CAJ | 학술논문

本研究考察了在一个道德两难的情境中，权威人格和权力感对道德思维方式的影响。研究以某市公检法系统的122名公务员为被试。首先采用权威人格问卷筛选出高权威人格组和低权威人格组被试，然后分别进行高、低权力感的启动，最后让被试对一个道德上的两难情景做出选择，选择的结果可以反映被试的道德思维方式。研究结果显示，高权威人格组被试在启动了他们高的权力感后，产生了明显的以规则导向为主的道德思维，而对低权威人格被试，他们道德思维方式则不受权力感启动的影响。由于社会冲突的产生常常与冲突情境中的道德思维方式有关，因此本研究的结果有助于我们更好地理解某些社会冲突产生的原因，并从心理学的角度提出解决冲突的方法。
본연구고찰료재일개도덕량난적정경중，권위인격화권력감대도덕사유방식적영향。연구이모시공검법계통적122명공무원위피시。수선채용권위인격문권사선출고권위인격조화저권위인격조피시，연후분별진행고、저권력감적계동，최후양피시대일개도덕상적량난정경주출선택，선택적결과가이반영피시적도덕사유방식。연구결과현시，고권위인격조피시재계동료타문고적권력감후，산생료명현적이규칙도향위주적도덕사유，이대저권위인격피시，타문도덕사유방식칙불수권력감계동적영향。유우사회충돌적산생상상여충돌정경중적도덕사유방식유관，인차본연구적결과유조우아문경호지리해모사사회충돌산생적원인，병종심이학적각도제출해결충돌적방법。
In situations of moral dilemma - for example, when urban management officers meet street vendors - people have to decide what is fair and to choose between at least two conflicting options. They have to decide whether to apply rules or not, and their decisions may have different consequences for the people affected. Applying and not applying rules are two opposite types of moral thinking to resolve the dilemma. The former is rule-based moral thinking, and the latter is outcome-based moral thinking. In rule-based moral thinking, an act is inherently right or wrong, irrespective of specifics of the circumstances. In outcome-based moral thinking, the rightness of an act is not determined by the degree to which it fits with principles, but by looking at the consequences of that act. Previous research has shown that people with high power are more likely to use rule-based moral thinking styles, whereas low-power individuals are more likely to rely on outcome-based moral thinking. Another concept that is potentially related to power is authoritarian personality, The hypothesis of the current research is that the effects of power priming on moral thinking style are moderated by authoritarian personality type. More specifically, we expected that when primed with high power, only individuals with high-authoritarian personality would show rule-based moral thinking. To test our hypothesis, 122 public servants from the Chinese Public Security System were recruited to participate in the present study. Participants were first divided into two groups of high and low authoritarians based on their scores on an authoritarian personality scale. They were then randomly assigned to conditions in which they were primed with either high or low power. After the power priming procedure, participants read about a classic trolley problem and indicated how they would deal with the moral dilemma. Their choices reflected either rule-based or outcome-based moral thinking style. The results showed that compared to low-authoritarian participants, high-authoritarian participants were more likely to adopt rule-based moral thinking style. Moreover, high-authoritarian participants, after being primed with high power, exhibited more rule-based moral thinking. However, such effects were not found in those who scored low on the authoritarian personality scale. Therefore, power only affected high-authoritarian participants on moral thinking, but not low authoritarians. The present work allows us to better understand intergroup conflicts resulting from different moral thinking styles. According to previous research, public servants in the Public Security System tended to possess authoritarian personality. Current findings suggest that in the face of moral dilemmas, high-power public servants are probably more inclined to adopt rule-based moral thinking style than the relatively powerless general public. Therefore, when confronting with each other, high-power parties with authoritarian personality may appear rigid and unbending toward low-power parties. In the meantime, low-power parties may appear irresponsible, focusing on immediate outcomes rather than higher legal and social norms, especially in the eyes of the powerful. Furthermore, if rule-based and outcome-based moral principles lead to different decisions, conflicts between low- and high-power parties may arise as a result. Better conflict resolution strategies should therefore aim at satisfying both parties by incorporating both outcome- and rule-based elements.