Paradoxical Effects of Power on Moral Thinking
Why Power Both Increases and Decreases Deontological and Utilitarian Moral Decisions
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 21209949 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Alexandra Fleischmann (0000-0001-8290-4561, University of Cologne, autor correspondente), Jan Lammers (0000-0002-2647-121X, University of Cologne), Paul Conway (0000-0003-4649-6008, Florida State University), Adam D Galinsky (0000-0002-5150-6533, Columbia University) |
| Ano | 2019 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Fascículo | 1 |
| Páginas | 110-120 |
| Data de publicação | 2019-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Social Psychological and Personality Science (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 1948-5506 • E-ISSN: 1948-5514 |
| Editora | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1948550617744022 |
| OpenAlex | W2772663333 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 17 |
| Referências citadas | 66 |
The current research explores the role of power in moral decision-making. Some work suggests that power increases utilitarianism; other work suggests power increases deontological judgments. Conversely, we propose that power can both increase and decrease both deontological and utilitarian decisions by building on two recent insights in moral psychology. First, we utilize the moral orientation scale to assess four thinking styles that jointly predict moral dilemma decisions. Second, we employ process dissociation to assess deontological and utilitarian judgments as orthogonal rather than opposite constructs. We conducted two preregistered confirmatory studies that replicated exploratory findings. In Study 1, power increased three moral thinking styles: integration, deliberation, and rule orientation. In Study 2, these decision-making styles simultaneously mediated the effects of power on utilitarian and deontological responses in opposing ways, leading to null effects overall. These results reconcile previous findings and demonstrate the complex yet systematic effects power has on moral decision-making
Deliberation · Deontological ethics · Epistemology · Moral disengagement · Moral reasoning · Morality · Social cognitive theory of morality · Social intuitionism · Utilitarianism · Ethics in Business and Education · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology
Reflecting on God's will
The Emotion Process
When You Think of and Identify Yourself as a Nurse, You Will Become More Deontological and Less Utilitarian
How power affects moral judgments
Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research
The Changing Moral Environment—A Three-Wave Study Testing Four Moral Theories and the Fear of Covid-19 in Predicting Compliance with Behavioral Guidelines on Covid-19, Moralization Toward Non-Compliance, and Vaccination
Cheating at the Top
Power triggers moral reasoning aligned with active goals and moral flexibility across contexts
Kant be Compared
Development of the Meso Perspective of Fraud Conceptualization
Social class and moral judgment
How Power Affects Moral Judgments
Certainty improves the predictive validity of Honesty-Humility and Dark Triad traits on cheating behavior
Taking the moral high ground
Morally questionable actors' meta-perceptions are accurate but overly positive
Power and moral dilemma judgments
Class-based differences in moral judgment
Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making
How Power Affects People
Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements
Gender Differences in Responses to Moral Dilemmas
A 21 Word Solution
Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains
Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale
Who Shalt Not Kill? Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity, Executive Control, and Moral Judgment
The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment
Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality
Lacking Power Impairs Executive Functions
Moral Heuristics
Power, Distress, and Compassion
The Social Distance Theory of Power
Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment
A process dissociation framework
The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition in Moral Judgment
Power, approach, and inhibition.
G*Power 3
An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment
Economy and Society
Morality’s Centrality to Liking, Respecting, and Understanding Others
Power Increases Social Distance
The Accentuation Bias
An Improvement on Horn's Parallel Analysis Methodology for Selecting the Correct Number of Factors to Retain
Power and Goal Pursuit
On the Dominance of Moral Categories in Impression Formation
The Structure of Sentiments. I. A Restatement of the Theory of Sentiments
Where could we stand if I had…? How social power impacts counterfactual thinking after failure
Control, Interdependence and Power
Behaviour variability and the Situated Focus Theory of Power
Power increases dehumanization
Power Can Bias Impression Processes
How leaders self-regulate their task performance
Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation
Reconciling the self and morality
Less power = less human? Effects of power differentials on dehumanization
Getting what you want
Decision making and testosterone
Perceiving the Powerful
Abstraction increases hypocrisy
Social power increases implicit prejudice
Controlling other people
Power and the objectification of social targets
When power does not corrupt
How power influences moral thinking
Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making
The effects of message recipients' power before and after persuasion
You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees
For whom do the ends justify the means? Social class and utilitarian moral judgment
When subjective experiences matter
From Power to Action
Power, optimism, and risk-taking
The concept of power
Power Can Increase Stereotyping
| Obras citantes distintas | 17 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 2,13 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2018 - 2026 (9) |
| Velocidade de citação | current |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 16 |