权力感对道德困境判断的影响：基于CNI模型的分析

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用道德困境判断的CNI（consequence, norm, inaction）模型，通过两个实验考察权力感对道德困境判断的影响。实验1探讨个人权力感对道德困境判断的影响，结果显示高个人权力感显著增加被试对规则的敏感，促使个体做出道义论的道德判断。实验2考察回忆任务启动的权力感对道德困境判断的影响，发现相对于低权力感启动的被试，高权力感启动的被试在进行判断时更关注行为的结果，对规则更不敏感，这说明启动的权力感促进功利主义的道德判断，抑制道义论的道德判断。结果表明，不同类型的权力感对道德困境判断的影响存在差异。

关键词: 个人权力感, 权力感启动, 道德困境判断, CNI模型

Abstract: Two experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of power on moral dilemma judgments by using the CNI model. Experiment 1 explored the influence of the personal sense of power on moral dilemma judgments. The results showed that high personal power sense significantly increased sensitivity to moral norms, and thus promoted deontological moral judgments. Experiment 2 examined the effect of the priming power on the moral dilemma judgments. It was found that compared with the participants with low power priming, those with high power priming displayed increased sensitivity to consequences and reduced sensitivity to moral norms. This suggested that power priming promoted utilitarian moral judgments and inhibited deontological moral judgments. Our findings indicate that different types of power have different influences on moral dilemmas judgments.

Key words: personal sense of power, power priming, moral dilemma judgment, CNI model

中图分类号:

B849

云祥. 权力感对道德困境判断的影响：基于CNI模型的分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 544-551.

YUN Xiang. The Effect of Power on Moral Dilemma Judgment: An Exploration with the CNI Model[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(4): 544-551.

参考文献

李小平, 杨晟宇, 李梦遥. (2012). 权威人格与权力感对道德思维方式的影响. 心理学报, 44(7), 964-971
喻丰, 彭凯平, 韩婷婷, 柴方圆, 柏阳. (2011). 道德困境之困境——情与理的辩争. 心理科学进展, 19(11), 1702-1712
Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2013). Why people with an eye toward the future are more moral: The role of abstract thinking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(4), 373-381, doi: 10.1080/01973533.2013.803967.
Aguilar, P., Brussino, S., & Fernández-Dols, J. M. (2013). Psychological distance increases uncompromising consequentialism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 449-452, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.002.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313-344, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x.
Białek, M., Paruzel-Czachura, M., & Gawronski, B. (2019). Foreign language effects on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103855, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103855.
Carney, D. R., & Mason, M. F. (2010). Decision making and testosterone: When the ends justify the means. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 668-671, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.003.
Cohen, D. J., & Ahn, M. (2016). A subjective utilitarian theory of moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(10), 1359-1381, doi: 10.1037/xge0000210.
Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216-235, doi: 10.1037/a0031021.
Côté, S., Piff, P. K., & Willer, R. (2013). For whom do the ends justify the means? Social class and utilitarian moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 490-503, doi: 10.1037/a0030931.
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249-260, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009.
Fleischmann, A., Lammers, J., Conway, P., & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Paradoxical effects of power on moral thinking: Why power both increases and decreases deontological and utilitarian moral decisions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 110-120, doi: 10.1177/1948550617744022.
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), 1450-1466, doi: 10.1037/a0012633.
Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343-376, doi: 10.1037/pspa0000086.
Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2018). Effects of incidental emotions on moral dilemma judgments: An analysis using the CNI model. Emotion, 18(7), 989-1008, doi: 10.1037/emo0000399.
Graham, J., Meindl, P., Beall, E., Johnson, K. M., & Zhang, L. (2016). Cultural differences in moral judgment and behavior, across and within societies. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 125-130, doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.007.
Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322-323, doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004.
Guinote, A. (2017). How power affects people: Activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 353-381, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153.
Guinote, A., & Phillips, A. (2010). Power can increase stereotyping: Evidence from managers and subordinates in the hotel industry. Social Psychology, 41(1), 3-9, doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000002.
Hütter, M., & Klauer, K. C. (2016). Applying processing trees in social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 27(1), 116-159, doi: 10.1080/10463283.2016.1212966.
Iacobucci, D., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., Schneider, M., & Popovich, D. L. (2015). The median split: Robust, refined, and revived. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(4), 690-704, doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.014.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265.
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 279-289, doi: 10.1037/a0015437.
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 113-126.
Lucas, B. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Is utilitarianism risky? How the same antecedents and mechanism produce both utilitarian and risky choices. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 541-548, doi: 10.1177/1745691615583130.
Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158-186, doi: 10.1177/1088868312472732.
McNair, S., Okan, Y., Hadjichristidis, C., & de Bruin, W. B. (2019). Age differences in moral judgment: Older adults are more deontological than younger adults. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(1), 47-60, doi: 10.1002/bdm.2086.
Moshagen, M. (2010). MultiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 42-54, doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.42.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-872, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009.
Scholl, A., & Sassenberg, K. (2014). Where could we stand if I had…? How social power impacts counterfactual thinking after failure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 51-61, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.02.005.
Smith, P. K., & Hofmann, W. (2016). Power in everyday life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(36), 10043-10048, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604820113.
Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578-596, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578.
Tost, L. P., & Johnson, H. H. (2019). The prosocial side of power: How structural power over subordinates can promote social responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 25-46, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.004.