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

  • P-ISSN1229-0653
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.31 No.1

Citation Share

이익충돌 상황에서 공개가 사익추구행동에 미치는 영향: 자발 공개와 강제 공개의 비교

The effects of disclosing conflict of interest on consultation: A comparative study of voluntary and mandatory disclosure

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2017, v.31 no.1, pp.23-39
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2017.31.1.002
김남호 (연세대학교)
정경미 (연세대학교)
김남호, & 정경미. (2017). 이익충돌 상황에서 공개가 사익추구행동에 미치는 영향: 자발 공개와 강제 공개의 비교. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 31(1), 23-39, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2017.31.1.002

초록

이익충돌은 전문가로서의 책임이 개인적 이익과 상충되는 상태로, 부정부패 발생의 주요한 상황적 요인 가운데 하나이다. 실제 현장에서는 이익충돌에 따른 문제를 해결하기 위해 전문가가 이익충돌 사실을 사전에 공개하는 방법을 사용해왔으나, 이러한 공개의 효과에 대한 기존 연구들의 보고는 일관적이지 않다. 본 연구에서는 첫째, 이익충돌 상황에서 공개 조건과 공개 여부에 따른 사익추구행동의 차이가 있는지 검증하고, 둘째, 공개에 따른 집단 간 도덕적 정당화 수준의 차이가 있는지 검증하였다. 이를 위해, 대학생 109명(남: 65명, 여: 44명)을 자발 조건, 강제 공개 조건, 강제 비공개 조건으로 무선할당한 뒤, 이익충돌 상황에서 가상의 파트너에게 자문을 하는 온라인 컴퓨터 과제와 도덕적 정당화 수준과 도덕적 정체성을 측정하기 위한 사후 설문을 실시하였다. 연구 결과, 집단 간 도덕적 정체성의 차이는 나타나지 않았으며, 공개 조건과 공개 여부에 따른 상호작용 효과가 유의미하였다. 즉, 자발 조건에서는 공개 집단의 사익추구행동이 비공개 집단보다 유의미하게 작은 반면, 강제 조건에서는 공개 집단의 사익추구행동이 비공개 집단보다 유의미하게 큰 것으로 나타나 자발 조건에서는 공개의 기대효과가, 강제조건에서는 공개의 역효과가 나타남을 알 수 있었다. 또한, 강제 공개 집단이 강제 비공개 집단보다 사익추구행동을 더 정당화하는 것으로 나타나, 도덕적 정당화가 공개의 역효과를 설명하는 심리적 기제임을 알 수 있었다. 이 같은 결과를 바탕으로 본 연구의 함의와 의의에 더불어 한계점 및 후속 연구를 위한 제언을 논의하였다.

keywords
Conflicts of interest, Voluntary Disclosure, Mandatory Disclosure, Self-interested behavior, Moral licensing, 이익충돌, 자발 공개, 강제 공개, 사익추구행동, 도덕적 정당화

Abstract

Conflict of interest (COI) can lead people to give self-interested consultation in a field of business, medical/ pharmaceutical industry, research etc. Disclosure is often proposed as a remedy for various problems of COI but prior studies have reported inconsistent results regarding its effects on consultation. This study compared the differential effects of voluntary and mandatory disclosure of COI during consultation. A total of 109 participants were randomly assigned to one of 3 conditions: voluntary disclosure, mandatory disclosure, or non-disclosure. Participants were asked to provide consultation to a virtual partner in an on-line experiment; then, a questionnaire was administered to the participants to examine the effects of moral licensing. The results showed that participants who chose to disclose COI were less likely to provide self-interested consultation than participants who chose not to disclose COI. In contrast, participants who mandatorily disclosed COI were more likely to provide self-interested consultation compared to participants assigned to non-disclosure condition. Also, participants who mandatorily disclosed COI were more likely to consider their self-interested consultation as morally correct than non-disclosure condition. Implications and limitations are further discussed.

keywords
Conflicts of interest, Voluntary Disclosure, Mandatory Disclosure, Self-interested behavior, Moral licensing, 이익충돌, 자발 공개, 강제 공개, 사익추구행동, 도덕적 정당화

참고문헌

1.

김수빈, 김지혜, 정경미 (2016). 이익충돌 상황에서 공개가 자문행동에 주는 효과: 자문가역할수행집단과 사익추구집단의 비교. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 22(1), 1-18.

2.

김용철, 정재동 (2006). 부패에 관한 시민의식과 통제전략의 모색. 한국거버넌스학회보, 13(3), 255-278.

3.

김철식 (2012). 공무원 부정부패의 원인과 현황에 대한 실증적 분석. 공공사회연구, 2(1), 43-76.

4.

이정덕, 장정현 (2012). 공무원부패에 관한 국가간 비교연구. 사회과학연구, 19(2), 73-97.

5.

조윤형 (2014). 진정리더십과 반생산성 과업활동, 조직시민행동과의 관계: 도덕적 정체성의 매개효과, 조직지원의 조절효과. 조선대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.

6.

Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self- importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423- 1440.

7.

Austin, J., Hatfield, D. B., Grindle, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (1993). Increasing recycling in office environments: The effects of specific, informative cues. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(2), 247-253.

8.

Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2002). Why good accountants do bad audits. Harvard Business Review, 80(11), 96-103.

9.

Bebchuk, L. A., & Jackson, R. J. (2012). Shining light on corporate political spending. The Georgetown Law Journal, 101(4), 923-967.

10.

Berndt, T. J. (1981). Effects of friendship on prosocial intentions and behavior. Child Development, 52(2) 636-643.

11.

Brennan, N., & Kelly, J. (2007). A study of whistleblowing among trainee auditors. The British Accounting Review, 39(1), 61-87.

12.

Cain, D. M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2005). The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34(1), 1-25.

13.

Cain, D. M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2011). When sunlight fails to disinfect: Understanding the perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 836-857.

14.

Church, B. K., & Kuang, X. J. (2009). Conflicts of interest, disclosure, and (costly) sanctions: Experimental evidence. The Journal of Legal Studies, 38(2), 505-532.

15.

Clot, S., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2013). Self-licensing and financial rewards: is morality for sale?. Economics Bulletin, 33(3), 2298-2306.

16.

Conway, P., & Peetz, J. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(7), 907-919.

17.

Crystal, N. M. (1990). Disqualification of Counsel for Unrelated Matter Conflicts of Interest. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 4, 273-315.

18.

Cunningham, G. M., & Harris, J. E. (2006). Enron and Arthur Adndersen: The Case of the Crooked E and the Fallen A. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, 3, 27-48.

19.

DeAngelis, C. D. (2000). Conflict of interest and the public trust. Jama, 284(17), 2237-2238.

20.

Effron, D. A. (2014). Making Mountains of Morality From Molehills of Virtue Threat Causes People to Overestimate Their Moral Credentials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 972-985.

21.

Effron, D. A., & Conway, P. (2015). When virtue leads to villainy: advances in research on moral self-licensing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 32-35.

22.

Fishbach, A., Dhar, R., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Subgoals as substitutes or complements: the role of goal accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 232.

23.

Fishbach, A., Koo, M., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2014). Motivation resulting from completed and missing actions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 257-307.

24.

Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Koo, M. (2009). The dynamics of self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 315-344.

25.

Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 319-359.

26.

Grimm, P. F., Kohlberg, L., & White, S. H. (1968). Some relationships between conscience and attentional processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 239-252.

27.

Jung, W. S., & Villegas, J. (2011). The effects of message framing, involvement, and nicotine dependence on anti-smoking public service announcements. Health Marketing Quarterly, 28(3), 219-231.

28.

Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259-266.

29.

Koch, C., & Schmidt, C. (2010). Disclosing conflicts of interest–Do experience and reputation matter?. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 95-107.

30.

Krimsky, S., & Rothenberg, L. S. (2001). Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: Editorial practices and author disclosures. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(2), 205-218.

31.

Li, Y. (2010). The case analysis of the scandal of Enron. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(10), 37.

32.

Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2006). “We can do this the easy way or the hard way”: Negative emotions, self-regulation, and the law. The University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1), 183-206.

33.

Loewenstein, G., Cain, D. M., & Sah, S. (2011). The limits of transparency: Pitfalls and potential of disclosing conflicts of interest. The American Economic Review, 101(3), 423-428.

34.

Loewenstein, G., Sunstein, C. R., & Golman, R. (2013). Disclosure: Psychology changes everything. Annual Review of Economics, 391, 1-42.

35.

Malinowski, C. I., & Smith, C. P. (1985). Moral reasoning and moral conduct: An investigation prompted by Kohlberg's theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 1016.

36.

Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644.

37.

Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 117-126.

38.

Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344-357.

39.

Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 159-167.

40.

Miceli, M. P., Dozier, J. B., & Near, J. P. (1991). Blowing the Whistle on Data Fudging: A Controlled Field Experiment1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(4), 271-295.

41.

Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 33.

42.

Mueller, M. M., Moore, J. W., Doggett, R. A., & Tingstrom, D. H. (2000). The effectiveness of contingency-specific and contingency-nonspecific prompts in controlling bathroom graffiti. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(1), 89-92.

43.

Nowell, C., & Laufer, D. (1997). Undergraduate student cheating in the fields of business and economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 28(1), 3-12.

44.

Political & Economic Risk Consultancy. (2015). PERC’s 2015 Report on Corruption in Asia, Politcal & Economic Risk Consultancy, Hong Kong, 2-36.

45.

Romano, R. (2005). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the making of quack corporate governance. The Yale Law Journal, 114(7) 1521-1611.

46.

Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners the paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523-528.

47.

Sah, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2014). Nothing to Declare Mandatory and Voluntary Disclosure Leads Advisors to Avoid Conflicts of Interest. Psychological Science, 25(2), 575-584.

48.

Sunstein, C. R. (1999). Informational regulation and informational standing: Akins and beyond. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 147(3), 613-675.

49.

Taha, A. E., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2015). Disclosures About Disclosures: Can Conflict of Interest Warnings be Made More Effective?. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12(2), 236-251.

50.

Thompson, D. F. (1993). Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine, 329(8), 573-576.

51.

Transparency International. (2013). http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results.

52.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403.

53.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440.

54.

Tuch, A. F. (2005). Investment Banks as Fiduciaries: Implications for Conflicts of Interest. Melbourne University Law Review, 29(2), 478-517.

55.

Watson, T. S. (1996). A prompt plus delayed contingency procedure for reducing bathroom graffiti. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 121-124.

56.

Wazana, A. (2000). Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift?. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(3), 373-380.

57.

Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. (2009). Donation behavior toward in-groups and out-groups: The role of gender and moral identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 199-214.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책