Scholarlink

<p>Two experiments were conducted with young adults to examine the differences in moral evaluations of violations and virtuous behaviors of individuals with different power distances (advantaged and disadvantaged) by evaluators with different senses of power. Experiment 1 manipulated evaluators’ state power in a laboratory context, whereas Experiment 2 measured evaluators’ trait power based on natural social roles. Consistent findings across both experiments revealed that (1) evaluators with low power sense rated the violations of advantaged individuals more severely and their virtuous behaviors more favorably compared to those of disadvantaged individuals, exhibiting a moral double standard that amplifies outcomes for the advantaged and diminishes them for the disadvantaged. (2) Evaluators with high power sense showed no significant differences in their evaluations of violations between advantaged and disadvantaged individuals, indicating the absence of a moral double standard. However, they rated the virtuous behaviors of disadvantaged individuals significantly higher than those of advantaged individuals, reversing the direction of the moral double standard. Conclusions: Among young adults, virtue evaluations increase with greater power distance; proximity in power distance enhances tolerance for violations; in evaluators with low power sense, reduced power distance leads to more lenient evaluations of violations; in evaluators with high power sense, power distance does not affect evaluations of violations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Young adults’ moral double standards toward the advantaged and disadvantaged: the role of power distance

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月6日

查看全文
  • Jingshan Wu,
  • Na Wang,
  • Xiaoli Shu

摘要

Two experiments were conducted with young adults to examine the differences in moral evaluations of violations and virtuous behaviors of individuals with different power distances (advantaged and disadvantaged) by evaluators with different senses of power. Experiment 1 manipulated evaluators’ state power in a laboratory context, whereas Experiment 2 measured evaluators’ trait power based on natural social roles. Consistent findings across both experiments revealed that (1) evaluators with low power sense rated the violations of advantaged individuals more severely and their virtuous behaviors more favorably compared to those of disadvantaged individuals, exhibiting a moral double standard that amplifies outcomes for the advantaged and diminishes them for the disadvantaged. (2) Evaluators with high power sense showed no significant differences in their evaluations of violations between advantaged and disadvantaged individuals, indicating the absence of a moral double standard. However, they rated the virtuous behaviors of disadvantaged individuals significantly higher than those of advantaged individuals, reversing the direction of the moral double standard. Conclusions: Among young adults, virtue evaluations increase with greater power distance; proximity in power distance enhances tolerance for violations; in evaluators with low power sense, reduced power distance leads to more lenient evaluations of violations; in evaluators with high power sense, power distance does not affect evaluations of violations.