감성과학 (Science of Emotion and Sensibility)

  • 제26권2호
  • /
  • Pages.13-24
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1226-8593(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2383-613X(eISSN)
한국감성과학회 (Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

행위자 특성과 도덕적 정화방법이 행위자에 대한 도덕적 평가에 미치는 영향

The Effects of Wrongdoer's Characteristics and Moral Cleansing Method on Moral Evaluation

  • 진승재 (광운대학교 산업심리학과 ) ;
  • 이형철 (광운대학교 산업심리학과 ) ;
  • 김신우 (광운대학교 산업심리학과 )
  • 투고 : 2022.08.20
  • 심사 : 2023.02.01
  • 발행 : 2023.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 부도덕한 행동 이후에 발생하는 정화행동에 대한 도덕적 평가가 행위자의 자원 가용성에 따라 달라지는지를 검증했다. 이를 위해 행위자 특성(사회경제적 수준, 신체건강 수준)을 달리하여 도덕적 정화방법(기부, 봉사)에 따른 자원 가용성을 조작했으며, 참가자들은 도덕적 정화행동에 따른 고통, 위선의 정도, 그리고 용서 가능성을 평정했다. 연구 1에서는 사회경제적 수준이 높거나 낮은 사람이 기부 혹은 봉사를 통해 도덕적 정화행동을 하는 시나리오를 제시했다. 그 결과 참가자들은 부유한 사람의 기부는 고통스럽지 않았을 것이며, 위선적이고 용서하기 어렵다고 판단했다. 연구 2에서는 신체가 건강하거나 병약한 사람이 기부 혹은 봉사를 통해 잘못을 정화하는 내용을 제시했다. 그 결과 병약한 사람의 봉사활동은 고통스러웠을 것이며, 덜 위선적이며 (다른 조건에 비해) 용서 가능성을 높게 평가했다. 매개분석 결과 연구 1, 2 모두에서 정화행동의 고통이 클수록 위선을 약하게 판단하며, 이는 용서 가능성을 높이는 매개효과가 나타났다. 이 결과들은 동일한 정화행위라도 행위자의 자원 가용성에 따라 도덕적 판단이 달라짐을 보여준다. 즉, 사람들은 도덕적 정화행동은 고통을 수반해야 하며 그렇지 않은 경우 그 행위는 위선적이며 용서하기 어렵다고 평가함을 알수 있다.

This study tested whether the evaluation of moral cleansing behavior following an immoral act depends on the resources available to the wrongdoer. To this end, resource availability was manipulated by the wrongdoer's characteristics (socioeconomic status vs. physical health condition) and type of moral cleansing (donation vs. volunteer work), and participants rated the pain of the moral cleansing behavior, hypocrisy, and forgivability. Study 1 presents a scenario where a wrongdoer, either high or low in socioeconomic status, conducts moral cleansing via donation or volunteer work. Participants judged donation by those high in socioeconomic status to be not so painful, hypocritical, and unforgivable. Study 2 described a scenario in which a wrongdoer, either physically strong or weak, performs an act of moral cleansing either by donation or volunteer work. Participants considered those sickly wrongdoers' volunteer work to be painful, less hypocritical, and (compared with other conditions) more forgivable. Mediation analyses showed that in both Studies 1 and 2, pain in moral cleansing influenced the hypocrisy judgment which, in turn, affected perceived forgivability. These results indicate that, even for the same expiatory behavior, moral judgment depends on the actor's available resources. That is, people believe that moral cleansing should involve pain; otherwise, the act is hypocritical and unforgivable.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2021년도 광운대학교 교내 학술연구비 지원에 의해 연구되었음.

참고문헌

  1. Barden, J., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Saying one thing and doing another: Examining the impact of event order on hypocrisy judgments of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1463-1474. DOI: 10.1177/0146167205276430
  2. Bhatti, Y., Hansen, K. M., & Olsen, A. L. (2013). Political hypocrisy: The effect of political scandals on candidate evaluations. Acta Politica, 48(4), 408-428. DOI: 10.1057/ap.2013.6
  3. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279602
  4. Ding, W., Xie, R., Sun, B., Li, W., Wang, D., & Zhen, R. (2016). Why does the "sinner" act prosocially? The mediating role of guilt and the moderating role of moral identity in motivating moral cleansing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1317. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01317
  5. Effron, D. A., Lucas, B. J., & O'Connor, K. (2015). Hypocrisy by association: When organizational membership increases condemnation for wrongdoing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130, 147-159. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.05.001
  6. Effron, D. A., Markus, H. R., Jackman, L. M., Muramoto, Y., & Muluk, H. (2018). Hypocrisy and culture: Failing to practice what you preach receives harsher interpersonal reactions in independent (vs. interdependent) cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 371-384. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.12.009
  7. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford University Press.
  8. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (2012). Resource theory of social exchange. In K. Tornblom & A. Kazemi (Eds.), Handbook of social resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_2
  9. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, Guilford Press.
  10. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307-324. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
  11. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Gilovich, T., & Ariely, D. (2013). Moral masochism: On the connection between guilt and self-punishment. Emotion, 13(1), 14. DOI: 10.1037/a0029749
  12. Janney, J. J., & Gove, S. (2011). Reputation and corporate social responsibility aberrations, trends, and hypocrisy: Reactions to firm choices in the stock option backdating scandal. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1562-1585. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00984.x
  13. Jo, J., Li, H.-C. O., & Kim, S. (2022). Influence of power and status on social exclusion (제3자의 권력과 지위에 따른 사회적 배제행위에 대한 판단). Science of Emotion & Sensitivity, 25(2), 31-44. DOI: 10.14695/KJSOS.2022.25.2.31
  14. Johnson, S. G. B. (2018). Dimensions of altruism: Do evaluations of prosocial behavior track social good or personal sacrifice? Available at SSRN 3277444. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3277444
  15. Jordan, J. J., Hoffman, M., Bloom, P., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Nature, 530(7591), 473-476. DOI: 10.1038/nature16981
  16. Jordan, J. J., Sommers, R., Bloom, P., & Rand, D. G. (2017). Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling. Psychological Science, 28(3), 356-368. DOI: 10.1177/0956797616685771
  17. Klass, E. T. (1978). Psychological effects of immoral actions: The experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 85(4), 756-771. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.4.756
  18. Laurent, S. M., Clark, B. A., Walker, S., & Wiseman, K. D. (2014). Punishing hypocrisy: The roles of hypocrisy and moral emotions in deciding culpability and punishment of criminal and civil moral transgressors. Cognition & Emotion, 28(1), 59-83. DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2013.801339
  19. Lee, G.-H. (2021). Is it a smile or ridicule? Understanding the positivity of smile emoticons between high and low status teenagers in online games (미소인가? 조소인가?: 온라인 게임에서 지위가 높은 청소년과 낮은 청소년의 웃음 이모티콘 긍정성 이해 차이). Science of Emotion & Sensitivity, 24(3), 3-16. DOI: 10.14695/KJSOS.2021.24.3.3
  20. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5
  21. Monin, B., & Merritt, A. (2012). Moral hypocrisy, moral inconsistency, and the struggle for moral integrity. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/13091-009
  22. O'Connor, K., Effron, D. A., & Lucas, B. J. (2020). Moral cleansing as hypocrisy: When private acts of charity make you feel better than you deserve. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(3), 540-559. DOI:10.1037/pspa0000195
  23. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x
  24. Stone, J., & Fernandez, N. C. (2008). To practice what we preach: The use of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to motivate behavior change. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 1024-1051. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00088.x
  25. Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle?. American Psychologist, 26(8), 685-695. DOI: 10.1037/h0032110
  26. Tornblom, K., & Kazemi, A. (2012). Handbook of social resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5
  27. Wang, Y., Qu, Y., Hou, B., & Tian, Q. (2019). What makes her a material girl?: The influence of childhood economic background and sex ratio on female preference for male resource availability. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(1). DOI: 10.1177/1474704919833720
  28. West, C., & Zhong, C. B. (2015). Moral cleansing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 221-225. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.022