IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v13y2024i5p256-d1391159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Power Affects Moral Judgments: The Presence of Harm to Life Modifies the Association between Power and Moral Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Mufan Zheng

    (Department of Psychology, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
    Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London WC1H 0AP, UK)

  • Ana Guinote

    (Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London WC1H 0AP, UK)

  • Wei Luo

    (Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London WC1H 0AP, UK)

Abstract

Lammers and Stapel reported that high power increases deontological (rule-based) moral thinking, and low power increases utilitarian (outcome-based) moral thinking. However, the dilemmas were mild and did not involve harm to life. Here, we examined whether the presence or absence of harm to life affects the moral decisions of powerholders. To help establish the replicability and validity of the effects of power on moral judgments in the absence of harm to life, we first performed an exact replication of a study conducted by Lammers and Stapel, and this experiment was followed up by a similar study in an organizational context in China (Studies 1 and 2). Studies 3 and 4 investigated whether power and the presence/absence of harm to life interacted with preferences for deontological versus utilitarian moral judgments. Power consistently triggered deontological thinking. However, power differences in moral reasoning only emerged when there was no harm to life. Harm prompted deontological responses among control and powerless individuals, which nullified differences across the power conditions. The findings demarcate the generalizability of the association between power and a moral thinking style.

Suggested Citation

  • Mufan Zheng & Ana Guinote & Wei Luo, 2024. "How Power Affects Moral Judgments: The Presence of Harm to Life Modifies the Association between Power and Moral Choices," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:256-:d:1391159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/5/256/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/5/256/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:256-:d:1391159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.