Borders, Boundaries, and Blessing: Mission as Converting Hypocrites into Sinners

Abstract :  Rather than seeing inequity on different sides of borders as the result of God having blessed some people more than others, it must be considered the consequence of sinful and unjust systems and structures to which we all contribute. According to Jesus' teaching and practice, only as we see ourselves as sinners in need of help and healing can we fulfill the mission of serving as God's instruments to promote justice and equity on all sides of the borders and boundaries that exist in our world.     

Inducing Hypocrisy to Reduce Prejudicial Responses among Aversive Racists

Might a hypocrisy induction procedure reduce prejudicial behavior among aversive racists? We identified aversive racists as individuals low in explicit prejudice but high in implicit prejudice toward Asians. Results revealed that aversive racists, but not truly low prejudiced participants (i.e., those low in both explicit and implicit prejudice), responded to a hypocrisy induction procedure with increased feelings of guilt and discomfort, compared to those in a control condition. Furthermore, aversive racists, but not low prejudiced participants, responded to a hypocrisy induction procedure with a reduction in prejudicial behavior. These results suggest that consciousness raising might play an important role in motivating aversive racists to reduce their prejudicial behavior.     

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。     

Why disregarding hypocritical blame is appropriate

The topic of standing to blame has recently received a lot of attention. Until now, however, it has focused mainly on the blamer's perspective, investigating what it means to say of blamers that they lose standing to blame and why it is that they lose this standing under specified conditions. The present paper focuses on the perspective of the blamees and tries to explain why they are allowed to disregard standingless, more specifically hypocritical, blame. According to the solution proposed by the paper, while hypocritical blamers present themselves as caring about justice or about the moral or material good of the blamees—and they themselves half-believe this presentation—their real motivation in blaming is less respectable. It is this problematic motivation that explains why blamees are permitted to disregard hypocritical blame. Ill-motivated blame is often unreliable, and readiness to even consider it often involves a compromise on the self-respect of the blamees.     

Why Don't Moral People Act Morally? Motivational Considerations

Failure of moral people to act morally is usually attributed to either learning deficits or situational pressures. We believe that it is also important to consider the nature of moral motivation. Is the goal actually to be moral (moral integrity) or only to appear moral while, if possible, avoiding the cost of being moral (moral hypocrisy)? Do people initially intend to be moral, only to surrender this goal when the costs of being moral become clear (overpowered integrity)? We have found evidence of both moral hypocrisy and overpowered integrity. Each can lead ostensibly moral people to act immorally. These findings raise important questions for future research on the role of moral principles as guides to behavior.     

An exploration of the effectiveness of in-person and online versions of the induced hypocrisy paradigm to reduce smartphone use among young drivers

Worldwide, smartphone use is a major contributing factor to road crash among young drivers. While young drivers may be aware of their heightened crash risk and the legal penalties associated with this behaviour, young drivers continue to engage with their smartphones. The development of novel interventions targeting this behaviour is therefore crucial. The current 2 × 2 between groups experimental study (N = 153, 107F, 43 M, 1 other) investigated the concept of cognitive dissonance in relation to smartphone use among young drivers aged 17–25 years (M_age = 20.66 SD = 2.26). Specifically, it applied the induced hypocrisy paradigm to this context. The induced hypocrisy paradigm elicits cognitive dissonance by asking participants to both advocate for the desired behaviour and identify their engagement in the undesired behaviour. Participants are then motivated to change their behaviour to reduce the feelings of dissonance. The current study investigated the efficacy of both the traditional in-person methodology with a new online methodology. Analyses (e.g., ANCOVA) found that the online conditions were more effective than the in-person groups at eliciting dissonance and that the intervention conditions were more effective in reducing both intention and change in behaviour (from pre- to post-intervention) than the control groups. The intervention groups were also more likely to take/request a flyer about driver distraction. While more research is needed to corroborate these findings, these initial results suggest that cognitive dissonance occurs when young drivers use their smartphones and that the induced hypocrisy paradigm may be an effective intervention. In particular, this study’s findings suggest that an online version of the induced hypocrisy paradigm has merit and may form part of future cost-effective, mass interventions.     

企业社会责任活动中感知伪善的结构与量表开发

不当的企业社会责任(Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR)表现会让消费者感知企业伪善, 从而产生极负面的影响。但“伪善”概念刚经由社会心理学引入营销学领域, 亟需准确定义和科学的量表。为此, 将以中国文化为背景, 通过系列研究, (1)探究CSR活动中消费者感知企业伪善的内涵并与相关概念区分; (2)揭示企业伪善的构成结构, 开发多维度的企业伪善量表并进行严格的信度、效度检验; (3)探索其前因后果, 特别是实证检验其对消费者态度和行为三个层面的影响。     

Hypocrisy, Change of Mind, and Weakness of Will: How to Do Moral Philosophy with Examples

What are the differences between hypocrisy, change of mind, and weakness of will? Each typically involves a gap between word and deed, yet they do not seem morally equivalent. Moreover, they are intuitively different concepts, even though the conceptual boundaries between them are fuzzy. This paper explores diverse examples, attempting to identify elements which may be distinctive of each concept, with special attention to hypocrisy. It also provides a discussion of the appropriateness of such use of examples in moral philosophy.     

道德心理许可研究述评

道德心理许可是指既往的道德行为让人觉得可以表达或做出可能会损害自己道德名誉的态度或行为。给予许可与被许可行为既可属于相同领域, 也可属于不同领域, 甚至观察者有时也会给予行为者以道德心理许可。道德信誉和道德证书是产生道德心理许可的两条独立路径。重要的个人认同和避免虚伪这两个因素可能阻碍许可的发生。未来还需要厘清自我许可与他人许可之间的关系, 验证道德信誉和道德证书模型的一些基本假设, 探讨道德心理许可的积极效应。     

道德虚伪：一种机会主义的适应策略

道德虚伪在个体层面是指人们言行不一, 在人际层面是指人们持有双重标准。心理学家通常从道德动机、认知失调以及精神分析的角度考察道德虚伪。诱发道德虚伪通常会促使个体做出跟他们公开承诺相一致的行为。作为一种机会主义的适应策略, 道德虚伪可能起源于群体适应情境下的自我谋利需要, 带有欺骗他人和自欺的特点。除了情绪、权力等因素之外, 未来研究需要考察自恋、羞耻、社会操纵能力、情商、文化因素对道德虚伪的影响。