搜索结果：Hypocrisy

The current study investigated the relationship between dark personality traits, moral hypocrisy, and moral disengagement in accordance with life history theory and social cognitive theory. Two types of moral hypocrisy were examined using questionnaires with moral scenarios and behavioral experiments: interpersonal moral hypocrisy (ie, moral double standards) and intrapersonal moral hypocrisy (ie, misalignment between words and deeds). A sample of 638 students (384 females, 60.19%) aged 18 to 25 years (Mage = 22.53, SDage = 1.81) was recruited at a Chinese university using a convenience sampling method. Results showed that Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy were positively associated with moral hypocrisy. In addition, moral disengagement partially mediated the relationship between Machiavellianism and moral hypocrisy, partially mediated the relationship between narcissism and moral hypocrisy, and fully mediated the relationship between psychopathy and moral hypocrisy. These findings advanced the understanding of the relationship between dark personality traits and moral hypocrisy and shed light on how to prevent moral hypocrisy.

To examine the association between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and moral hypocrisy among college students, and to elucidate the underlying psychological mechanisms, this study-guided by Ecological Systems Theory and Ego Depletion Theory-investigated the psychological processes through which ACEs may contribute to moral hypocrisy. A questionnaire survey was administered to 1,082 college students. Results indicated that: (1) ACEs positively predicted moral hypocrisy; (2) fear of failure independently mediated the ACEs-moral hypocrisy relationship; (3) ego depletion independently mediated this relationship; and (4) fear of failure and ego depletion sequentially mediated the association, such that ACEs increased fear of failure, which in turn exacerbated ego depletion and ultimately elevated moral hypocrisy. This study advances the literature by identifying a continuous psychological transmission pathway from early adversity to adult moral behavior: early environmental risk may be translated into moral maladjustment through a developmental cascade involving affective vulnerability (fear of failure) and chronic depletion of self-regulatory resources (ego depletion). Specifically, fear of failure functions as a persistent stressor that continuously consumes self-regulatory capacity. When combined with culturally specific "face" (mianzi) concerns, this process may motivate individuals to adopt a word-deed dissociation strategy-maintaining a desirable moral image while minimizing behavioral costs-thereby manifesting as moral hypocrisy. These findings not only deepen theoretical understanding of moral development mechanisms but also offer empirical support for targeted psychological interventions and moral education programs for college students with histories of childhood adversity. Interventions that promote cognitive reappraisal of failure-related beliefs and facilitate restoration of self-regulatory capacity may be particularly effective in reducing moral hypocrisy among individuals exposed to early adversity.

Humans worldwide have long deplored hypocrisy, a concept that has been mentioned in texts dating back 100-1,000 years (e.g., the Analects of Confucius, the Tao Te Ching, the Bible, and the Qur'an). However, what influences the extent of hypocrisy attribution or counts as hypocrisy may differ as a function of culture. Previous studies have shown that Westerners attribute greater hypocrisy for within-person attitude-behavior inconsistency than East Asians. Building on this, we predict that East Asians' (vs. Westerners') hypocrisy attribution is more heavily influenced by social relationships. Consistent with past research, this can lead to greater leniency. However, as we show, this can also result in the novel finding we present that attributions of mild-to-moderate hypocrisy are made even when no explicit within-person attitude-behavior inconsistency is present. Across six experiments, we found that Koreans (vs. participants from the United States) attributed more hypocrisy to attitude-contradicting behavior when the person enacting the behavior was not the person who stated the attitude but was someone who shared social bonds with that person (i.e., cross-person, within-relationship attitude-behavior inconsistency; "relational hypocrisy"). Specifically, Koreans attributed more hypocrisy than Americans when a child's behavior contradicted their parent's views (Experiments 1a and 1b) or when attitude-contradicting behavior was enacted by the child of a close friend (Experiment 2). Experiments 3-5 replicated the findings from Experiments 1-2 using additional social contexts (e.g., a spousal relationship). Supplementary analyses showed that differences in hypocrisy attribution between Americans and Koreans were mediated by cultural differences in their perceptions of shared responsibility within relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Consumers may sense hypocrisy in corporate social responsibility (CSR) if they note inconsistency in enterprises' words and deeds related to CSR. This inconsistency originates from the intentional selfish actions and unintentional actions of enterprises. Studies have revealed that consumers' perception of hypocrisy has a negative influence on enterprise operation. However, studies have not examined how corporate responses to consumers' hypocrisy perception affect consumers' attitude and behavior. Therefore, the present study attempted to determine the measures that should be undertaken by enterprises to reduce consumers' negative response to them when consumers perceive them to be hypocritical. We conducted a situational simulation experiment to explore the effect of the match between corporate hypocrisy manifestation (moral hypocrisy vs. behavioral hypocrisy) and the corporate response strategy (reactive CSR communication vs. proactive CSR communication) on consumers' negative behaviors toward an enterprise and to test the mechanism influencing this effect. The results indicated that the interaction between the type of corporate hypocrisy and the corporate response strategy has a significant effect on consumers' negative behaviors toward an enterprise. Consumers' negative emotions have a mediating influence on the aforementioned effect. This study explored the response strategies of enterprises during a corporate hypocrisy crisis, classified corporate hypocrisy crises into two types (moral hypocrisy vs. behavioral hypocrisy) according to the different manifestations of corporate hypocrisy, and introduced situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) into research on corporate hypocrisy. The present results help expand knowledge on corporate hypocrisy.

In recent years, due to the increasingly prominent role of voice behavior in leader decision-making and organizational performance, such behavior has become a central topic for scholars. A majority of studies explore the "uphold" effects of multiple leader behavior toward the voice behavior; nonetheless, our study revealed the "undo" effect --- leader hypocrisy on voice behavior. Drawing on social cognitive theory, we investigated the relationship between leader hypocrisy and voice behavior, examined the mediating effects of cognition-based trust and affect-based trust, and the moderating effect of moral identity. We conducted a three-wave survey in a large Chinese corporation to test the hypothesized model. We collected 562 employees to participate in this survey. The results show that leader hypocrisy negatively impacts employees' cognition-based and affect-based trust, and both types of trust mediate the relationship between leader hypocrisy and voice behavior, respectively. In the meantime, moral identity manifested the negative effect of leader hypocrisy on cognition-based and affect-based trust. Our research not only enriches the related research on leader hypocrisy and voice behavior but also uncovers the underlying mechanism through which leader hypocrisy affects voice behavior and the boundary conditions of this effect. Meanwhile, our research provides a theoretical reference for increasing employees' voice behavior and promoting the healthy development of enterprises.

The induced-hypocrisy paradigm is an effective two-step procedure-normative-salience step and then transgressions-salience step-for encouraging normative behaviors. In the context of promoting school bullying victim support among witnesses, this study tests whether the activation of a subjective norm rather than a social norm as traditionally practiced in the hypocrisy procedure can enhance the hypocrisy effect. Middle school students (N = 191) were assigned to either the control, social-norm-hypocrisy, or subjective-norm-hypocrisy conditions. Victim-defending intentions were measured immediately and one month later. The results showed a significant increase, ranging from control, then social-norm-hypocrisy, to subjective-norm-hypocrisy conditions, in students' victim-defending intentions. These results extend the scope of induced hypocrisy and contribute to progress in investigating processes underlying the hypocrisy effect.

Organizations often endure across multiple generations of members-and what one generation preaches may not always align with what another generation practices. We demonstrate that people attribute such inconsistency to hypocrisy, even when over half a century separates the practicing and preaching. Five experiments and three supplemental studies demonstrate this intergenerational hypocrisy effect (N = 4,482). Organizations were perceived as more hypocritical, their actions seemed less legitimate, and people were more motivated to protest against them when the organization's words and deeds were (vs. were not) misaligned across generations of members. We test several moderators, and find that to attenuate the intergenerational hypocrisy effect, organizations can attribute their word-deed inconsistency to moral principles that they paid a tangible cost to uphold. The results suggest that organizations risk reputational damage in a wider array of situations than previously appreciated.

Self-interest bias describes an observer's tendency to judge moral transgression leniently when they benefit from it. However, what factors moderate the self-interest bias is an open empirical question. Here, we investigated to what extent hypocrisy moderates the self-interest bias. Preregistered Study 1a (N = 194) and replication in Study 1b (N = 193) demonstrated that observers' interest impacts moral character judgments of hypocritical transgressors. This effect was explained by observers' goal attainment due to transgression (Study 2, N = 713) and agreement to aid observers' or ingroup interests (Study 3, N = 634). Importantly, transgressors' hypocrisy moderated the impact of observers' interests in moral character judgments (Studies 2 & 3). In summary, when judging hypocritical transgressors, peoples' moral character judgments tend to be biased by their or their group's interests. However, in comparison to non-hypocritical transgressors, this impact is less pronounced.

This study examines the impact of prioritizing the out-group in intergroup moral dilemmas. The research aims to achieve three primary objectives: 1) investigating the relationship between out-group prioritization and perceptions of hypocrisy, 2) exploring the influence of perceived hypocrisy and negative emotions on moral judgments, and 3) uncovering the underlying reasons for perceiving outgroup prioritization as hypocritical. Experiments 1, 2 and 3 involved presenting Chinese participants with out-group rescuers and in-group rescuers and asking them to rate the two on three dimensions: level of hypocrisy, level of morality, and negative emotions toward the rescuers. In Experiment 3, the degree of similarity between participants and rescuers was manipulated to control for the level at which participants projected their own intrinsic motivations (ie, self-interest) onto the rescuers. Experiments 1 and 2 jointly showed that participants perceived the out-group rescuer as more hypocritical and immoral compared to the in-group rescuer, and that participants had stronger negative emotions toward the out-group rescuer. Mediation analysis also demonstrated that the perception of hypocrisy and negative emotions largely mediated the relationship between the different rescuers and participants' evaluation of the rescuers' morality. In Experiment 3, participants gave higher hypocrisy ratings to high projection out-group rescuers compared to low projection out-group rescuers. In intergroup dilemmas, choosing to sacrifice the in-group to rescue the outgroup is perceived as more hypocritical, immoral, and objectionable. Perceived hypocrisy arises from an incongruity between individuals' subjective judgments of the rescuers' self-interest motives and the altruistic choice made by the rescuers to rescue the out-group.

Many previous studies indicate that children are highly sensitive to the immoral behavior of others, preferring prosocial over antisocial characters. Accordingly, children avoid transgressors from a very early age. A special kind of transgressor is the moral hypocrite, who not only acts immorally but also acts in contrast to what they preach. There are very few studies establishing whether children recognize moral hypocrisy and if it impacts their moral judgment. We ran three studies with preschoolers aged 4 to 6 years on whether children recognize moral hypocrisy and how children assess moral hypocrisy. In Studies 2 and 3, we also tested false-signaling theory as an explanation of the more negative assessments of moral hypocrites. In Study 1 (N = 133), we showed that children indeed assess moral hypocrites more negatively than nonhypocritical moral transgressors. In Study 2 (N = 115), we initially demonstrated that the assessment of moral hypocrites results from their inconsistency between words and deeds. Study 3 (N = 159) replicated the results of Studies 1 and 2 and, by excluding an alternative explanation, explained that moral hypocrites are perceived as less moral and liked less due to the false signals that they send.

Few studies have focused on the conditions in which individuals perceive hypocrisy in others. The current study introduces and tests the Motivated Appeal to Hypocrisy (MAtH) hypothesis. This hypothesis examines core social psychological motivational threats and asks (a) whether these are related to the accounts of individuals in charging others with hypocrisy, and (b) whether these perceptions of hypocrisy are associated with reductions in the persuasiveness of persons targeted as hypocrites. Study 1 (N=201) was based on qualitative coding of stories and revealed, as expected, that violations of core social motives involving belongingness, understanding, control, self-enhancement, and trust are involved in participants' stories of hypocrisy. Study 2 (N=237) used a multilevel correlational approach and demonstrated that violations of core social motives significantly predict perceptions of hypocrisy and the rejection of a person's message or advice. The relation between social motive violations and message rejection was mediated by perceptions of hypocrisy.

Charges of hypocrisy are usually thought to be to be damning. Yet when a hypocrisy charge is made, there often remains disagreement about whether or not its target really is a hypocrite. Why? Three pre-registered experiments (N = 2599) conceptualize and test the role of perceived comparability in evaluating hypocrisy. Calling someone a hypocrite typically entails invoking a comparison-one meant to highlight internal contradiction and cast moral character into question. Yet there is ambiguity about which sorts of comparisons are valid in the first place. We argue that disagreements about moral hypocrisy often boil down to disagreements about comparability. Although the comparability of two situations should not depend on whose behavior is being scrutinized, observers shift comparability judgments in line with social motives to criticize or defend. In short, we identify a cognitive factor that can help to explain why, for similar patterns of behavior, people see hypocrisy in their enemies but consistency in themselves and their allies.

Although two people could both enact similar forms of hypocrisy, one person might be judged as more hypocritical than the other. The present research advances a novel, theoretical explanation for a paradigmatic instance of this: the increased hypocrisy ascribed to contradicting a morally (vs. nonmorally) based attitude. In contrast to prior explanations, the present research shows that people infer targets holding morally (vs. nonmorally) based attitudes are more difficult to change. Consequently, when people are hypocritical on these stances, it elicits greater surprise, which amplifies the perceived hypocrisy. Through both statistical mediation and experimental moderation, we provide evidence for this process and show how our explanation generalizes to understanding heightened hypocrisy in other contexts, too (i.e., violating nonmoral attitudes held with certainty vs. uncertainty). Altogether, we provide an integrative, theoretical lens for predicting when moral and nonmoral acts of hypocrisy will be perceived as particularly hypocritical.

The tendency for people to consider themselves morally good while behaving selfishly is known as moral hypocrisy. Influential work by Valdesolo and DeSteno (2007) found evidence for intergroup moral hypocrisy such that people were more forgiving of transgressions when they were committed by an in-group member than an out-group member. We conducted two experiments to examine moral hypocrisy and group membership in an online paradigm with Prolific workers from the United States: a direct replication of the original work with minimal groups (N = 610; nationally representative) and a conceptual replication with political groups (N = 606; 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans). Although the results did not replicate the original findings, we observed evidence of in-group favoritism in minimal groups and out-group derogation in political groups. The current research finds mixed evidence of intergroup moral hypocrisy and has implications for understanding the contextual dependencies of intergroup bias and partisanship.

暂无摘要（点击查看详情）

The induced-hypocrisy is a paradigm in which people promote a normative behavior (normative salience step) and then recall their past transgressions (transgression salience step). It is an effective two-step procedure for encouraging prosocial behaviors. This study aims to explore whether discrimination can be reduced using the hypocrisy paradigm combining two kinds of social norms, namely injunctive and descriptive norms. We assigned 80 participants to descriptive norm-related hypocrisy, injunctive norm-related hypocrisy, combined-norm hypocrisy, and control conditions. Results showed that intention to adopt active normative behaviors was higher in the combined-norms than in the single norm hypocrisy conditions. We observed the same pattern in reducing discriminatory behaviors in the Cyberball game, which measures passive discrimination (exclusion). Our findings have both practical and theoretical implications. First, they provide a new and effective means for producing behavioral changes in the field of discrimination. Second, they contribute to further investigating the explanatory processes underlying the hypocrisy effect.

Governments, institutions, and brands try various intervention strategies for countering growing cyberbullying, but with questionable effectiveness. The authors use hypocrisy induction, a technique for subtly reminding consumers that they have acted contrary to their moral values, to see whether it makes consumers more willing to support brand-sponsored anti-cyberbullying CSR campaigns. Findings demonstrate that hypocrisy induction evokes varying reactions depending on regulatory focus, mediated by guilt and shame. Specifically, consumers who have a dominant promotion (prevention) focus feel guilt (shame), which motivates them to overcome their discomfort by supporting (avoiding) an anti-cyberbullying campaign. Moral regulation is drawn as a theoretical underpinning to explain various consumer reactions to hypocrisy induction, the moderating role of regulatory focus, and mediating role of guilt and shame. The research contributes to the literature and provides practical implications by explaining when and why brands can use hypocrisy induction to persuade consumers to support social causes through the lens of moral regulation theory.

暂无摘要（点击查看详情）

暂无摘要（点击查看详情）