jaibi
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
- Reaction score
- 108
- Country
- Location
An old article I did a while back. I think you guys would find it interesting, at least. Do read the experiments at the end.
WHY POWER CORRUPTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Power is the bases of human administration. It prevails in every society, though its cultural meaning and exercise varies, in each society, it is central to a civil society.
Given that importance power has and its impact on everyone’s life the abuse of power, labelled corruption is a grave offense that must be put in check to ensure progress.
A related literature review shows that throughout history there have been many explanations about corruption and why power corrupts. Most famous is ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ the scrutiny of psychological testing is used to verify the effects power has on a person.
Eight major experiments in psychology are reviewed (all concerning how power affects a person’s psyche) to scientifically prove what power truly does and more importantly why.
Given the findings, it is imperative to also know what can be done to safely administer power, as it is the need of society.
I. INTRODUCTION
This introductory section includes the background of the problem, statement of the problem, purposes of the study, and scope of the study.
Background
Power is a subject widely studied in all of the social sciences, including philosophy, political science, sociology, economics, business studies, law, and history. The reasons why it is needed, why it exists, its nature, its dynamics are widely studied here. All these fields acknowledge power’s corrupting influence, yet no field has been able to satisfactorily answer why it corrupts. This is where psychology comes in to answer this very fundamental question.
Statement of problem
This paper focuses on the psychological factors that incline a person in power to abuse it, and thus show that it is not purely characteristic that leads to corruption but power itself.
To go further it is important to define the terms used and their meanings:
· Power: the ability to carry out ones will, even over the resistance of others (Weber)
· Authority: legitimately accepted power
· Corruption: the abuse of power (for personal or other gains or interests)
Figure 1, power and its subtypes
Purposes of the Study
The purposes of the study are as follows:
· To define power.
· To define corruption.
· To determine the effects on a person of power that his position brings him.
· To see if these factors contribute towards a corrupting attitude.
· To suggest a remedy for this effect.
Scope:
The scope of this study includes analyses the latest ground breaking researches in psychology about this phenomena. The studies have been conducted in Europe and America but stand universal due to their design. Please note that no special preference is given to authority this study is about power in general.
II. RELATED LITERATURE
Two studies have really set the future researches into human behaviour about power, authority and obedience, the Zimbardo experiment of a mock-prison in 1973 and the Milgram electric-shock experiment of 1963, gave powerful insights into the dynamics of power.
Rest of the literature is fairly new and has been conducted into the Journal of Psychology/Social Psychology as reliable experiments. Most of them can be referred to the Milgram-Zimbardo paradigm of human response to positions of power and offer fresher re-interpretations of those studies.
III. PROCEDURES
The International Transparency Index (based in Germany and dedicated to studying, analysing and preventing corruption) is also taken into account to suggest the remedy(though this only relates to authority, not power in general as the scope of the study is). Points to keep in mind are as follows;
1. The experiments have been conducted independently and in a manner to ensure that minimal social desirability effect prevails (see Glossary)
2. The studies were also conducted independently of one another and have been verified.
3. Though the studies are from the West they are applicable to every society (see Glossary- Universality Principle)
IV. FINDINGS
These findings are presented using the study objectives as the framework. This section includes information about the studies not their procedures (see Appendix for this detail and bibliography for the addresses where they can be found) and lists the effects of power on a person.
Factor I: The Narcissistic leader
The first study under our review (see Appendix and Glossary) shows that in a leaderless situation the Narcissistic personality would rise to take the leadership position and for some time prove as an effective leader(Gentry Refer to Appendix) .
Factor II: Power impairs a person’s ability to shift his paradigm
A person in power will not be able to see things by another person’s perspective. Thus, he would be self-absorbed and selfish in his actions and thinking. This study shows a startling 100% compliance rate (Galinsky Refer to Appendix).
Factor III: Power inhibits honesty
For a person in power it is extremely easy to lie. As another study, independently, shows that the frequency of lying pushes a person towards pathological lying (refer to Appendix and Glossary for further explanation)
Factor IV: Power makes a person rigid for others and lenient for himself
Very interesting experiments show that the parts of the brain linked with power are also linked with hypocrisy. It too shows a 100 % correlation that people in power agree to underhanded and ‘immoral’ actions for themselves, in fact go to the extent of justifying them. Yet, are rigid about morality with other people especially their subordinates.
Factor V: Power makes a person unnaturally confident in one’s own abilities
Considerable data shows that people in power have (1) high optimism and (2) are overtly confident (Fast Refer to Appendix). This makes them risk takers, especially noted amongst CEOs of many US firms including, Ford, GM and Citigroup. In the business world risk is encouraged, however, often these decisions lead to disastrous results for other people affected by the actions of those in power. (Also see Dunning–Kruger effect Glossary)
Factor VI: Power encourages apathy
Another astounding study (Kleef Refer to Appendix), shows that power causes people to feel apathy. It makes them unable to emotionally connect to other people, especially their own subordinates. This factor too has an astounding 100% validity and reliability (refer to Glossary).
Factor VII: Power and inhumanity
Referring to the first experiments, it is seen that power causes a person to exhibit the following characteristics (Gross 118); all in positive correlation (refer to Glossary)
· Cruelty
· Irrationality
· Excitement (sadistic tendencies)
· Aggression
· Feelings of superiority
Factor VIII: Obedience level to authority
Humans mostly react positively to authority. Obedience level is an astounding 65.2-68%. This relation was shown irrefutably by the classic 1963 Milgram experiment.
Figure 2 factors affecting corruption
V. ANALYSIS
It is now important to analyse this information. Two things need to be kept in mind;
· In all these studies the subjects were given power randomly
· All experiments lasted only a few hours (except the Zimbardo one which lasted 4 days)
· All subjects were psychologically healthy
Keep in mind that the changes in opinions and attitudes become stronger over time. As Factor I shows that Narcissistic personalities are at a greater chance to be in power. This explains why incompetent people are running offices of importance with no merits other then connections.
Factor II shows that people in power will not see things through another person’s point-of-view. This study explains why CEOs so easily lay millions of workers off as they are never able to see how life would be for the unemployed worker. Combined with apathy (Factor VI) and inhumanity (Factor VII) makes power a very dehumanising force.
Take for example the current flood in Pakistan, politicians are asking for aid for people in truly deplorable conditions, yet are easily embezzling these funds (Apathy Factor VI, they cannot comprehend the conditions of the victims and Factor II nor can they relate to them), and asking for more (Factor IV- hypocrisy) saying that the aid is not enough. They also vehemently defend themselves when criticised (Factor III, dishonesty) and give solid surety at their ability to be effective (Factor V, undue confidence and Dunning–Kruger effect). Yet they will be absolutely remorseless about the number of people dying due to their corruption (Factor VII, inhumanity).
This is just not one person, or even party doing this, it is the whole system because as Factor VIII shows, authority begets a high obedience level. This is the reason why good honest people do terrible things on ‘orders’ from an official. So it can be said corruption begets corruption.
Is there a solution? Yes, first, is the division of power, no one person should have concentrated power. Second, is a system of checks and balances, like the law. Third and most important, is transparency, it is difficult to be corrupt when being watched. Fourth, it is imperative to realise that power is power, whether economic, or political, it has the same effects on a person. Therefore, same measures should be implemented on power (for example, a court should have multiple CEOs rather than one, and should have an accountability wing, just like the government, see Appendix for further information)
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion:
People in power are prone to corruption as its psychology shows, it is inescapable. Overtime corruption becomes stronger and spreads throughout the system. Transparency, accountability, and division are the ways to combat corruption.
Recommendations:
Several ways can improve the study:
· Take culture into account, according to one study the concept of honour inhibits corruption.
· Socio-economic factors must be taken into account (it is unfair for a CSP Officer to go through such vigorous process of examinations to survive on Rs 25000 a month, unfair rewards promote resentment and poorer nations have higher rates of corruption)
· Anti-corruption methods should take psychological factors into account (corrupt individuals are not born evil)
APPENDIX
Experiment 1 Narcissistic personality
In an experiment done in primarily Georgia University and Ohio State University, it was found that people with Narcissistic personalities rose to leadership positions when a power vacuum was created (Gentry). Using the psychological standards for judging the personality traits (Millon 314)
Experiment 2 Power and Perspectives Not Taken
Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University conducted this experiment and basically his procedure was as follows: he took an experiment group of healthy subjects and randomly divided them. One group was called the power group, and the other was the powerless group. He then asked each group to denote a letter ‘E’ onto their foreheads. This is where the experiment got interesting; Galinsky found that the powerful group was almost three times more likely to carelessly draw the letter so that it was unreadable to anyone else.
It needs to be noted that if all the subjects had to consider that if the drew the letter laterally-inverse (see Glossary) so it would be readable to the others, otherwise not. People in the powerful group did not reach this conclusion. Thus, Galinsky says, ‘(it has) “wide-ranging implications, from business to politics." For example, "Presidents who preside over a divided government (and thus have reduced power) might be psychologically predisposed to consider alternative viewpoints more readily than those that preside over unified governments." Galinsky also adds that a key is to somehow make perspective-taking part and parcel of power, "The springboard of power combined with perspective-taking may be a particularly constructive force”.’
Experiment 3 People with Power are Better Liars
Conducted at the renowned Colombia Business School took up samples and formed two groups again. One was the leadership and in a simulated environment they were given large offices and the subordinates who were given cubicles and made to do routine tasks. Then the experimenters monitored their stress hormone levels and videotaped them. They then simulated a scenario where the subjects had to lie and found that the leadership group did not show any emotional guilt for lying whereas the subordinate group did. In their own words, ‘Low-power individuals showed the expected emotional, cognitive, physiological, and behavioural signs of deception; in contrast, powerful people demonstrated no evidence of lying across emotion, cognition, physiology, or behaviour.’ (Carney)
Experiment 4 Physiology of Hypocrisy
These experiments were done at the Tilburg University by researcher Joris Lammers. He used a series of procedures and experiments to instil an illusion of either power or powerlessness in his randomly chosen subjects. Then he gave them questionnaires to test their standings on gray area moral questions. He found that the powerful group was fully complaint to ‘bend’ rules for themselves but not for others. On the other hand, the less powerful group was more self-critical of themselves. The following is the abstract of his experiments;
‘Through five compelling experiments, Lammers has shown that powerful people are more likely to behave immorally but paradoxically less likely to tolerate immorality in other people. Even thinking about the feeling of power can trigger these double standards.
To begin with, Lammers asked 61 students to remember a time when they either felt powerful or powerless. Those that reminded themselves of power were more likely to frown on cheating; compared to the powerless group, they thought that over claiming on travel expenses were less acceptable. However, they were also more likely to cheat. Lammers gave the recruits the chance to decide how many lottery tickets they would receive by privately rolling two dice. Those who were primed with power were more likely to lie about their scores to wangle extra tickets.
To explore this hypocrisy further, Lammers did three further experiments where he manipulated a volunteer’s feelings of power and then gave them a common moral dilemma. All of these involved acts that are technically illegal but that many people take part in, such as speeding or tax-dodging. Their job was to say either whether they would be okay with doing it themselves, or whether they would think it acceptable if someone else did it.
He asked 42 students to take part in a simulated government, playing the part of either a prime minister or a low-ranking civil servant. Afterwards, he asked them if it was okay for them or others to break the speed limit when late for an appointment. A second group of 88 students were told to imagine a past feeling of power or powerlessness and asked if it’s okay to turn a blind eye to freelance wages on a tax declaration. Finally, a third group of 42 students had to do a word-search puzzle, where the hidden words signified either power or the lack of it. They were asked about the ethics of keeping a bike that was stolen and abandoned, if you don’t have enough money to buy one yourself.
Despite the different psychological manipulations and moral dilemmas, all three experiments found the same trends – the volunteers who felt more powerful were also more hypocritical. They frowned more strongly upon speeding, tax-dodging or keeping stolen goods, but were more lenient about doing it themselves. All these effects were statistically significant, and a questionnaire revealed that the tests didn’t affect the volunteers’ moods. None of them guessed the true purpose of the research.
As a final experiment, Lammers asked 105 students to write about an experience of power or powerlessness. But this time, half of them had to describe a time when they were actually entitled to that status, while the others described a time when the position wasn’t deserved. When asked about their opinions on keeping stolen goods, the only hypocrites were those with legitimate power.’ (Yong)
Experiment 5 Power and confidence
At Stanford, researchers drew up two control groups where one was given the task to write about the time they had been in power and the other a time when they were powerless. Then they were told to roll dice and given a choice to either do it themselves or let another person do it. All power group members threw the dice themselves where as 30-40% of the powerless group did not. This is significant because it must be noted that rolling the dice is not a skilled task, it is absolutely ruled by probability, it does not matter who throws it. The empowered group felt that they had control over the outcome (Fast). According to the researcher, ‘"By producing an illusion of personal control," the authors write, "power may cause people to lose touch with reality in ways that lead to overconfident decision-making."’
Experiment 6 Are Power and Compassion Mutually Exclusive?
In this experiment done at University of Amsterdam, University of California, and Berkeley, the researchers used a survey to find out how powerful or powerless they felt about their lives and then divided them into the powerful and powerless groups. Then they were paired. An ECG machine was hooked up to the listener and the other person was told to relate an emotionally scarring experience. According to the results (Kleef) it was noted that, ‘The results, reported in the December issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, reveal that individuals with a higher sense of power experienced less compassion and distress when confronted with another’s suffering, compared to low-power individuals. In addition, high-power individuals’ RSA reactivity increased (as indicated by lower heart rate) as they listened to the painful stories; that is, high power participants showed more autonomic emotion regulation, which buffered against their partner’s distress.’
Experiment 7 A Studies of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison (1973)
One of the most infamous experiments of social psychology; done under the supervision of Philip Zimardo with Craig Haney, Curtis Banks. They used a sample of students and promised them $15 each day to be in a simulation. They built a prison in their university, and then randomly assigned a few members to be Guards and a few to be Prisoners. Then used a fake arrest to apprehend the Prison-subjects and placed them in the mock prison with the Guard-groups told to be on duty of 8 hours shift each. They found that the Guards began harassing the Prisoners though they knew that these were not real criminals. The Prisoners had many psychological breakdown and the Guards began to ‘enjoy’ their total power over the Prisoners. Though, the experiment was of originally 2 weeks it was aborted only after 4 days, much to the distaste of the guards, who thoroughly enjoyed the absolute power. The Prisoners were asked if they forfeit their $15 then they would be allowed a ‘bail’, they readily agreed and then, surprisingly, went back to their prisons, the hold of their powerlessness was that strong on them. This experiment also led to the development of pathology of power, a list of the ill-effects seen on the Guards (humans) because of power.
Experiment 8 Behavioural Study of Obedience
Another infamous classic social psychology experiment; done by veteran psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1963. It involved two participants, one person asking questions and another answering them, but if the answer was wrong the researcher would ask the questionnaire to administer a chock to the participant, and increase the strength of the shock with each successive wrong answer. According to the original experiment the obedience level was 65% (Gross 118) that is those many percent of people, randomly drawn exceeded 400 Volts shock to the answerer, at which point it is excruciatingly painful and yet wanted to exceed that limit too, though they saw the answerer in distress and acceded to his elapsed ability to answer the questions effectively.
GLOSSARY
Apathy: (also called impassivity or perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion. An apathetic individual has an absence of interest in or concern about emotional, social, or physical life.
Authority: Legally accepted power or the power the society (people) accepts as to rightly exercised over its members. It has the following subtypes;
Rational-legal authority; it is that form of authority which depends for its legitimacy on formal rules and established laws of the state, which are usually written down and are often very complex. Example would be the government
Traditional authority; authority granted by customs (culture) for example the authority of parents.
Charismatic authority; authority derived from individual’s personal traits that attract followers.
Corruption: the abuse of the position of power for personal gains or interests.
Dunning–Kruger effect: is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.
ECG: Electrocardiography is a transthoracic interpretation of the electrical activity of the heart over time captured and externally recorded by skin electrodes.
Embezzling: is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted.
Illegitimate Power: power that is coercive in nature and not accepted by the law of the society as legitimate. An example would be the power of gangs and criminals.
Laterally-inverse: when right appears left and vice versa an example would be an image viewed in a mirror.
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD): a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. (Millon 393)
Paradigm: a pattern or model that concentrates on the following factors: what is to be observed and scrutinized, the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject, how these questions are to be structured and how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.
Positive Correlation: the relationship in which one variable increases as the other variable increases. Example eating more food increases a person’s weight.
Power: the ability to carry out ones will, even at the resistance of others. Or the ability to direct ones actions even against his will
Psychology: the scientific study of human thoughts and behaviours; attempting to explain the practice of changing mental processes and behaviour.
Reliability: the consistency of results in an experiment.
Social Desirability Effect: the error in (social) experimental result due to the participants altering their response to be socially correct.
Universality Principle; according to which the findings of one experiment are absolutely applicable to interpret and understand another (seemingly unrelated) situation or paradigm.
Validity: the degree to which the results are true (factual or accurate)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Encyclopædia Britannica “Max Weber.". 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Apr. 2009.
Galinsky, Adam. “Power and Perspectives Not Taken.” Eurekalert. 10 January 2007, Web. Study gives us a new perspective on the powerful
Gentry, William A. “Leaders Emerge: The Case of the Narcissistic Leader.” Personality and Social Psychology Journal. Sage Online Journals, 2008. PDF file Sign In
Greetham, Bryan. Philosophy. New Hamphsire: Palgrave, 2006
Gross, Richard. Key Studies in Psychology. London: Hadder & Stoughton, 2004. Records in detail both the studies of Philip Zimbardo and Stanly Milgram.
Kleef, Van A. Gerben “Are Power and Compassion Mutually Exclusive?” Psychological Science. Association of Psychological Science, 17 December 2008, Web. Association for Psychological Science
Kluger, Jeffery. “Why Powerful People Overestimate Themselves.” Time Magazine. CNN, 10 March 2010, Web. Why Powerful People Overestimate Themselves - TIME Quoting the study done by Nathanael Fast at Stanford at the effects of power on decision making.
Henslin, James M. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach. USA: Ablongman, 2003.
Lammers, J. and Stapel, D.A. “Power Increases Hypocrisy Moralising in Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior.” Psychological Science. Sage Journals Online, nd, Web. Power Increases Hypocrisy
Millon, Theodore. Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV-TM and Beyond .New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
Tahmincioglu, Eve. “People in power make better liars, study shows.” MSNBC. MSN, nd, Web. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35836844/
@LoveIcon @balixd @Slav Defence @Aeronaut @Armstrong @Marshmallow (hey, lil Marsha) @Hermione_G @Alpha1 @Ayush @hinduguy @fatman17 @FaujHistorian @Secur @Azlan Haider @Jazzbot @Pakistanisage @jhungary @RASHID MEHMOOD @Zarvan @Capt.Popeye and others.
WHY POWER CORRUPTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Power is the bases of human administration. It prevails in every society, though its cultural meaning and exercise varies, in each society, it is central to a civil society.
Given that importance power has and its impact on everyone’s life the abuse of power, labelled corruption is a grave offense that must be put in check to ensure progress.
A related literature review shows that throughout history there have been many explanations about corruption and why power corrupts. Most famous is ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ the scrutiny of psychological testing is used to verify the effects power has on a person.
Eight major experiments in psychology are reviewed (all concerning how power affects a person’s psyche) to scientifically prove what power truly does and more importantly why.
Given the findings, it is imperative to also know what can be done to safely administer power, as it is the need of society.
I. INTRODUCTION
This introductory section includes the background of the problem, statement of the problem, purposes of the study, and scope of the study.
Background
Power is a subject widely studied in all of the social sciences, including philosophy, political science, sociology, economics, business studies, law, and history. The reasons why it is needed, why it exists, its nature, its dynamics are widely studied here. All these fields acknowledge power’s corrupting influence, yet no field has been able to satisfactorily answer why it corrupts. This is where psychology comes in to answer this very fundamental question.
Statement of problem
This paper focuses on the psychological factors that incline a person in power to abuse it, and thus show that it is not purely characteristic that leads to corruption but power itself.
To go further it is important to define the terms used and their meanings:
· Power: the ability to carry out ones will, even over the resistance of others (Weber)
· Authority: legitimately accepted power
· Corruption: the abuse of power (for personal or other gains or interests)
Figure 1, power and its subtypes
Purposes of the Study
The purposes of the study are as follows:
· To define power.
· To define corruption.
· To determine the effects on a person of power that his position brings him.
· To see if these factors contribute towards a corrupting attitude.
· To suggest a remedy for this effect.
Scope:
The scope of this study includes analyses the latest ground breaking researches in psychology about this phenomena. The studies have been conducted in Europe and America but stand universal due to their design. Please note that no special preference is given to authority this study is about power in general.
II. RELATED LITERATURE
Two studies have really set the future researches into human behaviour about power, authority and obedience, the Zimbardo experiment of a mock-prison in 1973 and the Milgram electric-shock experiment of 1963, gave powerful insights into the dynamics of power.
Rest of the literature is fairly new and has been conducted into the Journal of Psychology/Social Psychology as reliable experiments. Most of them can be referred to the Milgram-Zimbardo paradigm of human response to positions of power and offer fresher re-interpretations of those studies.
III. PROCEDURES
The International Transparency Index (based in Germany and dedicated to studying, analysing and preventing corruption) is also taken into account to suggest the remedy(though this only relates to authority, not power in general as the scope of the study is). Points to keep in mind are as follows;
1. The experiments have been conducted independently and in a manner to ensure that minimal social desirability effect prevails (see Glossary)
2. The studies were also conducted independently of one another and have been verified.
3. Though the studies are from the West they are applicable to every society (see Glossary- Universality Principle)
IV. FINDINGS
These findings are presented using the study objectives as the framework. This section includes information about the studies not their procedures (see Appendix for this detail and bibliography for the addresses where they can be found) and lists the effects of power on a person.
Factor I: The Narcissistic leader
The first study under our review (see Appendix and Glossary) shows that in a leaderless situation the Narcissistic personality would rise to take the leadership position and for some time prove as an effective leader(Gentry Refer to Appendix) .
Factor II: Power impairs a person’s ability to shift his paradigm
A person in power will not be able to see things by another person’s perspective. Thus, he would be self-absorbed and selfish in his actions and thinking. This study shows a startling 100% compliance rate (Galinsky Refer to Appendix).
Factor III: Power inhibits honesty
For a person in power it is extremely easy to lie. As another study, independently, shows that the frequency of lying pushes a person towards pathological lying (refer to Appendix and Glossary for further explanation)
Factor IV: Power makes a person rigid for others and lenient for himself
Very interesting experiments show that the parts of the brain linked with power are also linked with hypocrisy. It too shows a 100 % correlation that people in power agree to underhanded and ‘immoral’ actions for themselves, in fact go to the extent of justifying them. Yet, are rigid about morality with other people especially their subordinates.
Factor V: Power makes a person unnaturally confident in one’s own abilities
Considerable data shows that people in power have (1) high optimism and (2) are overtly confident (Fast Refer to Appendix). This makes them risk takers, especially noted amongst CEOs of many US firms including, Ford, GM and Citigroup. In the business world risk is encouraged, however, often these decisions lead to disastrous results for other people affected by the actions of those in power. (Also see Dunning–Kruger effect Glossary)
Factor VI: Power encourages apathy
Another astounding study (Kleef Refer to Appendix), shows that power causes people to feel apathy. It makes them unable to emotionally connect to other people, especially their own subordinates. This factor too has an astounding 100% validity and reliability (refer to Glossary).
Factor VII: Power and inhumanity
Referring to the first experiments, it is seen that power causes a person to exhibit the following characteristics (Gross 118); all in positive correlation (refer to Glossary)
· Cruelty
· Irrationality
· Excitement (sadistic tendencies)
· Aggression
· Feelings of superiority
Factor VIII: Obedience level to authority
Humans mostly react positively to authority. Obedience level is an astounding 65.2-68%. This relation was shown irrefutably by the classic 1963 Milgram experiment.
Figure 2 factors affecting corruption
V. ANALYSIS
It is now important to analyse this information. Two things need to be kept in mind;
· In all these studies the subjects were given power randomly
· All experiments lasted only a few hours (except the Zimbardo one which lasted 4 days)
· All subjects were psychologically healthy
Keep in mind that the changes in opinions and attitudes become stronger over time. As Factor I shows that Narcissistic personalities are at a greater chance to be in power. This explains why incompetent people are running offices of importance with no merits other then connections.
Factor II shows that people in power will not see things through another person’s point-of-view. This study explains why CEOs so easily lay millions of workers off as they are never able to see how life would be for the unemployed worker. Combined with apathy (Factor VI) and inhumanity (Factor VII) makes power a very dehumanising force.
Take for example the current flood in Pakistan, politicians are asking for aid for people in truly deplorable conditions, yet are easily embezzling these funds (Apathy Factor VI, they cannot comprehend the conditions of the victims and Factor II nor can they relate to them), and asking for more (Factor IV- hypocrisy) saying that the aid is not enough. They also vehemently defend themselves when criticised (Factor III, dishonesty) and give solid surety at their ability to be effective (Factor V, undue confidence and Dunning–Kruger effect). Yet they will be absolutely remorseless about the number of people dying due to their corruption (Factor VII, inhumanity).
This is just not one person, or even party doing this, it is the whole system because as Factor VIII shows, authority begets a high obedience level. This is the reason why good honest people do terrible things on ‘orders’ from an official. So it can be said corruption begets corruption.
Is there a solution? Yes, first, is the division of power, no one person should have concentrated power. Second, is a system of checks and balances, like the law. Third and most important, is transparency, it is difficult to be corrupt when being watched. Fourth, it is imperative to realise that power is power, whether economic, or political, it has the same effects on a person. Therefore, same measures should be implemented on power (for example, a court should have multiple CEOs rather than one, and should have an accountability wing, just like the government, see Appendix for further information)
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion:
People in power are prone to corruption as its psychology shows, it is inescapable. Overtime corruption becomes stronger and spreads throughout the system. Transparency, accountability, and division are the ways to combat corruption.
Recommendations:
Several ways can improve the study:
· Take culture into account, according to one study the concept of honour inhibits corruption.
· Socio-economic factors must be taken into account (it is unfair for a CSP Officer to go through such vigorous process of examinations to survive on Rs 25000 a month, unfair rewards promote resentment and poorer nations have higher rates of corruption)
· Anti-corruption methods should take psychological factors into account (corrupt individuals are not born evil)
APPENDIX
Experiment 1 Narcissistic personality
In an experiment done in primarily Georgia University and Ohio State University, it was found that people with Narcissistic personalities rose to leadership positions when a power vacuum was created (Gentry). Using the psychological standards for judging the personality traits (Millon 314)
Experiment 2 Power and Perspectives Not Taken
Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University conducted this experiment and basically his procedure was as follows: he took an experiment group of healthy subjects and randomly divided them. One group was called the power group, and the other was the powerless group. He then asked each group to denote a letter ‘E’ onto their foreheads. This is where the experiment got interesting; Galinsky found that the powerful group was almost three times more likely to carelessly draw the letter so that it was unreadable to anyone else.
It needs to be noted that if all the subjects had to consider that if the drew the letter laterally-inverse (see Glossary) so it would be readable to the others, otherwise not. People in the powerful group did not reach this conclusion. Thus, Galinsky says, ‘(it has) “wide-ranging implications, from business to politics." For example, "Presidents who preside over a divided government (and thus have reduced power) might be psychologically predisposed to consider alternative viewpoints more readily than those that preside over unified governments." Galinsky also adds that a key is to somehow make perspective-taking part and parcel of power, "The springboard of power combined with perspective-taking may be a particularly constructive force”.’
Experiment 3 People with Power are Better Liars
Conducted at the renowned Colombia Business School took up samples and formed two groups again. One was the leadership and in a simulated environment they were given large offices and the subordinates who were given cubicles and made to do routine tasks. Then the experimenters monitored their stress hormone levels and videotaped them. They then simulated a scenario where the subjects had to lie and found that the leadership group did not show any emotional guilt for lying whereas the subordinate group did. In their own words, ‘Low-power individuals showed the expected emotional, cognitive, physiological, and behavioural signs of deception; in contrast, powerful people demonstrated no evidence of lying across emotion, cognition, physiology, or behaviour.’ (Carney)
Experiment 4 Physiology of Hypocrisy
These experiments were done at the Tilburg University by researcher Joris Lammers. He used a series of procedures and experiments to instil an illusion of either power or powerlessness in his randomly chosen subjects. Then he gave them questionnaires to test their standings on gray area moral questions. He found that the powerful group was fully complaint to ‘bend’ rules for themselves but not for others. On the other hand, the less powerful group was more self-critical of themselves. The following is the abstract of his experiments;
‘Through five compelling experiments, Lammers has shown that powerful people are more likely to behave immorally but paradoxically less likely to tolerate immorality in other people. Even thinking about the feeling of power can trigger these double standards.
To begin with, Lammers asked 61 students to remember a time when they either felt powerful or powerless. Those that reminded themselves of power were more likely to frown on cheating; compared to the powerless group, they thought that over claiming on travel expenses were less acceptable. However, they were also more likely to cheat. Lammers gave the recruits the chance to decide how many lottery tickets they would receive by privately rolling two dice. Those who were primed with power were more likely to lie about their scores to wangle extra tickets.
To explore this hypocrisy further, Lammers did three further experiments where he manipulated a volunteer’s feelings of power and then gave them a common moral dilemma. All of these involved acts that are technically illegal but that many people take part in, such as speeding or tax-dodging. Their job was to say either whether they would be okay with doing it themselves, or whether they would think it acceptable if someone else did it.
He asked 42 students to take part in a simulated government, playing the part of either a prime minister or a low-ranking civil servant. Afterwards, he asked them if it was okay for them or others to break the speed limit when late for an appointment. A second group of 88 students were told to imagine a past feeling of power or powerlessness and asked if it’s okay to turn a blind eye to freelance wages on a tax declaration. Finally, a third group of 42 students had to do a word-search puzzle, where the hidden words signified either power or the lack of it. They were asked about the ethics of keeping a bike that was stolen and abandoned, if you don’t have enough money to buy one yourself.
Despite the different psychological manipulations and moral dilemmas, all three experiments found the same trends – the volunteers who felt more powerful were also more hypocritical. They frowned more strongly upon speeding, tax-dodging or keeping stolen goods, but were more lenient about doing it themselves. All these effects were statistically significant, and a questionnaire revealed that the tests didn’t affect the volunteers’ moods. None of them guessed the true purpose of the research.
As a final experiment, Lammers asked 105 students to write about an experience of power or powerlessness. But this time, half of them had to describe a time when they were actually entitled to that status, while the others described a time when the position wasn’t deserved. When asked about their opinions on keeping stolen goods, the only hypocrites were those with legitimate power.’ (Yong)
Experiment 5 Power and confidence
At Stanford, researchers drew up two control groups where one was given the task to write about the time they had been in power and the other a time when they were powerless. Then they were told to roll dice and given a choice to either do it themselves or let another person do it. All power group members threw the dice themselves where as 30-40% of the powerless group did not. This is significant because it must be noted that rolling the dice is not a skilled task, it is absolutely ruled by probability, it does not matter who throws it. The empowered group felt that they had control over the outcome (Fast). According to the researcher, ‘"By producing an illusion of personal control," the authors write, "power may cause people to lose touch with reality in ways that lead to overconfident decision-making."’
Experiment 6 Are Power and Compassion Mutually Exclusive?
In this experiment done at University of Amsterdam, University of California, and Berkeley, the researchers used a survey to find out how powerful or powerless they felt about their lives and then divided them into the powerful and powerless groups. Then they were paired. An ECG machine was hooked up to the listener and the other person was told to relate an emotionally scarring experience. According to the results (Kleef) it was noted that, ‘The results, reported in the December issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, reveal that individuals with a higher sense of power experienced less compassion and distress when confronted with another’s suffering, compared to low-power individuals. In addition, high-power individuals’ RSA reactivity increased (as indicated by lower heart rate) as they listened to the painful stories; that is, high power participants showed more autonomic emotion regulation, which buffered against their partner’s distress.’
Experiment 7 A Studies of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison (1973)
One of the most infamous experiments of social psychology; done under the supervision of Philip Zimardo with Craig Haney, Curtis Banks. They used a sample of students and promised them $15 each day to be in a simulation. They built a prison in their university, and then randomly assigned a few members to be Guards and a few to be Prisoners. Then used a fake arrest to apprehend the Prison-subjects and placed them in the mock prison with the Guard-groups told to be on duty of 8 hours shift each. They found that the Guards began harassing the Prisoners though they knew that these were not real criminals. The Prisoners had many psychological breakdown and the Guards began to ‘enjoy’ their total power over the Prisoners. Though, the experiment was of originally 2 weeks it was aborted only after 4 days, much to the distaste of the guards, who thoroughly enjoyed the absolute power. The Prisoners were asked if they forfeit their $15 then they would be allowed a ‘bail’, they readily agreed and then, surprisingly, went back to their prisons, the hold of their powerlessness was that strong on them. This experiment also led to the development of pathology of power, a list of the ill-effects seen on the Guards (humans) because of power.
Experiment 8 Behavioural Study of Obedience
Another infamous classic social psychology experiment; done by veteran psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1963. It involved two participants, one person asking questions and another answering them, but if the answer was wrong the researcher would ask the questionnaire to administer a chock to the participant, and increase the strength of the shock with each successive wrong answer. According to the original experiment the obedience level was 65% (Gross 118) that is those many percent of people, randomly drawn exceeded 400 Volts shock to the answerer, at which point it is excruciatingly painful and yet wanted to exceed that limit too, though they saw the answerer in distress and acceded to his elapsed ability to answer the questions effectively.
GLOSSARY
Apathy: (also called impassivity or perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion. An apathetic individual has an absence of interest in or concern about emotional, social, or physical life.
Authority: Legally accepted power or the power the society (people) accepts as to rightly exercised over its members. It has the following subtypes;
Rational-legal authority; it is that form of authority which depends for its legitimacy on formal rules and established laws of the state, which are usually written down and are often very complex. Example would be the government
Traditional authority; authority granted by customs (culture) for example the authority of parents.
Charismatic authority; authority derived from individual’s personal traits that attract followers.
Corruption: the abuse of the position of power for personal gains or interests.
Dunning–Kruger effect: is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.
ECG: Electrocardiography is a transthoracic interpretation of the electrical activity of the heart over time captured and externally recorded by skin electrodes.
Embezzling: is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted.
Illegitimate Power: power that is coercive in nature and not accepted by the law of the society as legitimate. An example would be the power of gangs and criminals.
Laterally-inverse: when right appears left and vice versa an example would be an image viewed in a mirror.
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD): a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. (Millon 393)
Paradigm: a pattern or model that concentrates on the following factors: what is to be observed and scrutinized, the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject, how these questions are to be structured and how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.
Positive Correlation: the relationship in which one variable increases as the other variable increases. Example eating more food increases a person’s weight.
Power: the ability to carry out ones will, even at the resistance of others. Or the ability to direct ones actions even against his will
Psychology: the scientific study of human thoughts and behaviours; attempting to explain the practice of changing mental processes and behaviour.
Reliability: the consistency of results in an experiment.
Social Desirability Effect: the error in (social) experimental result due to the participants altering their response to be socially correct.
Universality Principle; according to which the findings of one experiment are absolutely applicable to interpret and understand another (seemingly unrelated) situation or paradigm.
Validity: the degree to which the results are true (factual or accurate)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Encyclopædia Britannica “Max Weber.". 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Apr. 2009.
Galinsky, Adam. “Power and Perspectives Not Taken.” Eurekalert. 10 January 2007, Web. Study gives us a new perspective on the powerful
Gentry, William A. “Leaders Emerge: The Case of the Narcissistic Leader.” Personality and Social Psychology Journal. Sage Online Journals, 2008. PDF file Sign In
Greetham, Bryan. Philosophy. New Hamphsire: Palgrave, 2006
Gross, Richard. Key Studies in Psychology. London: Hadder & Stoughton, 2004. Records in detail both the studies of Philip Zimbardo and Stanly Milgram.
Kleef, Van A. Gerben “Are Power and Compassion Mutually Exclusive?” Psychological Science. Association of Psychological Science, 17 December 2008, Web. Association for Psychological Science
Kluger, Jeffery. “Why Powerful People Overestimate Themselves.” Time Magazine. CNN, 10 March 2010, Web. Why Powerful People Overestimate Themselves - TIME Quoting the study done by Nathanael Fast at Stanford at the effects of power on decision making.
Henslin, James M. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach. USA: Ablongman, 2003.
Lammers, J. and Stapel, D.A. “Power Increases Hypocrisy Moralising in Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior.” Psychological Science. Sage Journals Online, nd, Web. Power Increases Hypocrisy
Millon, Theodore. Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV-TM and Beyond .New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996.
Tahmincioglu, Eve. “People in power make better liars, study shows.” MSNBC. MSN, nd, Web. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35836844/
@LoveIcon @balixd @Slav Defence @Aeronaut @Armstrong @Marshmallow (hey, lil Marsha) @Hermione_G @Alpha1 @Ayush @hinduguy @fatman17 @FaujHistorian @Secur @Azlan Haider @Jazzbot @Pakistanisage @jhungary @RASHID MEHMOOD @Zarvan @Capt.Popeye and others.
