Influence of power on moral thinking

In the face of a moral dilemma, are the behavior and decisions of people in positions of power different from those who do not have much power? Judge for yourself

Dr. Miriam Dishon-Berkowitz | Galileo

During their professional lives, people are periodically in positions of power that require them to make decisions with moral implications. For example, a high school teacher has to decide whether to allow a student to submit an assignment late. Will her decision change if the student claims that he did not feel well (even though he does not have a medical certificate to back up his claim)? The teacher hesitates, because if she comes towards the student, then she will be subject to rules that should be applied for all students.

The characteristic of this moral dilemma is the debate whether to adhere to certain laws and rules, or not. In situations characterized by this type of moral dilemma, two styles of moral thinking can be used to solve the dilemma.

The first type of thinking is called moral thinking based on rules (rule-based), or deontological thinking (based on the theory of morals). In this type of thinking, an action or behavior is considered right or just based on the extent to which it is consistent with accepted norms, principles, laws or policies.

When is it allowed to steal a bike?

For example, if Rafi stole a bicycle, then the act he did is considered unjust or forbidden, because it contradicts the law of "thou shalt not steal". In rule-based moral thinking, an action is considered right and just (or forbidden) regardless of the details of the situation or the circumstances of the action.

On the other hand, there is outcome-based moral thinking, in which the righteousness of the action is not determined according to the extent of its compliance with certain laws and rules, but on the basis of the results of the action. For example, if Rafi stole Yossi's bicycle, the act would be considered unjust. At the same time, the act may be considered just if Rafi took the bicycle without permission to fly to the pharmacy to bring necessary medicine that would save the life of his sick mother.

According to newer models of morality, people do not arrive at a moral judgment after a moral struggle or after rationally weighing the issue, but rather they use intuition or a gut feeling, and based on that they determine their judgment quickly and automatically. Thus, their decision is often influenced by the circumstances and various characteristics of society and culture.

Stability enchants those with power

Now, in a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the effects of power on moral judgment are examined. Power is defined here - as defined in previous studies - as the ability to control your own resources and those of others. Will people with high levels of power think about moral decisions and make moral decisions differently than people who have low levels of power?

In the present study, the question was examined whether people with high levels of power are more likely to think in terms of moral reasoning based on rules, while people with low levels of power are more likely to think in terms of moral reasoning based on result. The rationale for this thinking is based on the assumption that stability is magical for people in positions of power, so they tend to principles based on rigid rules and laws that allow them to maintain their position.

While the powerful wish to preserve their power, the powerless wish to expose possible negative effects of power, thereby reducing the power of those in positions of power. As a result, they will adopt a consequence-based style of moral thinking. Since this is the case, they will be able to expose the injustices of power - and perhaps also change their status. The current study does not deal with the effects of power on morality, i.e. whether power makes people better or less good, but with the effect of power on ways of thinking and judging during the resolution of moral dilemmas.

50 subjects participated in the experiment, who took part in the simulation of a role-playing game from the business world. Each participant was seated next to a computer screen, and each participant was told that they would participate in a business game with other students. They were also told that one of the participants would be assigned to a managerial position (a position of power), while the other participants would be in the position of ordinary workers.

In addition, they were told that the manager has complete control over the resources, the work processes, and other employees, and at the end of the process he will evaluate each of the participants. After that, the participants were asked to fill out a leadership questionnaire, and they were told that based on it, it would be determined which of them would be chosen as manager. In fact, unbeknownst to them, half of the participants were randomly assigned to the role of the manager and half to the role of the other employees.

Adhering to laws and being based on rules

After assigning the roles, the participants were asked to decide how the organization would reward its employees. The participants were presented with two reward options: one was based on a result, in which workers were rewarded according to the final result - their degree of success in the game. The second compensation method was based on laws, and in it employees were rewarded according to the extent to which they obeyed the company's laws.

After the participants chose their preferred method of reward, the participants' moral reasoning was measured: the degree to which their moral reasoning is based on rules (e.g., "In general, it is important to me that everyone be treated according to the rules"), and the degree to which their moral reasoning is based on an outcome ("I think that there are always situations in which it is permissible to turn a blind eye to the rules"). Finally, the participants answered a questionnaire that tested the extent to which they felt they were in a position of power.

From the analysis of the research results, it appears that participants who were assigned to a position of power did feel that they had power and the ability to control resources and participants over others. It also became clear that participants who were in a position of power were more inclined to choose a rewarding method based on rules, compared to participants who were not in a position of power, who were more inclined to choose rewarding methods based on a result. Also, participants who were in a position of power reported rule-based moral thinking.

From the results of the experiment it became clear that being in a position of power leads people to make decisions based on rules. It can be assumed that people in positions of power are interested in preserving the status quo, and laws and rules help them in this. From this we can conclude that power can change a person's way of thinking. People's moral judgments - that is, what is considered right and just and what is considered forbidden - do not depend only on certain aspects of the moral dilemma that people face, but also on the individual's subjective feelings about power. Presumably, therefore, people in positions of power tended to think morally based on rules.

Dr. Miriam Dishon-Berkowitz is a psychologist and organizational and marketing consultant.