陌生他人在场及其行为对个体道德伪善的影响

道德伪善既有印象管理或欺人的一面, 也有自欺的一面。道德伪善的影响因素众多, 而人际层面的影响因素则少有研究。本研究采用实验的方法, 以大学生为被试, 设置捐款情境, 探讨单个陌生他人在场及其真善/伪善行为能否抑制个体的道德伪善。结果表明：陌生他人单纯在场或做出伪善行为都不能抑制捐款情境中个体的道德伪善, 而在场陌生他人的真善行为可以有效抑制捐款情境中个体的道德伪善。     

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。     

Hypocritical Blame,Fairness, and Standing

This paper argues that hypocritical blame renders blame inappropriate. Someone should not express her blame if she is guilty of the same thing for which she is blaming others, in the absence of an admission of fault. In failing to blame herself for the same violations of norms she condemns in another, the hypocrite evinces important moral faults, which undermine her right to blame. The hypocrite refuses or culpably fails to admit her own mistakes, while at the same time demands that others admit theirs. The paper argues that this lack of reciprocity—expecting others to take morality seriously by apologizing for their faults, without one doing the same in return—is what makes hypocritical blame unfair.     

Moral masquerades: Experimental exploration of the nature of moral motivation

Why do people act morally – when they do? Moral philosophers and psychologists often assume that acting morally in the absence of incentives or sanctions is a product of a desire to uphold one or another moral principle (e.g., fairness). This form of motivation might be called moral integrity because the goal is to actually be moral. In a series of experiments designed to explore the nature of moral motivation, colleagues and I have found little evidence of moral integrity. We have found considerable evidence of a different form of moral motivation, moral hypocrisy. The goal of moral hypocrisy is to appear moral yet, if possible, avoid the cost of being moral. To fully reach the goal of moral hypocrisy requires self-deception, and we have found evidence of that as well. Strengthening moral integrity is difficult. Even effects of moral perspective taking – imagining yourself in the place of the other (as recommended by the Golden Rule) – appear limited, further contributing to the moral masquerade.     

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。     

文艺的信念:反抗道德虚假与道德虚无

在人类生活中,审美艺术创造发挥着重要的作用,它激发着人们的想象,显现着生命的形象力量。从价值论意义上说,人类生命活动的审美反恩,就是要探索生命的自由伦理,反抗道德虚假与道德虚无。道德虚假的盛行,是公正价值不畅的必然结果;道德虚无的兴起,是怀疑主义思潮作用的后果。现代文艺伦理学必须重建新型价值伦理,通过生命自由形象的创造,表达我们时代的内在呼声。     

自恋与道德虚伪:权谋术和辩证思维的作用

探讨自恋影响道德虚伪的内在机制和边际条件。通过对200名金融行业员工的问卷调查,发现个体的自恋倾向能正向预测道德虚伪水平,是权谋术而不是印象管理在自恋与道德虚伪之间起中介作用。进一步的分析还发现辩证思维调节着自恋与道德虚伪之间的关系——对辩证思维水平低的人而言,自恋正向影响道德虚伪; 而对辩证思维水平高的人而言,自恋不影响道德虚伪。结果对理解当代中国人自恋人格与道德特性的关系有重要意义。     

Being good to look good: Self-reported moral character predicts moral double standards among reputation-seeking individuals

Moral character is widely expected to lead to moral judgements and practices. However, such expectations are often breached, especially when moral character is measured by self-report. We propose that because self-reported moral character partly reflects a desire to appear good, people who self-report a strong moral character will show moral harshness towards others and downplay their own transgressions—that is, they will show greater moral hypocrisy. This self-other discrepancy in moral judgements should be pronounced among individuals who are particularly motivated by reputation. Employing diverse methods including large-scale multination panel data (N = 34,323), and vignette and behavioural experiments (N = 700), four studies supported our proposition, showing that various indicators of moral character (Benevolence and Universalism values, justice sensitivity, and moral identity) predicted harsher judgements of others' more than own transgressions. Moreover, these double standards emerged particularly among individuals possessing strong reputation management motives. The findings highlight how reputational concerns moderate the link between moral character and moral judgement.     

Hypocrites or maligned cooperative participants? Experimenter induced normative conflict in zero-sum situations

The failure to recognize the influence of two distinct forms of moral norms can lead to the misattribution of moral behavior to egoistic motives. This is illustrated in the research of Batson and his colleagues (e.g., Batson, Kobrynowicz, Dinnerstein, Kampf, & Wilson, 1997). They reported the appearance of moral failure and hypocrisy motivation in several experiments employing essentially the same “zero-sum” experimental situation. They cited as evidence the discrepancy between participants’ apparently self-serving private acts and their subsequent public ratings of the morality of what they had done as well as their recognition of the “most” moral way to behave. The research reported here supported an alternative explanation that located the experimenter’s implicit and explicit instructions as the source of the discrepancy between the participants’ private acts and their public ratings. The findings confirmed the hypothesis that Batson and his colleagues had not merely made moral norms “salient”. They had actually presented their participants with contradictory “demands”: explicitly inviting them to meet the norm of justified self-interest in private but then give public lip-service to the experimenter’s instructions as to a supererogatory way to behave. When either of the demands was removed, the “hypocrisy” no longer occurred.