Perceived Power Polarizes Moral Evaluations.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.1177/01461672241245181
Russell Roberts, Alex Koch
{"title":"Perceived Power Polarizes Moral Evaluations.","authors":"Russell Roberts, Alex Koch","doi":"10.1177/01461672241245181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We show an interactive effect of perceiver-target similarity in ideological beliefs and target power on impressions of target morality. Consistent with prior research, perceivers rated targets with dissimilar ideologies as less moral than targets with similar ideologies, but this difference in ratings was magnified for powerful targets relative to less powerful targets. We argue that these results emerged because perceivers expected similar-ideology, powerful (vs. powerless) targets to help the self more, and expected dissimilar-ideology, powerful (vs. powerless) targets to hurt the self more. We establish this effect when people evaluate politicians (Study 1), groups, and individuals (Studies 2a-2b); demonstrate its predictive power over other kinds of interpersonal similarity; and show that it affects morality judgments uniquely when compared with other consequential dimensions of social evaluation. Finally, we manipulated power experimentally and showed the interaction when the difference between high- and low-power manipulations was controlled over just $1 (Studies 3-4).</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241245181","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We show an interactive effect of perceiver-target similarity in ideological beliefs and target power on impressions of target morality. Consistent with prior research, perceivers rated targets with dissimilar ideologies as less moral than targets with similar ideologies, but this difference in ratings was magnified for powerful targets relative to less powerful targets. We argue that these results emerged because perceivers expected similar-ideology, powerful (vs. powerless) targets to help the self more, and expected dissimilar-ideology, powerful (vs. powerless) targets to hurt the self more. We establish this effect when people evaluate politicians (Study 1), groups, and individuals (Studies 2a-2b); demonstrate its predictive power over other kinds of interpersonal similarity; and show that it affects morality judgments uniquely when compared with other consequential dimensions of social evaluation. Finally, we manipulated power experimentally and showed the interaction when the difference between high- and low-power manipulations was controlled over just $1 (Studies 3-4).

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
感知到的权力使道德评价两极分化。
我们的研究表明,感知者与目标对象在意识形态信仰上的相似性和目标对象的力量对目标对象道德印象的影响是交互作用的。与之前的研究一致,感知者对意识形态不同的目标的道德评价低于意识形态相似的目标,但这种评价差异在有权势的目标与无权势的目标之间被放大。我们认为,之所以会出现这些结果,是因为感知者预期意识形态相似、有权势(相对于无权势)的目标会更多地帮助自己,而预期意识形态不同、有权势(相对于无权势)的目标会更多地伤害自己。我们在人们评价政治家(研究 1)、群体和个人(研究 2a-2b)时确立了这种效应;证明了它对其他类型的人际相似性的预测能力;并表明,与社会评价的其他后果维度相比,它对道德判断的影响是独特的。最后,我们在实验中操纵了权力,并显示了当高权力操纵和低权力操纵之间的差异仅控制在 1 美元以内时的相互作用(研究 3-4)。
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
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
A Race-Based Size Bias for Black Adolescent Boys: Size, Innocence, and Threat. Half Empty and Half Full? Biased Perceptions of Compassionate Love and Effects of Dyadic Complementarity. When Interdependence Backfires: The Coronavirus Infected Three Times More People in Rice-Farming Areas During Chinese New Year. Does Mindfulness Improve Intergroup Bias, Internalized Bias, and Anti-Bias Outcomes?: A Meta-Analysis of the Evidence and Agenda for Future Research. Estimating the Reliability and Stability of Cognitive Processes Contributing to Responses on the Implicit Association Test.
×
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