|
2010-02-01 The psychology of power权力心理学 Absolutely绝对如此 Power corrupts, but it corrupts only those who think they deserve it 权力腐蚀人，但它仅仅腐蚀那些自认为他们有资格得到权力的人 Jan 21st 2010 | From The Economist print edition REPORTS of politicians who have extramarital affairs（婚外情） while complaining about the death of family values, or who use public funding for private gain despite condemning（denounce, 谴责） government waste, have become so common in recent years that they hardly seem surprising anymore. Anecdotally（非正式地）, at least, the connection between power and hypocrisy（虚伪）looks obvious. 近年来，有的政治家一边涉足婚外情一边抱怨家庭伦理的丧失，有的把公共资金占为己有却谴责政府浪费。这些报道如此普遍，已经不足为奇了。虽然是传闻，但至少，权力很明显与虚伪相关。 Anecdote is not science, though. And, more subtly（微妙）, even if anecdote is correct, it does not answer the question of whether power tends to corrupt, as Lord Acton’s dictum（宣言） has it, or whether it merely attracts the corruptible（容易腐败堕落的人）. To investigate this question Joris Lammers at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, and Adam Galinsky at Northwestern University, in Illinois, have conducted a series of experiments which attempted to elicit(得出，探出) states of powerfulness and powerlessness in the minds of volunteers. Having done so, as they report in Psychological Science, they tested those volunteers’ moral pliability（柔韧性）. Lord Acton, they found, was right. 然而传闻毕竟不是科学。而且，更微妙的是，即使传闻是对的，但就像Lord Acton的宣言中说的那样，传闻不能回答权力是否会腐蚀人，还是仅仅吸引那些容易腐败的人的问题。为了调查该问题，荷兰Tilburg大学的Joris Lammers和伊利诺斯州西北大学的Adam Galinsky，已经进行了一系列实验，尝试得出志愿者思维中强势与无力的状态。正如他们在《心理学科学》报告的那样，通过实验他们测试了志愿者道德的柔韧性。他们发现，Lord Acton是对的。 In their first study, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky asked 61 university students to write about a moment in their past when they were in a position of high or low power. Previous research has established that this is an effective way to “prime”（诱导） people into feeling as if they are currently in such a position. Each group (high power and low power) was then split（分开） into two further groups. Half were asked to rate, on a nine-point morality scale (with one being highly immoral and nine being highly moral), how objectionable（反感） it would be for other people to over-report travel expenses at work. The other half were asked to participate in a game of dice（骰子）. 在他们的首次研究中，Lammers博士和Galinsky博士让61所大学的学生写下他们过去处在权力高或权力低的时刻。先前的研究已经证实这是一个有效的方法诱导人们使他们感觉像是现在也处于那样的位置。然后将权力高和权力低的两组再一分为二。让一半的人对其他人在工作时多报出差费的反感程度进行评分，用1-9分的道德测量表（一分表示最不道德，九分表示最有道德）一个九分的道德进行评估。而让另外一半人参与掷骰子游戏。 The dice players were told to roll two ten-sided dice (one for “tens” and one for “units”) in the privacy of an isolated cubicle（小房间）, and report the results to a lab assistant. The number they rolled, which would be a value between one and 100 (two zeros), would determine the number of tickets that they would be given in a small lottery that was run at the end of the study. 他们让玩骰子的人在一个隔开的封闭小房间里投掷两个10面的骰子（一个是十位数，一个是个位数），然后将结果报告给实验助理。他们所掷的点数将落在0到100（两个0）之间，这决定了在研究最后他们将在一个小型的抽奖活动中得到的票数。 In the case of the travel expenses—when the question hung on the behaviour of others—participants in the high-power group reckoned（计算）, on average, that over-reporting rated as a 5.8 on the nine-point scale. Low-power participants rated it 7.2. The powerful, in other words, claimed to favour the moral course. In the dice game, however, high-power participants reported, on average, that they had rolled 70 while low-power individuals reported an average 59. Though the low-power people were probably cheating a bit (the expected average score would be 50), the high-power volunteers were undoubtedly cheating—perhaps taking the term “high roller” rather too literally（字面上地）. 在旅行消费的研究中，当问题涉及到他人的行为时，权力高的一组参与者在多报上的计算的平均得分是5.8分，权力低的人是7.2分（基于1-9分的测量表）。换句话说，有权力的人更赞同高道德要求。而在掷骰子游戏中，权力高的参与者报告他们的平均分是70而权力低的人是59.尽管权力低的人很可能有点作弊（期望平均分是50），但权力高的志愿者毫无疑问是作弊——可能太从字面去理解“高投掷者”了。 Taken together, these results do indeed suggest that power tends to corrupt and to promote a hypocritical（虚伪的）tendency to hold other people to a higher standard than oneself. To test the point further, though, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky explicitly contrasted attitudes to self and other people when the morally questionable activity was the same in each case. Having once again primed two groups of participants to be either high-power or low-power, they then asked some members of each group how acceptable it would be for someone else to break the speed limit when late for an appointment and how acceptable it would be for the participant himself to do so. Others were asked similar questions about tax declarations. 综合来看，这些结果的确显示了权力倾向于腐蚀人，并使人倾向于虚伪地用高标准要求其他人而不是自身。然而，为进一步检验这点，Lammers博士和alinsky博士详细地对比了当各种情况下道德有问题的活动相同时人们对自己和对他人的态度。他们再次让参与者分成两组并诱导他们成为权力高或权力低的人，然后对各组的部分组员提问，问题是他们有多接受当其他人或他们自己因为约会迟到而超速行驶这种行为。其他组员则被问到关于税务申报的同样问题。 Only the little people pay taxes… 只有小人物纳税 In both cases participants used the same one-to-nine scale employed in the first experiment. The results showed that the powerful do, indeed, behave hypocritically. They felt that others speeding because they were late warranted a 6.3 on the scale whereas speeding themselves warranted a 7.6. Low-power individuals, by contrast, saw everyone as equal. They scored themselves as 7.2 and others at 7.3—a statistically insignificant difference. In the case of tax dodging（逃税）, the results were even more striking. High-power individuals felt that when others broke tax laws this rated as a 6.6 on the morality scale, but that if they did so themselves this rated as a 7.6. In this case low-power individuals were actually easier on others and harsher on themselves, with values of 7.7 and 6.8 respectively. 两种情况下被试者都使用前面实验中1-9分的测量表。结果显示，有权力的人的确表现虚伪。在测量值范围内，他们觉得其他人由于迟到而超速的合理性只有6.3分，而他们自己则7.6分合理。相比之下，权力低的人将人人视为平等。他们给自己打分为7.2，给他人打分为7.3（只有不显著的统计差异）。在逃税问题上，结果更为显著。权力高的人觉得其他人破坏税法只得6.6分，而他们自己的话则得到7.6分。同样情况下权力低的人实际上对他人更宽容，而对自己更苛刻，分别给出了7.7分和6.8分。 These results, then, suggest that the powerful do indeed behave hypocritically, condemning the transgressions（侵犯） of others more than they condemn their own. Which comes as no great surprise, although it is always nice to have everyday observation confirmed by systematic analysis. But another everyday observation is that powerful people who have been caught out often show little sign of contrition（悔悟）. It is not just that they abuse（滥用） the system; they also seem to feel entitled（有资格） to abuse it. To investigate this point, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky devised a third set of experiments. These were designed to disentangle（解开） the concept of power from that of entitlement. To do this, the researchers changed the way they primed people. 这些结果都显示了有权力的人确实表现伪善，对他人的罪过比自己的更为谴责。这种结果并不令人非常吃惊，虽然日常观察得到系统分析的证实总是更好。但还有一种常见的现象就是有权力的人被逮捕时通常很少表现出悔意。他们不仅仅是滥用权力，而且他们似乎感到有资格滥用权力。为调查这点，Lammers博士和alinsky博士设计了第三套实验。他们设计用来区别权力与权利的概念，并改变了方法来诱导被试者。 A culture of entitlement 权利的文化 Half of 105 participants were asked to write about a past experience in which they had legitimately（正当地） been given a role of high or low power. The others were asked to write about an experience of high or low power where they did not feel their power (or lack of it) was legitimate. All of the volunteers were then asked to rate how immoral it would be for someone to take an abandoned bicycle rather than report the bicycle to the police. They were also asked, if they were in real need of a bicycle, how likely they would be to take it themselves and not report it. 他们让105个参与中的一半人写下过去他们被正当赋予或高或低的权力的经历。其他人则写出他们感到不合理地被赋予或缺失权力的经历。接下来对有人拿走拾到的自行车而没向警察报告的行为，所有的参与者都要求估计它有多不道德。他们也被问到，如果他们的确需要自行车，他们拿走自行车而不报告的可能性有多大。 The “powerful” who had been primed to believe they were entitled to their power readily engaged in acts of moral hypocrisy. They assigned a value of 5.1 to others engaging（参与） in the theft of the bicycle while rating the action at 6.9 if they were to do it themselves. Among participants in all of the low-power states, morally hypocritical behaviour inverted（颠倒） itself, as it had in the case of tax fraud（欺骗）. “Legitimate” low-power individuals assigned others a score of 5.1 if they stole a bicycle and gave themselves a 4.3. Those primed to feel that their lack of power was illegitimate behaved similarly, assigning values of 4.7 and 4.4 respectively. 那些已经被诱导相信自己被赋予权力的人很轻易地就进入了道德虚伪的表演。他们对参与偷窃的其他人给出了5.1分而给自己打了6.9分。所有处在的权力低状态的参与者中，道德伪善的行为就像在逃税中一样颠倒过来了。权力低“合理”的人对偷自行车的其他人给了5.1分，而如果自己偷窃的话则给了4.3分。那些被诱导成权力低不合理的人同样分别给出了4.7和4.4分。 However, an intriguing（耐人寻味的，神秘的） characteristic emerged（出现） among participants in high-power states who felt they did not deserve their elevated（高层的）
positions. These people showed a similar tendency to that found in low-power individuals—to be harsh（苛刻的） on themselves and less harsh on others—but the effect was considerably more dramatic. They felt that others warranted a lenient（宽容的） 6.0 on the morality scale when stealing a bike but assigned a highly immoral 3.9 if they took it themselves. Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky call this reversal “hypercrisy”. 然而，那些处在高权力又认为他们不应得到高位的人中出现了一种耐人寻味的特征。他们和权力低的人都表现出了同样的倾向——即对自己比他人更严厉——但这种影响却是相当显著。他们觉得其他人偷自行车时在道德合理性上能得到一个宽恕的6.0分，但他们自己却得到很不道德的3.9分。Dr Lammers 和 Dr Galinsky把这叫做反向伪善。 They argue, therefore, that people with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it（逃脱处罚）, but also because they feel at some intuitive（直觉的） level that they are entitled to take what they want. This sense of entitlement is crucial to understanding why people misbehave in high office. In its absence, abuses will be less likely. The word “privilege” translates as “private law”. If Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky are right, the sense which some powerful people seem to have that different rules apply to them is not just a convenient smoke screen（something designed to obscure, confuse, or mislead）. They genuinely believe it. 他们因此分析说，那些自认为正当拥有权力的人违法不仅仅因为他们能逃脱处罚，还因为他们从直觉上感到他们有权利得到他们想要的。这种对权利的感觉对理解为什么高层的人容易犯错很关键。缺少这种感觉，将不太可能滥用职权。“特权”翻译为“私法”。如果Dr Lammers 和 Dr Galinsky是正确的，那么一些有权力的人对他们自己应用不同的法则这种感觉就不仅仅是一个方便的掩饰，而是他们真正相信如此。 What explains hypercrisy is less obvious. It is known, though, from experiments on other species that if those at the bottom of a dominance hierarchy（等级） show signs of getting uppity（不易控制）, those at the top react both quickly and aggressively. Hypercrisy might thus be a signal of submissiveness—one that is exaggerated in creatures that feel themselves to be in the wrong place in the hierarchy. By applying reverse privileges to themselves, they hope to escape punishment from the real dominants. Perhaps the lesson, then, is that corruption and hypocrisy are the price that societies pay for being led by alpha males (and, in some cases, alpha females). The alternative, though cleaner, is leadership by wimps（软弱的人）. 关于反向伪善解释还不太清楚。虽然从对其他物种的实验上可以看出，如果处在统治阶层控制的底层表现出骚动，那些顶层的人就会立即激烈迅速地反应。反向伪善因而可能是服从的信号——一种由感觉处在错误阶层的生物放大的信号。当他们对自己应用相反特权时，他们希望逃脱来自真正统治者的处罚。那么，也许这一教训就是：腐败和虚伪是社会为被alpha males领导所付出的代价。而相应的，虚伪这一概念虽然更清楚点，却是社会为被软弱的人领导所付出的代价。 | 
楼主: 九天揽月
发表于 2010-2-1 11:12:39
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
