Power promotes hypocrisy, study finds
Dec. 29, 2009
and World Science staff
2009 may well be remembered for its scandal-ridden headlines, from
admissions of extramarital affairs by governors and senators, to
corporate executives flying private jets while cutting employee
benefits, and most recently, to a mysterious early morning car crash in
Florida. The past year has been marked by a series of moral
transgressions by powerful figures in political, business and
celebrity circles.
A new study explores why powerful people – many of whom take a moral high
ground – don’t practice what they preach.
Researchers sought to determine whether power inspires hypocrisy, the
tendency to hold high standards for others while performing morally
suspect behaviors oneself. The research found that power makes people
stricter in moral judgment of others – while going easier on themselves.
The research was conducted by Joris Lammers and Diederik A. Stapel of
Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and by Adam Galinsky of the
Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Evanston,
Ill. The article is to appear in a forthcoming issue of Psychological
Science.
“This research is especially relevant to the biggest scandals of 2009,
as we look back on how private behavior often contradicted the public
stance of particular individuals in power,” said Galinsky. “For
instance, we saw some politicians use public funds for private benefits
while calling for smaller government, or have extramarital affairs
while advocating family values. Similarly, we witnessed CEOs of major
financial institutions accepting executive bonuses while
simultaneously asking for government bailout money.”
“According to our research, power and influence can cause a severe
disconnect between public judgment and private behavior, and as a
result, the powerful are stricter in their judgment of others while being
more lenient toward their own actions,” he continued.
To simulate an experience of power, the researchers assigned roles of
high-power and low-power positions to a group of study participants.
Some were assigned the role of prime minister and others civil servant.
The participants were then presented with moral dilemmas related to
breaking traffic rules, declaring taxes, and returning a stolen bike.
Through a series of five experiments, the researchers examined the
impact of power on moral hypocrisy. For example, in one experiment
the “powerful” participants condemned the cheating of others while
cheating more themselves. High-power participants also tended to
condemn over-reporting of travel expenses. But, when given a chance to
cheat on a dice game to win lottery tickets (played alone in a private
cubicle), the powerful people reported winning a higher amount of
lottery tickets than did low-power participants.
Three additional experiments further examined the degree to which
powerful people accept their own moral transgressions versus those
committed by others. In all cases, those assigned to high-power roles
showed significant hypocrisy by more strictly judging others for
speeding, dodging taxes and keeping a stolen bike, while finding it more
acceptable to engage in these behaviors themselves, the researchers said.
Galinsky said hypocrisy has its greatest impact among people who are
legitimately powerful. In contrast, a fifth experiment found that
people who don’t feel personally entitled to their power are actually
harder on themselves than they are on others, a phenomenon the
researchers dubbed “hypercrisy.” The tendency to be harder on the self
than on others also characterized the powerless in multiple studies.
“Ultimately, patterns of hypocrisy and hypercrisy perpetuate social
inequality. The powerful impose rules and restraints on others while
disregarding these restraints for themselves, whereas the powerless
collaborate in reproducing social inequality because they don’t feel
the same entitlement,” Galinsky concluded.
--- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom & Gloom Fixation
Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 2:50 AM
Amen.
I've always noticed that the same people who
become hung up on apocalypse fantasies are
also the ones most invested in "Beam Me Up
Scotty Syndrome." They're always looking for
something *outside themselves* to resolve
things for them. And for many of them, the
world ending resolves them quite nicely of
responsibility to solve things themselves.
I've also noticed that a lot of the people
who get off on apocalypse fantasies buy into
the concept that the purpose of life is to
extinguish life. That is, they really buy
that "the ultimate goal of life is to get off
the wheel of incarnation and rebirth."
Not my idea of much of a purpose. I think such
a world view was promoted by people who were
always *afraid* of life and more driven by
narcissism and their own desires than by caring
for others. And that includes IMO any spiritual
teacher in history who preached "avoiding
rebirth" as the "goal" of living. How is that
point of view NOT narcissistic and self-serving?
It's basically a way of saying, "My bliss is
more important than yours. Why should I stick
around to help others or teach them anything
if I can just dissolve into the ocean of bliss?"
It's basically the spiritual counterpart of the
"Me-first-ism" we see preached by the Capitalists
here. Having as one's goal the cessation of the
incarnational process is essentially a way of
saying, "Fuck you! All that matters is my own
eternal bliss."
I like the teachers and traditions who think about
enlightenment the least, and spend the majority of
their time trying to do as many nice things for
others as possible. Those people don't tend to
focus on "getting off the wheel" and "avoiding
reincarnation. " They don't get hung up on apoca-
lypse fantasies as a way of hoping that non-
incarnation happens sooner. They *look forward*
to the next incarnation as much as they look
forward to the next day. Both provide a new
opportunity to do for others.
Only someone who cares more about "doing for them-
selves" looks forward to the next day never coming.
Or worse, never coming again.
Just my opinion...
