance tendencies. Social Cognition, 26, 1-24.

24.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

25.

Willis, G., Guinote, A., & Rodriguez- Bailon, R. (2010). Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in powerless individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 416-419.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy