Showing posts with label authority respect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authority respect. Show all posts

Monday, November 11, 2019

Psychology of Respect


Respect is a bipolar relational concept describing a person’s social status and likeability within a social group.

Groups vary in size. Groups may be small such as family members, a classroom, or a department at work. And groups may be as large as a university, professional association, multinational corporation, or nation.

Respect is a bipolar concept. The nature of respect is evident in the anchor words we use to describe level of respect as high or low. Not surprisingly, level of respect varies based on the perception group members have of the words and deeds of another group member. Of course, different people have may different opinions regarding the level of respect that should be accorded to a group member.

Social status is linked to a group’s values. Groups have different qualities that they highly value such as loyalty, kindness, wealth, fitness, attractiveness, musical talent, writing ability, and so forth. People who have high levels of several values gain higher status, which is an aspect of respect. Sometimes the social status is evident in observable ways such as clothing, medals, places to sit at a meeting, and so forth. In some cultures, social status along with respectful treatment can be purchased such as buying a first-class plane ticket.

Likeability refers to personal qualities, which are highly valued within a group. People who appear cheerful, interested, respectful of others, sincere, and so forth get high respect. Physically attractive people often get high respect evident by people wanting to spend more time with them.

Different groups may hold competing values. For example, high levels of wealth are highly valued in many western cultures. However, a poor person who has given her life to helping the poor can also be regarded with a high level of respect.

Loss of respect. Loss of respect happens when there is evidence of a serious breach of a group’s values. Groups that value freedom from sexual harassment will quickly devalue the respect status of the person who harasses. When it comes to moral violations, one powerful driver of disrespect is the emotion of disgust. Disgust is often, but not exclusively, linked to socially unacceptable sexual behavior.

Respect for the office. In western cultures, people are expected to treat people holding certain positions with culturally defined ways of showing respect. When an officeholder has behaved disrespectfully, members are expected to show respect to the position even if they consider the officeholder as a person who does not deserve respect. This can happen with high level political leaders like presidents and prime ministers.

Respect and Virtues. In some groups, the possession of certain traditional virtues gain high levels of respect. In some groups, people feel conflicted about the virtues. For example, self-confident leaders may border on being arrogant and violate a value of humility.

For an application of respect to parenting and teaching, see Discipline with Respect. 
Buy on AMAZON





Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)



Monday, November 4, 2019

The Psychology of Greed





Is greed the driver of a booming stock market and explosive budget deficit? Can greed ever be a good thing?

Frequently, various measures of the performance of the world’s largest economy—the United States— make the news. I see blurbs telling me of stunning multiyear highs for the S&P stock index, incredibly low unemployment, and budget bursting deficits. And I wonder about greed.

Is greed the major reason why everyone seems to join the party and ignore the day when debt payments must be paid?

Meanwhile, wise individuals assess their level of greed balanced against their appetite for risk. And some consider the virtue of generosity and their social obligations.

What is Greed?

Greed is a desire to get more and more of things regardless of personal needs. Greed may be situational, but it may also be dispositional—a personality trait. Greed is usually linked to goals of getting more food, money, and material things. The Cambridge Dictionary lists related words like avarice, materialism, and rapaciousness.

Beyond the dictionary list, researchers (for a summary, see Bruhn & Lowery, 2012) find that regardless of national culture, people seek to satisfy five needs: security, shelter, sustenance, sex, and self-expression. Values are related to perceptions of need. In the United States, values include material comfort, wealth, competition, and individualism.

Ambition is a benign term for socially acceptable greed. Greed is ambition beyond the norms of a culture. High levels of greed interfere with personal, corporate, and national well being.

Greed is a biopsychosocial motivational force that appears to be a part of human nature. It isn’t surprising to see some tout the values of greed despite general religious teachings condemning greed.

Greed: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

If I were a famous researcher, I think I would like to write a piece for a major news outlet called Greed: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly because, I believe the answer to the question, “Is Greed a Double-Edged Sword?” (Zhu and others, 2019) is yes. On the one hand, people with high levels of greed aim for higher levels of social status and the associated benefits, which includes a variety of material goods.

The “good” of greed for an employer can be the respect for those in authority who are in a position to control the advancement of the greed-driven employee, not to mention the high job performance. Greedy people want more and never seem to be satisfied— these are the two elements of greed described by Seuntjens, Zeelenberg, van de Ven, & Breugelmans (2019).

The “bad” of greed include the lack of performance when employees view their organisation as not distributing benefits in a fair manner and destructive competition. Greed is also linked to a willingness to take bribes and break rules (e.g., Seuntjens et al., (2019). Bruhn & Lowery (2012) identify the downside using terms like “envy, power lust, exploitation, manipulation, deception, and a sense of entitlement” (p.138).

I also note the work of Gray, Ward, and Norton (2014) demonstrating a “paying it forward effect.” In their studies, people pay forward equality and generosity, though they tend to be less generous. But they tend to excess when paying forward greed and acts of cruelty.

Managing Greedy People and Organisations

Fair play is critical to prevent greed-linked cheating. The findings from Zhu et al. (2019) suggest government and organisational leaders ought to ensure a culturally fair distribution of resources to benefit from the energies of greedy people.

Boundaries are needed at all levels of society to establish acceptable norms for ambition.

Monitor acts of Paying it Forward. It’s important to reward positive acts of kindness and generosity. But it’s equally important to be quick to address the payback of greed and harm, which can quickly lead to harmful relationships and an unsafe culture (e.g., Gray et al., 2014).

Leaders’ public pronouncements of regret may be helpful. Expressing regret about greedy behaviour and unfairness appear to have some impact on strengthening norms about fairness. Conversely, leaders who tout the virtues of greed can influence violations of social boundaries (van der Schalk, Kuppens, Bruder, & Manstead, 2015).

Public exposure of deception is important. National leaders, the press, organisations, and individuals play an important role in exposing the tricks of the greedy who use misrepresentation, lies, and deception to exploit others in their pursuit of goods (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004). A free press and support for whistleblowers are needed to curb measurable harm from the negative effects of greed.

advertisement
See Creating Surveys to help measure attitudes, values, and behavior in organizations.




See the Dispositional Greed Scale as a measure of Greed.

Also see the related concept of Altruism and the work of Batson.


References

Bruhn, J. G., & Lowrey, J. (2012). The good and bad about greed: How the manifestations of greed can be used to improve organizational and individual behavior and performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029355

Gray, K., Ward, A. F., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Paying it forward: Generalized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031047

Seuntjens, T. G., Zeelenberg, M., van de Ven, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2015). Dispositional greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 917–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000031

Steinel, W., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Social Motives and Strategic Misrepresentation in Social Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.419

van der Schalk, J., Kuppens, T., Bruder, M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2015). The social power of regret: The effect of social appraisal and anticipated emotions on fair and unfair allocations in resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000036.supp (Supplemental)

Zhu, Y., Sun, X., Liu, S. & Xue, G. (2019). Is greed a double-edged sword? The roles of the need for social status and perceived distributive justice in the relationship between greed and job performance. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02021

Friday, September 28, 2018

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)





Moral Foundations Theory 
(MFT) was developed by  Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues. (See references at the end of this post). A good overview of the theory can be found in the book, 
The Righteous Mind (2012).


 There are five core moral foundations in Moral Foundations Theory.

1 Care-Harm
2 Fairness/cheating (*equality-Fairness)
3 Loyalty-Betrayal
4 Authority-Respect; aka Authority/subversion
5 Purity-Sanctity aka Sanctity/degradation

An additional foundation of liberty has been added to the theory so there are now six foundations.

The core moral foundations

1 Care-Harm: derived from the development of attachment and empathy, people value the moral virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance and abhor causing pain to others.

2 Fairness/cheating: people have developed a sense of reciprocal altruism, which leads to concerns for justice, rights, and autonomy. Equality was dropped in favor of a sense of proportionality.

3 Loyalty-Betrayal: people form groups and tribes and a sense of loyalty to the group, which supports patriotism and a willingness to sacrifice for the group.

4 Authority/subversion: people organize themselves into hierarchies and consider leadership a virtue. Followers are expected to defer to legitimate leaders and show respect for group traditions.

5 Sanctity/degradation: derived from research into the psychology of disgust and contamination, people find certain things and by extension, some people, to be disgusting. There is a separation for that which is unclean. In religion, that which is sacred is set apart from that which is profane. Cleanliness of self and clothing are virtues. The body is a temple in some religious teachings.

The expanded theory includes a consideration of liberty.

6. Liberty/ oppression: people resist oppression and leaders who restrict their liberty. People hate bullies and tyrants.

Researchers usually find support for a two factor model. 
Conservatives view moral issues from 3-5 perspectives with an emphasis on the foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Sociopolitical liberals emphasize care and fairness foundations. In A House Divided, you will  find examples of Christians using the same moral foundations in different ways. For example, in abortion arguments conservatives focus on care and harm of the unborn child and liberals emphasize care-harm concerns of the mother.


Notes
*I added the "aka" because you will find somewhat different words in some articles.



Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your projects.


Available on AMAZON in multiple countries


Here are some applications of moral foundations theory:

For applications to Christian views of moral issues see A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality and Christian Cultures.

For a recent study of Moral Foundations Theory, Identity, and Politics, see Sutton, Kelly, and Huber (2019).

Link to learn more about the Moral Foundations Questionnaire



References


Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. doi: 10.1177/1088868309353415
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009).  Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50092. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007).  When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133(4), 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555
Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding Libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified Libertarians. Plos One, 7(8): e42366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Johnson, K. A., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. A. (2016). Moral foundation priorities reflect U.S. Christians’ individual differences in religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.037.
Sutton, G. W. (2016). A House Divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888
Sutton, G. W., Kelly, H. L., & Huver, M. (2019). Political identities, religious identity, and the pattern of moral foundations among conservative Christians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, xx, pp. xx-xx. Accepted 6 September 2019. ResearchGate Link     Academia Link