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 : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.32 No.1
Citation Share

권력이 도덕적 위선에 미치는 영향: 도덕적 정체성의 조절효과

Does Power Increase Moral hypocrisy?: Moderating Role of Moral Identity

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2018, v.32 no.1, pp.49-64
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.1.003
정은경 (강원대학교)
정은경. (2018). 권력이 도덕적 위선에 미치는 영향: 도덕적 정체성의 조절효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 32(1), 49-64, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.1.003
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

권력이 도덕적 기능에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구는 꾸준히 증가되어 왔으나 권력이 도덕적 위선에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구는 아직 미미하다. 도덕적 위선의 정의와 선행연구에 기반하여 본 연구에서는 고권력감이 도덕적 위선을 더 높일 것이며, 그 관계를 개인의 도덕적 정체성이 조절할 것이라고 가정하고 이를 검증하였다. 연구 1에서는 3개 권력조건(고권력, 저권력, 통제조건)과 2개의 자기관련성 조건(도덕규범위반판단, 실제 비도덕행동)에 따른 집단구성을 통해 자기관련성에 따라 권력조건간의 차이가 있는지를 살펴보았다. 연구 2에서는 도덕적 정체성을 측정하여 권력조건(고권력, 저권력), 자기관련성(자신, 타인), 도덕적 정체성(고, 저)간의 3원 상호작용효과를 살펴보았다. 연구 1의 결과는 고권력감이 도덕적 위선을 높이는 것으로 나타났는데, 구체적으로, 일반적 규범판단에서는 저권력조건이 다른 두 조건보다 더 비윤리를 수용하는 모습을 보였으나 실제 도덕적 행동에서는 고권력조건이 통제조건보다는 유의미하게 비윤리적이었으며, 저권력조건보다는 비윤리적인 경향성을 보였다. 아울러 전체적 결과를 살펴볼 때, 저권력 집단이 일반 사람에 비해 자신에게 더 엄격한 도덕성을 보이는 것은 아닌 것으로 나타났다. 권력이 도덕적 위선에 미치는 영향은 도덕적 정체성이 조절하는 것으로 나타나, 도덕적 정체성이 낮은 집단에서만 고권력자가 도덕적 위선을 보이는 것으로 나타났으며 반대로 도덕적 정체성이 높은 집단에서는 고권력자가 오히려 자신에게 엄격한 모습을 보였다.

keywords
권력, 도덕적 위선, 도덕적 정체성, 자기 관련성, power, moral hypocrisy, moral identity, self-relevance

Abstract

Based on the previous research on moral hypocrisy and power, this paper hypothesized that power increases moral hypocrisy and moral identity moderates the relationship between them. In study 1, 3 power conditions (high power, low power, control) and 2 self-relevance conditions(moral norm judging, actual moral behavior) were designed to test the effect of power on moral judging and behavior. In study 2, the three-way interaction of power conditions(high, low), self-relevance conditions(self, others), and moral identity (high, low) was explored. Results of study 1 showed whereas the low power group expressed more generous standard to others compared to the high power and the control groups, the high power group showed more unethical elf-interested behaviors than the other groups. However, the general morality of power priming groups was lower than the control group, whether it is high power or low power, which does not support the argument that the powerless show hypercrisy. Study 2 unveiled the moderating role of moral identity. In specific, the powerful showed moral hypocrisy in the group with low moral identity. However, the powerful were more strict to themselves than to others in the group with high moral identity. The implications and limitations of this study and the directions for the future research were discussed.

keywords
권력, 도덕적 위선, 도덕적 정체성, 자기 관련성, power, moral hypocrisy, moral identity, self-relevance

참고문헌

1.

이해원 (2016). 권력이 상황 판단에 미치는 영향: 자기관련성의 조절효과를 중심으로. 연세대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.

2.

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

3.

한규석 (2000). 한국인의 공과 사의 영역: 공정과 인정의 갈등. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 6, 39-63.

4.

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(6), 1362-1377.

5.

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

6.

Barker, J. L., & Barclay, P. (2016). Local competition increases people's willingness to harm others. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(4), 315-322.

7.

Batson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L., Kampf, H. C., & Wilson, A. D. (1997). In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1335-1348.

8.

Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., & Chen, H. (2002). Moral hypocrisy: Addressing some alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 330-339.

9.

Boegershausen, J., Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2015). Moral identity, Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 162-166.

10.

Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001.

11.

DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. (2012). Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 681.

12.

Desmet, P. T., Hoogervorst, N., & Van Dijke, M. (2015). Prophets vs. profits: How market competition influences leaders' disciplining behavior towards ethical transgressions. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1034-1050.

13.

Ding, W., Xie., R., Sun, B., Li, W., Wang, D., & Zhen, R. (2016). Why does the “sinner” act prosocially? The mediating role of guilt and the moderating role of moral identity in motivating moral cleansing, Frontiers In Psychology, 7, 1317.

14.

Fischbacher, U., & Heusi, F. (2008). Lies in disguise. an experimental study on cheating, TWI Research Paper Series, 40.

15.

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

16.

Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450.

17.

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

18.

He, H., Zhu, W., & Zheng, X. (2014). Procedural justice and employee engagement: Roles of organizational identification and moral identity centrality, Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 681-695.

19.

Jennings, P. L., Mitchell, M. S., & Hannah, S. T. (2014). The moral self: A review and integration of the literature, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 104-168.

20.

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

21.

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

22.

Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), 737-744.

23.

Lammers, J. (2012). Abstraction increases hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 475-480.

24.

Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Dubois, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2015). Power and morality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 15-19.

25.

Monin, B., & Merritt, A. C. (2011). Moral hypocrisy, moral inconsistency, and the struggle for moral integrity. M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Herzliya Series on Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

26.

Naso, R. C. (2007). Beneath the mask: Hypocrisy and the pathology of shame. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24(1), 113-125.

27.

Polman, E., & Ruttan, R. L. (2012). Effects of anger, guilt, and envy on moral hypocrisy. Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 129-139.

28.

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

29.

Rangell, L. (1980). The mind of Watergate: An exploration of the compromise of integrity. New York, NY: Norton.

30.

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

31.

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610-1624.

32.

Stevens, L. E., & Fiske, S. T. (2000). Motivated impressions of a powerholder: Accuracy under task dependency and misperception under evaluation dependency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 907-922.

33.

Tong, E. M. W., & Yang, Z. (2011). Moral hypocrisy: Of proud and grateful people. Psychological and Personality Science, 2(2), 159-165.

34.

Trivers, R. (1991). Deceit and self-deception: The relationship between communication and consciousness. Man and beast revisited, ed. M. Robinson & TL Tiger, 175-91.

35.

Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689-690.

36.

Wojciszke, B., & Struzynska-Kujalowicz, A. (2007). Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition, 25(4), 472-494.

37.

Xu, Z. X., & Ma, H. K. (2016). How can a deontological decision lead to moral behavior? The moderating role of moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 537-549.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책