Perilous and unaccountable: The positive relationship between dominance and moral hazard behaviors.

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-18 DOI:10.1037/pspi0000448
Garrett L Brady, Hemant Kakkar, Niro Sivanathan
{"title":"Perilous and unaccountable: The positive relationship between dominance and moral hazard behaviors.","authors":"Garrett L Brady, Hemant Kakkar, Niro Sivanathan","doi":"10.1037/pspi0000448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Moral hazard involves a context where decision-makers engage in behaviors that prioritize self-interest while allowing the associated risk to be primarily borne by others. Such decision making can lead to catastrophic consequences, as seen in the 2008 global financial crisis after hedge fund managers indiscriminately invested their clients' money in subprime mortgages. This research examines which decision-makers are most likely to engage in moral hazard decision making and the psychological mechanism driving this behavior. Drawing on the dual model of social influence, we posit that individuals associated with dominance, but not prestige, will engage in greater moral hazard behaviors. We further contend that these behaviors are driven by dominant decision-makers' enhanced focus on end goals (outcomes) rather than the means (process) that they use to pursue such goals. We find support for our hypotheses across 13 studies (<i>N</i><sub>Observations</sub> = 26,880; of which eight were preregistered and six studies are reported in the Supplemental Materials), using both correlational and experimental designs. Additionally, we vary the moral hazard context (e.g., a financial setting, a health and safety issue, etc.) and capture both behavioral intentions and actual behaviors, while also ruling out several alternative explanations. These findings demonstrate that dominant decision-makers engage in moral hazard behaviors because of their tendency to prioritize outcomes over processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000448","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Moral hazard involves a context where decision-makers engage in behaviors that prioritize self-interest while allowing the associated risk to be primarily borne by others. Such decision making can lead to catastrophic consequences, as seen in the 2008 global financial crisis after hedge fund managers indiscriminately invested their clients' money in subprime mortgages. This research examines which decision-makers are most likely to engage in moral hazard decision making and the psychological mechanism driving this behavior. Drawing on the dual model of social influence, we posit that individuals associated with dominance, but not prestige, will engage in greater moral hazard behaviors. We further contend that these behaviors are driven by dominant decision-makers' enhanced focus on end goals (outcomes) rather than the means (process) that they use to pursue such goals. We find support for our hypotheses across 13 studies (NObservations = 26,880; of which eight were preregistered and six studies are reported in the Supplemental Materials), using both correlational and experimental designs. Additionally, we vary the moral hazard context (e.g., a financial setting, a health and safety issue, etc.) and capture both behavioral intentions and actual behaviors, while also ruling out several alternative explanations. These findings demonstrate that dominant decision-makers engage in moral hazard behaviors because of their tendency to prioritize outcomes over processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
危险和不负责任:支配地位与道德风险行为之间的正相关关系。
道德风险是指决策者的行为优先考虑自身利益,而让他人承担相关风险。这种决策可能会导致灾难性后果,2008 年全球金融危机中,对冲基金经理不加区分地将客户的资金投资于次级抵押贷款就是一例。本研究探讨了哪些决策者最有可能做出道德风险决策,以及驱动这种行为的心理机制。借鉴社会影响的双重模型,我们认为,与支配地位相关的个体会做出更多道德风险行为,而与威望无关。我们进一步认为,这些行为的驱动因素是占主导地位的决策者更加关注最终目标(结果),而不是他们追求这些目标所使用的手段(过程)。我们通过 13 项研究(NObservations = 26,880;其中 8 项是预先登记的,6 项研究的报告见补充材料),采用相关性和实验性设计,为我们的假设找到了支持。此外,我们还改变了道德风险的背景(如金融环境、健康和安全问题等),并捕捉了行为意图和实际行为,同时还排除了几种替代解释。这些研究结果表明,占主导地位的决策者之所以会做出道德风险行为,是因为他们倾向于优先考虑结果而不是过程。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
期刊最新文献
A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching. Genetic and environmental contributions to adult attachment styles: Evidence from the Minnesota Twin Registry. The directed nature of social stereotypes. Institutions and cooperation: A meta-analysis of structural features in social dilemmas. The bigger the problem the littler: When the scope of a problem makes it seem less dangerous.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1