宽以待己，严于律人：道德伪善的双加工机制研究

道德伪善是指个体对同一道德违规行为进行评判时,对自己宽松而对他人严苛的现象。双加工理论认为道德伪善是个体对自身道德违规行为有意识辩护以维护道德自我形象的结果。为此,本研究通过两个行为实验考察直觉思维和分析思维对道德伪善的影响。结果发现,分析性思维可易化道德伪善,直觉性思维无此作用。实验果支持道德伪善的双加工机制模型,道德自利性行为并非自动化的反应,需要认知努力和分析推理的参与。     

金钱启动与道德认同对大学生道德伪善的影响

以大学生为被试,采用任务分配范式,实验1考察了金钱概念启动和道德认同对个体道德伪善的影响;实验2探讨了金钱丰富程度启动和道德认同对个体道德伪善的影响。结果发现：(1)与控制组相比,金钱概念启动使得言行不一的人数显著增加;与金钱匮乏感启动组相比,金钱富足感启动使得言行不一的人数显著增加;(2)低道德认同被试中道德伪善者的比例显著高于高道德认同被试;而且金钱启动显著增加了高道德认同被试的道德伪善。该研究启示我们减少情境中的金钱等与利益有关的线索以及提高个体的道德认同水平,将有利于减少道德伪善的发生。     

道德伪善的心理学研究述评

道德伪善(moral hypocrisy)是对道德知行脱离进行反思的产物, 反映了道德心理学和社会认知领域的最新进展。从社会学习理论、认知失调理论、社会影响理论和双加工理论四个理论来对道德伪善产生缘由进行了探讨, 并在此基础上对其产生机制进行了阐述。为了避免道德伪善的消极效应与不良后果, 进一步从个体和群体两个层面来探讨了道德伪善的影响因素。考虑到现实生活中过分强调道德伪善的负面价值, 研究积极地审视了道德伪善在诱导认知失调、塑造和培养亲社会行为以及促进组织发展等领域的应用。未来研究需在现有研究基础上, 进一步借鉴反应时和内隐测量技术来对道德伪善进行本土化和跨文化研究, 并对其应用性开展更深入和系统的探讨。     

补偿他人还是保护自己?内疚与羞耻情绪对合作行为的影响差异

作为两种常见且易被混淆的自我意识情绪, 诸多研究者对内疚和羞耻的产生前因及影响后效进行研究, 尤其是近年来的研究逐渐关注两者对合作行为的影响。我们通过对已有研究进行梳理发现, 内疚和羞耻对合作行为的影响及其机制存在差异, 内疚的影响更为稳定及具有普适性, 羞耻的影响具有复杂性和多样性, 更容易受到其他因素的影响。内疚和羞耻对合作行为的不同影响可从动机机制和调节机制两方面进行解释。首先, 动机机制包括内疚对他人的补偿、修复动机以及羞耻对自我的保护、修复动机。内疚对他人的补偿、修复动机主要体现在维护社会互动中的公平; 弥补对他人造成的伤害, 降低自己和他人的痛苦; 修复人际关系, 重新获得他人或自己的接纳与认同。羞耻对自我的保护、修复动机主要体现在释放消极的情绪状态; 维护积极的自我形象和声誉, 修复自我; 保护自我, 防止后续伤害及不良后果。总体而言, 内疚者关注过失行为及后果, 侧重于对受害他人的补偿或对与他人关系的修复, 而羞耻者关注整体自我的受损, 侧重于对自我的保护和对自己社会形象的修复, 基于此, 我们在前人研究的基础上构建了内疚与羞耻影响合作行为的动机机制对比模型图。其次, 调节机制涉及到个体因素和情境因素的调节作用, 其中个体因素包括认知因素、社会价值取向、自我控制能力、情绪特质和情绪状态, 情境因素包括暴露情境和掩蔽情境、实验情境和日常情境、相关情境和不相关情境。具体而言, 内疚对合作行为的影响的较少受情境的限制, 而羞耻受情境因素限制较多, 在暴露情境、相关情境中更能促进合作行为的产生, 而在掩蔽情境、不相关情境中, 羞耻较难影响个体的合作抉择, 且无论是实验室情境还是日常情境, 内疚似乎都比羞耻更易影响合作。最后, 鉴于内疚与羞耻的诱发和测量方法的有效性仍需检验, 两种情绪对合作行为影响的过程机制和生理机制仍不明晰, 个体因素影响的研究尚不充足以及跨文化研究较为缺乏, 未来研究可以从内疚和羞耻诱发与测量方法的有效性, 情绪作用发生的内在过程和生理机制, 情绪影响的个体和文化差异这几方面进行扩展和深挖。     

儿童冒险行为的影响因素

冒险行为是个体面对风险情境时的行为意愿,是一种特殊类型的决策。儿童的冒险行为受到个体、家庭、社会-情境三个方面的影响。个体因素方面,儿童的性别和年龄会影响他们对风险的知觉、对受伤风险的估计和对行为后果的归因;认知决策能力和预期情绪体验则影响到儿童对风险情境的判断。家庭因素方面,父母和兄姐是影响儿童冒险行为的重要他人,父母的态度和反应会直接影响儿童的冒险行为,而兄姐的言语和行为会改变他们的风险决策。从社会-情境的角度来看,风险情境会对儿童的冒险决策带来压力,有同伴在场时会促使儿童更倾向于参与冒险。综合分析并探讨冒险行为的各个影响因素及其产生机制,对提出合理干预措施,减少儿童因冒险行为而导致的意外伤害具有重要意义。     

自私行为的传递效应

自私的传递效应指遭遇他人自私对待的个体也自私地对待无辜他人的现象。在这个过程中, 示范性规范、心理权利起着中介作用, 个体的公正敏感性、道德认同, 以及情境中的道德凸显和匿名性起着调节作用。已有研究多关注个体如何惩罚与报复直接伤害自己的自私者, 较少关注自私行为的受害者如何对待无辜的第三方。未来研究可关注他人自私如何通过影响个体的认知, 如普遍信任和道德判断, 进而影响其对待无辜者的态度与行为, 并且澄清情绪及共情在其中的作用。     

他人在场条件下的社会分享型提取诱发遗忘

在社会互动的提取小组中, 说者的选择性提取可能会导致听者对未提及但相关内容的遗忘, 这被称为社会分享型提取诱发遗忘。本研究实验1首先考察了有无真实他人在场对社会分享型提取诱发遗忘的影响, 结果显示只有在真实他人在场条件下, 该现象才会出现, 说明社会分享型提取诱发遗忘受到听者对自下而上的社会互动情境加工的影响。实验2进一步考察了在他人在场条件下, 个体的抑制控制能力对社会分享型提取诱发遗忘的影响, 结果显示该现象只与其作为说者时的个体提取诱发遗忘效应大小有关, 提示了社会分享型提取诱发遗忘与个体提取诱发遗忘过程类似, 都会受到个体自上而下的排除竞争项目侵入记忆的无意抑制能力的影响。研究结果为理解人际交流情形下个体记忆的形成与改变提供了重要启发。     

道德情绪：道德行为的中介调节

道德情绪是心理学的一个重要研究主题。道德情绪是个体根据一定的道德标准评价自己或他人的行为和思想时所产生的一种情绪体验。它是一种复合情绪, 主要包括厌恶、移情、内疚, 羞耻等。道德情绪影响下人类会产生某些典型行为, 这主要包括道德洁净行为和道德补偿行为。心理学研究道德情绪的实验范式很多, 主要有行为回忆范式、实物或图片刺激范式、情境设置范式等。有关道德情绪的未来研究主要应注重于探讨正性道德情绪在道德发展中的作用, 探讨道德情绪对群体行为的影响, 以及探讨道德情绪在不同文化背景下的价值意义。     

企业为何履行社会责任却落得“伪善”名声?——企业社会责任类型和感知品牌伪善间的关系

2015年中国300强企业慈善捐款达60.03亿元,形成鲜明对照的是,消费者对企业社会责任行为动机的质疑呈整体上升趋势。企业耗费巨资履行社会责任反遭遇感知伪善,无疑与其初衷背道而驰,而现有理论不能充分解释这一现象的原因。自Wagner等学者2009年在营销顶级期刊开启感知品牌伪善相关研究以来,学者多从社会学借鉴感知个体伪善研究中言行不一的分析框架,把企业社会责任单维化,显然不能反映由多样性利益相关者所决定的企业社会责任类型的差异性和复杂性,所以应从利益相关者视角揭示感知品牌伪善的形成机制。根据利益相关者特征划分企业社会责任类型——技术性和公共性,进而引入其中间机制——合法性理论和感知道德资产理论,最终验证企业社会责任类型的交互作用、企业社会责任类型与宣传的交互作用对感知品牌伪善的影响。考虑到企业社会责任的经济和社会双重影响,这一成果将指引企业正确履行社会责任,促进企业和社会良性互动。     

道德提升感:一种提升道德情操的积极道德情绪

道德提升感,是指个体看到他人的道德行为时,欣赏他人的美德并感到自己的道德情操被提升,而产生的一种积极道德情绪。道德提升感具有情感、身体、认知和行为等四个成分。道德提升感可采用材料与情境进行诱发,采用标识词与量表进行测量。道德提升感的产生需要积极的内归因与积极的上行社会比较两个关键环节,还会受他人道德行为特点与个体自身特点的影响。道德提升感的产生还引起了脑神经、自主神经和内分泌反应。亲社会行为、积极的社会认知和对自身的积极作用是道德提升感所拥有的心理效应。未来对道德提升感的研究,可探讨它的神经与生理机制,探索它的扩展与建构效应,开展跨文化和本土化研究,并将它应用于道德教育中。     

Punishing hypocrisy: The roles of hypocrisy and moral emotions in deciding culpability and punishment of criminal and civil moral transgressors

Three experiments explored how hypocrisy affects attributions of criminal guilt and the desire to punish hypocritical criminals. Study 1 established that via perceived hypocrisy, a hypocritical criminal was seen as more culpable and was punished more than a non-hypocritical criminal who committed an identical crime. Study 2 expanded on this, showing that negative moral emotions (anger and disgust) mediated the relationships between perceived hypocrisy, criminal guilt, and punishment. Study 3 replicated the emotion finding from Study 2 using new scenarios where group agents were clearly aware of the hypocrisy of their actions, yet acted anyway. Again, perceived hypocrisy worked through moral emotions to affect criminal guilt and punishment. The current studies provide empirical support for theories relating hypocrisy and moral transgressions to moral emotions, also informing the literature on the role of moral emotions in moral reasoning and legal decision making.     

Effects of anger, guilt, and envy on moral hypocrisy

In the current article the authors examined the impact of specific emotions on moral hypocrisy, the tendency among people to judge others more severely than they judge themselves. In two studies, they found that (a) anger increased moral hypocrisy, (b) guilt eliminated moral hypocrisy, and (c) envy reversed moral hypocrisy. In particular, these findings were observed in two domains. In Study 1, participants responded to moral dilemmas describing unethical behavior and rated how acceptable it would be if others engaged in the unethical behavior, or alternatively, if they themselves engaged in the unethical behavior. In Study 2, participants were asked how much they would like to donate to research on cancer, or alternatively, how much they think others should donate. The results demonstrate that specific emotions influence moral decision making, even when real money is at stake, and that emotions of the same valence have opposing effects on moral judgment.     

Changing Attitude and Moral Obligation: Their Independent Effects on Behavior

It was hypothesized that the study of religion should distinguish between attitudes and religious values/moral obligations such that both aid in predicting religiously relevant behavior and changing either will change behavior. However, if they are distinct, then changing one will not necessarily change the other. For the 195 religious participants, attitudes predicted a church-sponsored blood donation and moral obligations increased that prediction. Using both posttest only and pre-post control group designs, an intervention to shift the effect underlying the attitude increased participants' attitude and donating behavior while a religious values intervention increased moral obligations and behavior. Zero to 4 percent of the control groups donated blood, while 13 to 48 percent of the intervention groups donated blood. Results confirm that psychology of religion should distinguish moral obligations from attitude because (1) additional prediction, (2) changing one does not necessarily change the other, and (3) changes based on religious values impact moral obligations.     

Perceptions of Religious Hypocrisy: When Moral Claims Exceed Moral Action

In this study, we investigated perceptions of hypocrisy among Christian and non-Christian individuals. Specifically, participants (N = 121) were asked to evaluate people of different religious orientations in terms of perceptions of both claimed morality, actual behavior, and general hypocrisy. Across all designations, perceptions of moral hypocrisy were determined to be greater to the extent that moral claims exceeded actual behavior. Among non-Christian participants, perceptions of hypocrisy were highest with respect to “devout” and “evangelical” Christian targets. In contrast, among Christian participants, the highest ratings of hypocrisy were reserved for “casual” Christians (i.e., Christians who do not incorporate their faith into their daily life). Our findings have both theoretical implications regarding the nature of religious hypocrisy perceptions, as well as real-world implications for understanding inter-faith perceptions and interactions.     

« Dire une chose et en faire une autre » : de la déclaration de liberté dans le paradigme de l'hypocrisie induite

According to induced hypocrisy paradigm, participants were led to advocate a pro-attitudinal position (commitment step), such as to respect the driving rules. Subsequently they were made mindful of their own transgressions (mindfulness step). Afterwards, the target-behavior was administered: spending time in a safety road association. We manipulated the declaration of freedom either within the mindfulness step (study 1), either at the twice steps (study 2). Results indicated that declaration of freedom increased the hypocritical effect. Implications for further research in the area of hypocrisy are discussed.     

道德“沾光”效应：道德评价对道德自我知觉及道德行为的影响

人们喜欢关注道德事件并表达自己的立场。以往研究发现回忆自己(而非他人)的道德行为能影响个体的道德自我知觉和道德行为。本研究关注参与道德评价是否会对个体的道德自我和道德行为产生影响。2个研究共同发现：(1)存在道德“沾光”效应：评价支持他人的道德事件,或反对他人的不道德事件,能提升个体的道德自我知觉;(2)道德评价通过提升道德自我知觉,进一步增加个体的道德行为。     

Abstraction increases hypocrisy

Four studies show that an abstract view on moral issues increases moral hypocrisy. In Experiment 1, participants who were directly instructed to take a more abstract view on a moral issue judged the immoral behavior of others more severely than their own immoral behavior, but participants with a concrete view did not. Experiments 2 and 3 induced an abstract view in an indirect manner, by manipulating temporal distance toward the dilemma. In Experiment 4 abstractness was manipulated completely independent from the moral dilemma, by inducing an abstract or a concrete mindset. In all four studies, abstractness consistently increased hypocrisy. The last study also shows that the effect of abstractness on hypocrisy is mediated by the degree of moral flexibility. Together, these studies show that hypocrisy is directly determined by the focus that people have when making a moral judgment.     

Asymmetries in perceptions of self and others' hypocrisy: Rethinking the meaning and perception of the construct

This article examines how people recall and describe instances of hypocrisy in their own and others' behavior. Participants (N = 302) provided two written examples. The first example recalled a time when someone called the participant a hypocrite, whereas the other recalled an instance when the participant perceived someone else's behavior as hypocritical. The first goal of the study was to discover if real‐world examples of hypocrisy reflect only mere inconsistency, consistent with the construct's narrow use in psychology, or if they contain other distinctive defining features. A typology was used to code the examples, based loosely on Crisp and Cowton's philosophical distinction between four forms of hypocrisy: direct inconsistency, pretense, blame, and complacency. The second goal was to uncover reliable actor–observer differences in perceptions of hypocrisy. Results indicated that the four forms occur in real‐world examples of both self and others' hypocrisy. Interestingly, a new fifth form, indirect inconsistency, emerged from the data, adding nuance to the initial hypothesis. Finally, several actor–observer differences in perceptions of hypocrisy arose and are discussed. The results indicate that hypocrisy is a much more complicated phenomenon than previously considered and provide the impetus for new areas of research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Not practicing what they preached! Exploring negative spillover effects of news about ex-politicians’ hypocrisy on party attitudes,voting intentions,and political trust

ABSTRACT

Political hypocrisy – a frequent feature of contemporary politics – oftentimes occurs when politicians resign from office and then engage in behavior that is in fundamental opposition to the standpoints they originally campaigned for as incumbents. Previous research has neglected to examine negative spillover effects of news about ex-politicians’ hypocritical behavior. Drawing from the inclusion/exclusion model and the feelings-as-information model, we conducted two experiments in two different countries and used different stimuli to increase external validity. Results suggest a dual process account of scandal spillover effects (an attitudinal and emotional mechanism) revealing that hypocrisy negatively affected both attitudes and emotions toward an ex-politician. Mediation analysis further showed that evaluations in turn negatively affected attitudes and voting intentions for the party the hypocritical politician used to belong to (attitudinal spillover process). No effects on general political trust emerged. In contrast, negative emotions had no effect on party attitudes and voting intentions but decreased political trust toward politicians in general (emotional spillover process). In line with the inclusion/exclusion model, the results help to explain inconsistent findings in previous studies that did not account for the suggested dual process account of spillover effects and underline the eroding effects of hypocrisy.