注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

Rose young 的博客

心中有善,眼中有美,处世存真; 用知识沐浴,用良言去疾,不断地更新自我。

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

1﹑喜愛干淨、安靜、有序的生存環境。 2﹑好客, 喜愛烹调, 愛打点自己的窝。 3﹑主動、積極、樂觀、負責是我的人生態度。 4﹑習慣獨自思考與檢討, 懂得尊重他人必受人尊重的道理。 5﹑清楚自己的缺點, 坦然面對自己的不足。 6﹑在順境中感恩, 在逆境中心存喜樂。

网易考拉推荐

权力心理学  

2010-09-23 16:30:10|  分类: 文化視野 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |
 

权力心理学 - Rose young - 冰希的河
        有些政客们一边搞着婚外情一边抱怨着家庭价值观的消失,还有一些政府官员一边动用公款为自己谋取私利,一边却谴责政府铺张浪费。近年来针对这些政客们的报导已是屡见不鲜,甚至是见怪不怪了。坊间传闻,权力和虚伪之间有着十分明显的关系。当然,这些传闻不具有科学性。 更进一步讲,即使这些传闻是正确的,正如艾克顿公爵的名言所说,“绝对的权力导致绝对的腐败”,但它还是不能回答“权力是否倾向于导致腐败,或者它仅仅是诱使腐败?”这些问题。 为了探明这些问题,荷兰蒂尔堡大学的乔里斯·拉莫斯和于伊利诺斯州西北大学的亚当·加林斯基针对一些志愿者做了一系列的实验。这些实验试图引发他们的权力感和没有权力感。

 在第一次实验中,拉莫斯和加林斯基博士将志愿者分为两组,分别要求写出他们过去最有权力和最没有权力时的职位。以前的研究已经证明,这是一种最有效的方法让他们感觉他们现在又处于那个职位上。然后,两位博士再将每一小组(高权力组和地权力组)进一步分成两组。然后让高权力组中的其中一个子小组和低权力组中的其中一个子小组成员针对别人在工作上喜欢多报销差旅费的反感成度进行打分(一分代表反感程度高,九分代表反感程度低,最高分为九分)。而另外的两个小组去参加一个掷骰子的游戏。参加游戏的每个小组成员都在一个独立的小房间里掷两个具有十面的骰子。其中一个骰子代表十位数,而另一个骰子代表个位数。然后让他们把自己掷出的组合数报告给实验助手。他们掷出的数字应该在1到100之间。而实验结束后,会根据他们掷出的数分给他们相应数额的一种小数额的彩票。

 在关于差旅费的案例中-当这个问题只是牵扯到他人的行为时-有权一组给过度报销差旅费的人的道德评分平均为5.8(最高为9)。而无权一组给出的分值为7.2。换句话说,有权组的人声称反感他们的做法。在色子游戏中,有权组的报告数值平均为70,而无权组的平均值为59。虽然无权组的参加者或许有微小的作弊(预期平均值应该是50),但是有权组的参加者则加倍作弊-或许他们在理解“high roller”这个词时,有点过度地把它逐字分解开来。

 总的来说,上述实验结果确实表明,权力倾向腐化,并且促使权力拥有者更加伪善,也就是说,衡量他人使用的道德标准高过他们自己。为进一步证明这个结论,拉莫斯博士和加林斯基博士把参加者在每一个案例中对自己和他人在面临相同的可疑的道德境况时表达出的态度做了严格的比对。参加者在产生先入为主的印象后被分为有权和无权两个组。每个组的部分参加者被问到,自己或他人在赴约时,因为有迟到的可能,所以超速行车的情形是否可以被接受。其余参加者则被问到类似的关于纳税申报的问题。

在这两个案例中,参加者使用和第一个实验相同的1~9分的分值来评分。结果显示,权力事实上确实表现出伪善。他们(有权组)给其它将要迟到因而超速的人评分为6.3,相反当自己做出相同的举动时,他们给自己评分为7.6。与此相应,无权组的评分情况则相当公平。他们给自己评分为7.2,给他人评分为7.3-在统计学的意义上几乎没有区别。在漏税的案例中,结果更为惊人。有权组在给其它违反税收法规的人评分为6.6,但是如果他们自己也如此时,评分值则是7.6。无权组则表现出对他人的宽容和对自己的苛刻。分值分别是7.7和6.8。

这些结果,表明,权力确实代表伪善,(他们)谴责他人犯罪更甚于他们自己。这个结果并不令人诧异,虽然被系统的分析确认的日常观察表明确实如此。但是另外的日常日常观察表明,那些被发现的有权者很少表现出忏悔。他们不仅滥用权力,他们甚至还认为他们自己有权这么做。为了进一步调查这点,拉莫斯博士和加林斯基博士设计了第三个实验方案。该方案的目的是澄清由应有权益产生的权力。为此,他们改变了之前使参加者产生先入为主的印象的方法。

105个参加者中,一半被要求写出他们自己过去的某段经历,在其中,他们或合法地被赋予一个有权的角色或无权的角色。其它人则被要求写出,在过去的某段经历里,他们并不认为他们自己的享有权力或无权力是合法的。然后,所有的参加者被要求对某个人把被遗弃的自行车拿来自用而不是报告警察进行不道德程度的评分。他们同样被问到,当他们自己确实需要这部自行车,他们在多大程度上将把车拿来自己用,而不报告警察。

有着先入为主印象的有权组确信他们有资格享受他们的权力,很容易的就表现出道德虚伪的行为。他们对其他偷了这部自行车的人分配的分值是5.1而当给同样偷车的他们自己评分时,分值为6.9。在所有的无权组的参加者的陈述中,和之前的漏税案例相比,结果发生了逆转。“合法”的无权者赋予其它的偷车者5.1分,而给他们自己4.3分。 在过去被“不合法”地无权的无权者评分相似,分别给出4.7分和4.4分。

然而,在有权组的陈述中,一种有意思的特性从那些感到自己不应该得到被拔高的评价或位置的参加者中浮现出来了。这部分参加者表现出和无权组类似的倾向-对自己苛责对别人宽容-但是这些影响是相当有戏剧性意味的。他们赋予其它的偷车的宽大的道德得分6.0却认为自己的同样行为是不道德的,评分为3.9分。拉莫斯博士和加林斯基博士称这种逆转为“hypercrisy”。

他们争论到,鉴于此,有权者认为他们有权破坏规则不仅是因为他们能做坏事而不被惩罚,还因为他们直觉地认为他们有权去拿他们想要的东西。这种特权感对于理解不轨行为总是发生在高层的原因有着决定性的影响。特权感缺失的地方,较少发生权力的滥用。如果莫斯博士和加林斯基博士是对的,那些拥有特权感有权者的双重标准不仅只是一个障眼法,而且他们真诚的相信他们的特权感。

 对 hypercrisy 的解释不是那么明显。已知的是,从其它的实验中得出的结论是,如果那些处于统治阶层的底层的人表现出傲慢和自负,那么处于顶端的反应则兼有迅速和富有侵略性。因此,Hypercrisy或许是一种柔顺的信号-也就是说夸张的认为自己是被置于等级制度中一个错误的位置的受人支配者。当被逆转的特权落实到他们头上时,他们希望能逃出统治者的惩罚。或许这个试验的意义是,腐化和伪善是被大男子主义统治(或,某些案例中,表现为大女子主义)的社会所付出的代价。而另一种选择,虽然干净,但却是被无能者领导。

 权力心理学 - Rose young - 冰希的河

 权力心理学 - Rose young - 冰希的河 英文描述

REPORTS of politicians who have extramarital affairs while complaining about the death of family values, or who use public funding for private gain despite condemning government waste, have become so common in recent years that they hardly seem surprising anymore. Anecdotally, at least, the connection between power and hypocrisy looks obvious.

 Anecdote is not science, though. And, more subtly, even if anecdote is correct, it does not answer the question of whether power tends to corrupt, as Lord Acton’s dictum has it, or whether it merely attracts the corruptible. To investigate this question Joris Lammers at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, and Adam Galinsky at Northwestern University, in Illinois, have conducted a series of experiments which attempted to elicit states of powerfulness and powerlessness in the minds of volunteers. Having done so, as they report in Psychological Science, they tested those volunteers’ moral pliability. Lord Acton, they found, was right.

 In their first study, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky asked 61 university students to write about a moment in their past when they were in a position of high or low power. Previous research has established that this is an effective way to “prime” people into feeling as if they are currently in such a position. Each group (high power and low power) was then split into two further groups. Half were asked to rate, on a nine-point morality scale (with one being highly immoral and nine being highly moral), how objectionable it would be for other people to over-report travel expenses at work. The other half were asked to participate in a game of dice. The dice players were told to roll two ten-sided dice (one for “tens” and one for “units”) in the privacy of an isolated cubicle, and report the results to a lab assistant. The number they rolled, which would be a value between one and 100 (two zeros), would determine the number of tickets that they would be given in a small lottery that was run at the end of the study.

 In the case of the travel expenses—when the question hung on the behaviour of others—participants in the high-power group reckoned, on average, that over-reporting rated as a 5.8 on the nine-point scale. Low-power participants rated it 7.2. The powerful, in other words, claimed to favour the moral course. In the dice game, however, high-power participants reported, on average, that they had rolled 70 while low-power individuals reported an average 59. Though the low-power people were probably cheating a bit (the expected average score would be 50), the high-power volunteers were undoubtedly cheating—perhaps taking the term “high roller” rather too literally.

 Taken together, these results do indeed suggest that power tends to corrupt and to promote a hypocritical tendency to hold other people to a higher standard than oneself. To test the point further, though, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky explicitly contrasted attitudes to self and other people when the morally questionable activity was the same in each case. Having once again primed two groups of participants to be either high-power or low-power, they then asked some members of each group how acceptable it would be for someone else to break the speed limit when late for an appointment and how acceptable it would be for the participant himself to do so. Others were asked similar questions about tax declarations.

 Only the little people pay taxes…In both cases participants used the same one-to-nine scale employed in the first experiment. The results showed that the powerful do, indeed, behave hypocritically. They felt that others speeding because they were late warranted a 6.3 on the scale whereas speeding themselves warranted a 7.6. Low-power individuals, by contrast, saw everyone as equal. They scored themselves as 7.2 and others at 7.3—a statistically insignificant difference. In the case of tax dodging, the results were even more striking. High-power individuals felt that when others broke tax laws this rated as a 6.6 on the morality scale, but that if they did so themselves this rated as a 7.6. In this case low-power individuals were actually easier on others and harsher on themselves, with values of 7.7 and 6.8 respectively.

 These results, then, suggest that the powerful do indeed behave hypocritically, condemning the transgressions of others more than they condemn their own. Which comes as no great surprise, although it is always nice to have everyday observation confirmed by systematic analysis. But another everyday observation is that powerful people who have been caught out often show little sign of contrition. It is not just that they abuse the system; they also seem to feel entitled to abuse it. To investigate this point, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky devised a third set of experiments. These were designed to disentangle the concept of power from that of entitlement. To do this, the researchers changed the way they primed people.

A culture of entitlementHalf of 105 participants were asked to write about a past experience in which they had legitimately been given a role of high or low power. The others were asked to write about an experience of high or low power where they did not feel their power (or lack of it) was legitimate. All of the volunteers were then asked to rate how immoral it would be for someone to take an abandoned bicycle rather than report the bicycle to the police. They were also asked, if they were in real need of a bicycle, how likely they would be to take it themselves and not report it.

 The “powerful” who had been primed to believe they were entitled to their power readily engaged in acts of moral hypocrisy. They assigned a value of 5.1 to others engaging in the theft of the bicycle while rating the action at 6.9 if they were to do it themselves. Among participants in all of the low-power states, morally hypocritical behaviour inverted itself, as it had in the case of tax fraud. “Legitimate” low-power individuals assigned others a score of 5.1 if they stole a bicycle and gave themselves a 4.3. Those primed to feel that their lack of power was illegitimate behaved similarly, assigning values of 4.7 and 4.4 respectively.

 However, an intriguing characteristic emerged among participants in high-power states who felt they did not deserve their elevated positions. These people showed a similar tendency to that found in low-power individuals—to be harsh on themselves and less harsh on others—but the effect was considerably more dramatic. They felt that others warranted a lenient 6.0 on the morality scale when stealing a bike but assigned a highly immoral 3.9 if they took it themselves. Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky call this reversal “hypercrisy”.

 They argue, therefore, that people with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it, but also because they feel at some intuitive level that they are entitled to take what they want. This sense of entitlement is crucial to understanding why people misbehave in high office. In its absence, abuses will be less likely. The word “privilege” translates as “private law”. If Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky are right, the sense which some powerful people seem to have that different rules apply to them is not just a convenient smoke screen. They genuinely believe it.

What explains hypercrisy is less obvious. It is known, though, from experiments on other species that if those at the bottom of a dominance hierarchy show signs of getting uppity, those at the top react both quickly and aggressively. Hypercrisy might thus be a signal of submissiveness—one that is exaggerated in creatures that feel themselves to be in the wrong place in the hierarchy. By applying reverse privileges to themselves, they hope to escape punishment from the real dominants. Perhaps the lesson, then, is that corruption and hypocrisy are the price that societies pay for being led by alpha males (and, in some cases, alpha females). The alternative, though cleaner, is leadership by wimps.

  

  评论这张
 
阅读(129)| 评论(21)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017