The psychology of power
权力心理学
Absolutely
绝对如此
Jan 21st 2010
From The Economist print edition
Power corrupts, but it corrupts only those who think they deserve it
权力腐蚀人，但它腐蚀的仅仅是那些认为权力是自己应得之物的人
REPORTS of politicians who have extramarital affairs while complaining about the death of family values, or who use public funding for private gain despite condemning government waste, have become so common in recent years that they hardly seem surprising anymore. Anecdotally, at least, the connection between power and hypocrisy looks obvious.
在政府官员中，有人一边热衷婚外情一边哀叹家庭价值观的沦丧；有人尽管一边嘴上谴责政府浪费资金，却一边私下利用公众经费为己图利。近些年来，这一类新闻已经司空见惯，不足为奇了。至少，从趣闻轶事的角度来看，权力和伪善之间的关系十分明显。
Anecdote is not science, though. And, more subtly, even if anecdote is correct, it does not answer the question of whether power tends to corrupt, as Lord Acton’s dictum has it, or whether it merely attracts the corruptible. To investigate this question Joris Lammers at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, and Adam Galinsky at Northwestern University, in Illinois, have conducted a series of experiments which attempted to elicit states of powerfulness and powerlessness in the minds of volunteers. Having done so, as they report in Psychological Science, they tested those volunteers’ moral pliability. Lord Acton, they found, was right.
但趣闻轶事毕竟不是科学。而且，就算趣闻轶事属实，它也并没有更深入细致地回答下列问题：究竟是权力——如阿克顿爵士的名言所说【1】——容易腐败所有人，还是权力只不过吸引了原本就腐败的人? 为此，荷兰蒂尔堡大学的里斯•拉默斯（Joris Lammers）博士和美国伊利诺斯州西北大学的亚当•林斯基（Adam Galinsky）博士做了一系列的实验，尝试从实验志愿者的心理中诱导出“有权有势和无权无势”的心理状态。做完诱导后，再测试参与者的道德柔韧性。他们将结果发表在《心理学科学》期刊上并在报告中证实: 阿克顿爵士说对了。
In their first study, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky asked 61 university students to write about a moment in their past when they were in a position of high or low power. Previous research has established that this is an effective way to “prime” people into feeling as if they are currently in such a position. Each group (high power and low power) was then split into two further groups. Half were asked to rate, on a nine-point morality scale (with one being highly immoral and nine being highly moral), how objectionable it would be for other people to over-report travel expenses at work. The other half were asked to participate in a game of dice.
在第一轮研究中，拉默斯和林斯基博士要求61名大学生写下他们经历中曾拥有高或低权力职位的一段时间。早期的实验已经证实，这样可以有效地让志愿者感到自己目前正处在这个职位【注：称为诱导过程“prime”process】 。志愿者分为（高、低权位）两组后再每组一分为二。其中一半人将自己对别人在工作中虚报出差费用的反感程度，在标有1-9选项的道德测量表上以打分表示（1表示道德标准最低点，9为最高）。另一半人参与一种掷骰子游戏。
The dice players were told to roll two ten-sided dice (one for “tens” and one for “units”) in the privacy of an isolated cubicle, and report the results to a lab assistant. The number they rolled, which would be a value between one and 100 (two zeros), would determine the number of tickets that they would be given in a small lottery that was run at the end of the study.
骰子游戏者每人在一个隔开的斗间里投掷两个10面骰子（其中一个表示十位数，另一个表示个位数），然后向实验助理报告结果。他们掷骰所报告的点数（1 到100）用来决定各自领取的彩票张数。当实验结束时，这些彩票用来参与一个小型抽奖活动。
In the case of the travel expenses—when the question hung on the behaviour of others—participants in the high-power group reckoned, on average, that over-reporting rated as a 5.8 on the nine-point scale. Low-power participants rated it 7.2. The powerful, in other words, claimed to favour the moral course. In the dice game, however, high-power participants reported, on average, that they had rolled 70 while low-power individuals reported an average 59. Though the low-power people were probably cheating a bit (the expected average score would be 50), the high-power volunteers were undoubtedly cheating—perhaps taking the term “high roller” rather too literally.
在出差报销的测验中（当问题涉及他人的行为时），高权组员在9分之内，对多报出差费用的行为给了平均5.8分。低权位组给了7.2分。换句话说，有权者更赞成高道德要求。在骰子游戏中，高权组员报出的平均数为70，而低权组员的平均数为59。 虽然低权组员也可能编了点小谎（预计的平均值应该是50），但高权组显然明显地谎报了数字—大概他们把“狂赌徒”的字面层意过度当真了【2】。
Taken together, these results do indeed suggest that power tends to corrupt and to promote a hypocritical tendency to hold other people to a higher standard than oneself. To test the point further, though, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky explicitly contrasted attitudes to self and other people when the morally questionable activity was the same in each case. Having once again primed two groups of participants to be either high-power or low-power, they then asked some members of each group how acceptable it would be for someone else to break the speed limit when late for an appointment and how acceptable it would be for the participant himself to do so. Others were asked similar questions about tax declarations.
上述综合结果确实显示出权力容易使人腐败，并且促成一种伪善趋向，即对别人持有高过对己的要求标准。 为了更进一步测试这点，拉默斯和林斯基博士通过一个无论“对人和对己”同样都存在道德问题的活动，来清楚地比较组员的态度。将高、低权两组成员再次引导进入状态后，他们对每组中的部分成员提出一些问题：对他人因为赶去面谈而超速违规所能接受的程度？换成自己又怎样? 另一部分成员针对缴税事项回答相类似的问题。
Only the little people pay taxes…【3】
只有小人物在缴税
In both cases participants used the same one-to-nine scale employed in the first experiment. The results showed that the powerful do, indeed, behave hypocritically. They felt that others speeding because they were late warranted a 6.3 on the scale whereas speeding themselves warranted a 7.6. Low-power individuals, by contrast, saw everyone as equal. They scored themselves as 7.2 and others at 7.3—a statistically insignificant difference. In the case of tax dodging, the results were even more striking. High-power individuals felt that when others broke tax laws this rated as a 6.6 on the morality scale, but that if they did so themselves this rated as a 7.6. In this case low-power individuals were actually easier on others and harsher on themselves, with values of 7.7 and 6.8 respectively.
两个活动的参与者使用同样的测试表，即第一次实验中的1-9分测量表。测试结果显示，高权力者的确行为伪善。别人因迟到而超速，他们认为理应给6.3分，而自己超速的话则理应给7.6分。相比之下，低权者却认为各人都该平等对待。他们给自己7.2分，给他人7.3分—这种差距在统计中可忽略不计。针对逃漏税的问题，测试结果甚至更为突显。高权力者认为他人破坏了法律，在道德测量表上打了6.6分，而倘若是自己所为的话，则给7.6分。回答同一问题的低权位者反而对他人宽容，对自己更严格，分别给了7.7和6.8分。
These results, then, suggest that the powerful do indeed behave hypocritically, condemning the transgressions of others more than they condemn their own. Which comes as no great surprise, although it is always nice to have everyday observation confirmed by systematic analysis. But another everyday observation is that powerful people who have been caught out often show little sign of contrition. It is not just that they abuse the system; they also seem to feel entitled to abuse it. To investigate this point, Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky devised a third set of experiments. These were designed to disentangle the concept of power from that of entitlement. To do this, the researchers changed the way they primed people.
这些结果反映了高权者确实具伪善行为，与对待自己的违法相比，他人的违法行为将更多地受到这些人的谴责。其实这并不会令人特别惊奇，不过这种日常所见经过科学分析后得到证实总归是好事。还有一种司空见惯的现象，即有权人物犯规被逮之后鲜有忏悔之意。他们不仅滥用职权，并且认为自己有权利这么做。为了研究这一点，拉默斯和林斯基博士设计了第三套实验。这次实验的目标是把权力概念从权利概念中分开来。研究人员因此改换了他们引导试验者的方法。
A culture of entitlement
权利文化
Half of 105 participants were asked to write about a past experience in which they had legitimately been given a role of high or low power. The others were asked to write about an experience of high or low power where they did not feel their power (or lack of it) was legitimate. All of the volunteers were then asked to rate how immoral it would be for someone to take an abandoned bicycle rather than report the bicycle to the police. They were also asked, if they were in real need of a bicycle, how likely they would be to take it themselves and not report it.
105名参与者中有一半被要求写下一段“合理地”处于高或低权位的过往经历。另一半被要求写一段拥有高、低权力职位的经历，但他们感到自己的有权（或无权）是不合理的。其后，所有的志愿者都要给下列问题打分：有人将一辆拾到的自行车归为己有而没有交予警察，其行为不符合道德标准的程度是多少？他们还要回答：假如你此时正急需一辆自行车，你留下车子而不交出去的可能性有多大？
The “powerful” who had been primed to believe they were entitled to their power readily engaged in acts of moral hypocrisy. They assigned a value of 5.1 to others engaging in the theft of the bicycle while rating the action at 6.9 if they were to do it themselves. Among participants in all of the low-power states, morally hypocritical behaviour inverted itself, as it had in the case of tax fraud. “Legitimate” low-power individuals assigned others a score of 5.1 if they stole a bicycle and gave themselves a 4.3. Those primed to feel that their lack of power was illegitimate behaved similarly, assigning values of 4.7 and 4.4 respectively.
那些已进入角色，认为有权利享用自己权力的“当权者”毫不迟疑地干起道德伪善的行径。他们给他人偷车行为5.1分，却替自己的同样行为打6.9分。而在所有的低权位者之中，道德伪善行为恰恰反了过来，就同偷税问题一样。“合理”的低权势者给他人行为打5.1点，却为自己留车不还的行为打了4.3分。那些感到自己被“不合理”地剥夺了权力的人具有类似的举动，分别给了4.7和4.4分。
However, an intriguing characteristic emerged among participants in high-power states who felt they did not deserve their elevated positions. These people showed a similar tendency to that found in low-power individuals—to be harsh on themselves and less harsh on others—but the effect was considerably more dramatic. They felt that others warranted a lenient 6.0 on the morality scale when stealing a bike but assigned a highly immoral 3.9 if they took it themselves. Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky call this reversal “hypercrisy”.
然而值得注意的是，在拥有高权位、但认为自己并没有资格处于高位的参与者身上显出一种耐人寻味的特征。他们比较倾向于严己宽人，与低权力者相类似，但差异却更为明显。他们认为他人将自行车归己所有的道德表现应得到一个宽恕性地6.0分，却对自己同样行为给了相当低的3.9道德分。拉默斯和林斯基博士称之为反向“伪善”。
They argue, therefore, that people with power that they think is justified break rules not only because they can get away with it, but also because they feel at some intuitive level that they are entitled to take what they want. This sense of entitlement is crucial to understanding why people misbehave in high office. In its absence, abuses will be less likely. The word “privilege” translates as “private law”. If Dr Lammers and Dr Galinsky are right, the sense which some powerful people seem to have that different rules apply to them is not just a convenient smoke screen. They genuinely believe it.
他们分析说，由此可见，拥有自己认为是合法权力的人们违规犯法，不但是因为他们可以违法而不受惩罚，而且也是因为他们在某种直觉层次上感到自己本来就有权利夺取所需。这种权利意识对了解人们为什么在高位上会胡作非为具有关键意义。这种意识不存在时，权力滥用就不太容易发生。特权这个词儿，应解读为私法。如果拉默斯和林斯基博士没错的话，有权势者似乎具有将自己置身于不同法律之中的意识，而这种意识，不仅仅是一个方便的遁词，他们倒是真心相信的。
What explains hypercrisy is less obvious. It is known, though, from experiments on other species that if those at the bottom of a dominance hierarchy show signs of getting uppity, those at the top react both quickly and aggressively. Hypercrisy might thus be a signal of submissiveness—one that is exaggerated in creatures that feel themselves to be in the wrong place in the hierarchy. By applying reverse privileges to themselves, they hope to escape punishment from the real dominants. Perhaps the lesson, then, is that corruption and hypocrisy are the price that societies pay for being led by alpha males (and, in some cases, alpha females). The alternative, though cleaner, is leadership by wimps.
这样一来，“伪善”的解释就不再那么明显了。从其他生物的实验得知，如果处在强权统治等级底层变得自大而不安分时，顶层强势者就会立即出面压制。“伪善”因此可能变成一种“恭顺服从”的信号——这个信号在那些自己认为在等级制度中占了错误位置的生物身上得到强化。通过赋予自己“反向特权”【注：放弃权力权利的信号】，希望逃脱真正强势头领对他们的惩罚。或许，此中可学到的教益就是，社会群体要求得到强人（阿尔法雄性，某些别的状况下则为阿尔法雌性）的领导， 就要付出腐败和伪善的代价。舍此， 另一个选择， 政治上虽然比较干净， 但是由弱主主政。
【注释】
【1】Lord Acton’s dictum：Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
阿克顿爵士的名言：
原文：所有权力都易腐化，绝对的权力则绝对地会腐化。
阿克顿勋爵 是 英国十九世纪著名的自由主义政论家，作品《自由和权力浅说》
约翰•埃默里克•爱德华•达尔伯格•阿克顿(John Emerieh Edward Dalberg Acton)，1834年1月10日生于那不勒斯，费迪南德•理查德•爱德华•达尔伯格•阿克顿和玛丽•德•达尔伯格(即后来的格兰维尔伯爵夫人)之子。
【2】high roller 一掷千金的赌徒: someone who spends a lot of money carelessly or risks a lot of money on games, races etc.
【3】语出Leona Helmsley
利昂娜•赫尔姆斯利（1920年7月4日–2007年8月20日）曾是个亿万富翁。因逃税于1992年8月入狱16月。她的佣人在法庭上指证她曾经说过这样的话：
“我们不缴税，只有小人物才缴税”（”We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”）。
（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Helmsley）
【4】阿尔法雄性 alpha male：
In social animals, the alpha is the individual in the community with the highest rank (MDL found in social groups). Where one male and one female fulfill this role, they are referred to as the alpha pair (the term varies when several females fulfill this role – it is extremely rare among mammals for several males to fulfill this role with one female). Other animals in the same social group may exhibit deference or other symbolic signs of respect particular to their species towards the alpha.
The alpha animals are given preference to be the first to eat and the first to mate, among some species the only animals in the pack allowed to mate. Other animals in the community are usually killed or ousted if they violate this rule. (wiki)
译者：skittos