PSYC 5190 Research Proposal

PSYC 5190 Research ProposalTitle: Is Hypocrisy a Trait or Behavior? Examining Interaction Effect between Context-Abstractness and Self-Complexity in Expression of Hypocrisy

YEUNG Shing Yan Lawrence (#1155042450)

AbstractThree studies will be designed to investigate whether interaction between a persons self-complexity and abstractness of issue focus exists in forming hypocrisy. 100 local college students aged 19- 25 will be employed to undergo trait-sorting task, to categorize subjects with high vs low self-complexity. Equal number of students in each group will then be instructed to adopt either concrete focus or abstract focus on moral dilemma case in Netherland. Finally, all subjects from 2 (self-complexity) x 2(abstractness focus) would then be given a questionnaire to evaluate the hypocrisy level of each group. Results will be generated in two-way factorial ANOVA. These studies finds that subjects who possess low self-complexity and adopt more abstract focus on moral issues will be most susceptable to hypocrisy acts. Factor of high self-complexity alone or abstract focus alone can contribute to hypocrisy. Yet, neither factor alone could explain all the variations of a persons hypocrisy, with the expectation that both two factors interact each other. These findings unveil the mystery that hypocrisy is a context-dependent expression of personality, both nature and nurtre could be accountable for hypocritical behaviors.

IntroductionAnecdotal evidence from various business practices show that perople with high social status are more inclined to have abstract focus of issue (e.g. concerning profit of the company, rather than every single consequence of single citizen when making policy decision), because it is their position to analyze issues in big picture. Various academic researchers proved person bearing abstract mindset would be more inclined to behave hypocritically. (Lammers, 2012). Yet, there are counter-intuitive findings illustrating persons with lower trait of self-complexity is more likely to change their attitudes and become more acceptable of their own immoral acts upon hypocritical (i.e. negative) event (McConnel & Brown, 2012). This creates a research gap of whether hypocrisy is a trait which remains stable across the context (Allport, 1961) and status, or is simply a behavior that fluctuates among different situations. We propose there is intereaction between trait and context in hypocritical act. In this paper, we wish to reafirm both focus abstractness and self-complexity play their roles on forming hypocrisy, and study if the strength of hypocrisy depends on self-complexity.

Literature ReviewHypocrisyThe word hypocrisy is derived from the Greek noun hypokrisis, which means acting out a part on a stage (Mish, 1993). This reflects hypocrisy was originally two-facet acts like actors: doing one thing in public, while doing another in private. In current work, hypocrisy is classified under moral psychology perspective, meaning upholding double moral standards: being strict standard in public, while privately being lenient or violating the in their behaviors (Lammers, Stapel & Galinsky, 2010). Yet, no one mentions whether hypocrisy applies to a person being strict on himself or herself in private, but lenient on others in public. In this paper, we would follow Lammers, Stapel & Galinskys (2010) definition of hypocrisy.

Context-Ambiguity and HypocrisyThe formation of double moral standard (which is the property of hypocrisy), is due to abstract-focued mindset. With concrete focus, a person tended to focus on the specific details of the moral situations (Liberman, Trope & Stephan, 2007), and immediate experience arisen from the situation (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). This reduced the flexibility of moral reasoning (Lammers, 2010) and its likeliness to construe more than one principles or standards on explaining the acts.

On a contrary, a person bearing abstract view would view their action in high-level and global manners, which avoid him (or her) from realizing immediate consequences or experience of the action. Lammers (2010) believe the abstract view would provide higher flexibility in moral reasoning, since it accomodates more than one principles to explain the doers acts. When ther are more than one principles to explain their acts, a persson would selectively perceive their acts in a self-serving manner (Batson, et al., 2007). Thus, abstract focus tempts doer to hold others to strict rules while hold himself lenient to his own acts. This patterns assembles hypocrisy.

Self-complexity and HypocrisyLinville (1985) explained self-complexity via demonstrating trait-sorting task with particiants. Participants who choose more traits to describe themselves, and the traits which can be classifed into more groups (i.e. higher distinctiveness of self-saspects) are of high self-complexity. Thus, person with higher self-complexity is defined as self- knowledge in terms of a greater number of aspects that are relatively independent of one another (Linville, 1985). Linville (1987) believed person with higher self-complexity tended to experience lower affect intensity upon bad event, because there is less emotional spillover from one aspect of self to all others aspects of the self. In a meanwhile, they would experience less negativity to dissonance or hypocritical act, thus their attitude would not be changed immediately (Dixon & Baumeister, 1991).

On the contrary, persons with lower self-complexity tended to experience greater negative affect upon cognitive dissonance or more acute sting upon hypocrisy behaviours. (Linville, 1987) This formed a more immediate urge of escapeing the awareness of inconsistency, by changing their own attitude and being more acceptable in their hypocritical act (Mconnell & Brown, 2010). Thus, bad events tempted persons with low self-complexity to accept their hypocritical act, and they would be more inclined to behave hypocritically in the future.

MethodsParticipants and Design100 local undergraduate from Chinese University of Hong Kong (100 Male and 100 Female) aged 19 -25 will be recruited to P (high vs low self-complexity) x E (abstract focus vs concrete focus) between-subject design. This sample size is expected to have 80% power and sgtatistical significance p < 0.05. Their hypocrisy levels (i.e. dependent variable) are assessed in cheating task in session 3.

Procedure and MeasuresSession 1 differenting subjects with high and low self-complexityMcConnell et al (2005) trait-sorting task will be adopted to measure a persons self-complexity level. All Subjects will be provided 44 trait lists (2:1 ratio of positives to negatives, see Appendix A) that Chinese college students use most frequently. Subjects are instructed to choose all possible traits which could describe themselves, and categorize those traits into groups that can represent their own aspects of their lives. The self-complexity score was then calculated using H statistics (Appendix B). Higher H value means higher self-complexity. We will divide subjects into high & low self-complexity based on H score.

Session 2- manipulating abstractness focus on moral issueSubjects will be then allocated to either abstract-focus or concrete-focus condition in PxE between subject design(see Appendix C). We will adopt the used previously to shape subjects abstract (concrete) manner in analyzing moral issue (Experiment 1; Lammers, 1982). In this session, the procedures will be as follows Abstract GroupConcrete Group

Step 1Persuade subjects that decision are best made with abstract manner with empirical supportPersuade subjects that decision are best made with concrete manner with empirical support

Step 2Instruct subjects to judge the coming situation in a big picture Instruct subjects to emphasize dtaisl and immediate influences of the situation

Step 3Deliver subjects vignettes of moral dilemma (Appendix D)

Session 3test of hypocrisy level All subjects will be given a short self-report questionnaire related to the vignettes in session 2. The questionnaire will be in Likert scale item, from 1 (totally unaccptable) to 7 (totally acceptable). To hidden our studys intention of discovering hypocrisy level, some items, we will set 10 questions in a questionnaire, with the only following two questions are related to the calculation of the hypocrisy score. These two questions are also the questions included in Lammers (2010) study in figuring out a persons hypocrisy intent.Question 3: Is it acceptable for you to take and keep the abandoned bike for your own use, rather than giving the bike to police (on condition that you are poor)?Question 7: Is it acceptable for others to take and keep the abandoned bike for your own use, rather than giving the bike to police (on condition that you are poor)?Hypocrisy Score (HS) = Score of Q1- Score of Q7Where, score of Q1 implies the moral standard set on oneselves; andscore of Q7 implies the moral standard set on others.Only positive HS value could indicate ones hypocrisy attribute. The higher positive HS value, the more hypocritical is the person.

ResultsA 2 (self-complexity) X 2 (abstractness of focus) factorial ANOVA will be adopted. Based on the empirical evidence showing , we predict ANOVA will reveal main effect of abstractness focus, with subjects adopting abstract view would show higher HS value on average, F(1,96) >3.94, p < 0.05, , partial2> 0.767. The main effect of self-complexity will be significant as well, with participants of low self-complexity show higher HS value on average, F(1,96) >3.94, p< 0.05, partial 2> 0.767.

There will be also significant interaction between self-complexity and abstractness of focus, F(1,96) >3.94, p< 0.05, partial 2> 0.767. It means that the effect of abstractness focus does depends on the level of self-complexity. Subjects with higher self-complexity are more inclined to act hypocritically under abstract focus than those with lower self-complexity.

DiscussionIn out 3-session studies, we found that decision of hypocrisy acts are strongly influenced by both persons self-complexity and the environment shaping a persons abstractness view of issue. The study reflects abstrctness (and self-complexity) leads people to be more lenient on his own immoral act (with higher acceptance score Q4), while more strict on others own immoral behaviors (with lower acceptance score in session 3 Q7).

ImplicationWhile academic researchers have enriched focus on how hypocrisy relates to other constructs, there is not any discussion on the property of hypocrisy: whether it is a nature or nurture, and whether it is a trait or simply behaviour. This study connects the works with Ekehammer (1974), showing that hypocrisy follows interactionism: a persons trait (i.e. self-complexity) and situations (i.e. abstractness focus) interact to influence hypocrisy. Neither situations alone nor trait alone could explain all the variations of a persons hypocrisy.

Limitation and Future Research DirectionsWhile we are convinced that self-complexity does relate to hypocrisy, there is no explanation of how ones self complexity level is shaped. It would be meaningful to explore if ones self-complexity trait are formed from genetics or environmental forces experienced in early childhood. Answers to this may further explain whether there are other moderating factors involved in formation of hypocritical behaviors.

Another limitation of session 2 set-up (Lammmers, 2012) is we could only ensure participants understand the instruction. In no ways we can verify participants actually adopt abstract focus in the set-up. In this study, there is an underlying assmption that participants who understand meaning of abstract (concrete) view actually adopt those views accordingly.

Now that we recognize a hypocritical person would places strict standard on others (Lammers, Stapel & Galinsky, 2005), the current research does not address if a person judges others equally strict (i.e. with one one standard), or adopts numerous standards on judging others. If numerous standards are adopted, which group is being stricter? Answer to this would imply a persons level of hypocritical acts differs on others backgrounds.

Also, this study does not examine the dependency between two independent variables of self-complexity and abstractness focus. Answer to this would explain whether the subjects choose abstract views depends on their own personalities or self-complexities. This would better explain whether the difference of personalities would form different tendency in choosing abstract or concrete views.

ReferencesAllport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart,&WinstonBatson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L., Kampf, H. C., & Wilson, A. D. (1997). Ina very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72(6), 13351348Dixon, T. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self: Moderating effects of selfcomplexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 363368.Ekehammer, B. (1974). Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1026- 1048.Luo, W.; David, W., & Lam, R. Y.H. (2009). Validating a New Measure of Self-Complexity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 381386.Evans, D.W. (1994). Self-complexity and its relation to development, symptomatology andself-perception during adolescence. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 24(3),Human Sciences Press.Fischbacher, U., Follmi, H.F., (2008). Lie in disguise: An experimental study on cheating.Journal of the European Economic Association. 11(3), 525(23). Lammers, J. (2010). Abstraction increases hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 48, 475480. Lammers, J., Stapel, D.A., & Galinsky, A. D., (2010) Power increases hypocrisy: moralizingin reasoning, immorality in behaviour. Psychological Sciences, 21(5), 737-744Larsen, R.J., Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: Areview. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 1-39 Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski,& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2, New York:Guilford Press.Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don't put all of your eggs inone cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3(1), 94-120.Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 663-676McConnell, A.R., Brown, C.M. (2010). Dissonance averted: Self-concept organizationmoderates the effect of hypocrisy on attitude change. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 46, 361366. McConnell, A. R., Renaud, J. M., Dean, K. K., Green, S. P., Lamoreaux, M. J., Hall, C. E.,et al. (2005). Whose self is it anyway? Self-aspect control moderates the relationbetween self-complexity and well-being. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41,118Mish, F.C. (1993). Merriam Websters collegiate dictionary (10 ed.). Springfield, MA:Merriam-Webster.Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689

AppendixAppendix A-- 44 Trait list (Adopted from Luo, Watkins & Lam, (2009))

Appendix BH statistics (Adopted from Luo, Watkins & Lam, (2009))

Appendix CNo. of subjexted in each condition for Session 2 Abstract Focus ConditionConcrete-Focus Condition

Low Self-complexity2525

High Self-complexity2525

Apopendix DVignettes of Moral Dilemma: Bike Theft in Netherland

[ Abstract View]consider a moral dilemma that Dutch students often encounter. In The Netherlands, bike-use is very common. All students use their bikes as their mainway of transportation. Unfortunately, bike-theft is also very commonin The Netherlands. Petty criminals steal bikes to fence them. If they fail to do so (because the bike is too old and worthless), they often abandon these bikes on the side of the road, to be found by passers-by.But one may also take a more utilitarian perspective and reason that, given that the chance that the police may return the old bike to the rightful owner is close to zero, it maximizes the overall good if one uses the bike to oneself (Bentham, 1776/1988)[Concrete View]consider a moral dilemma that Dutch students often encounter. In The Netherlands, bike-use is very common. All students use their bikes as their mainway of transportation. Unfortunately, bike-theft is also very commonin The Netherlands. Petty criminals steal bikes to fence them. If they fail to do so (because the bike is too old and worthless), they often abandon these bikes on the side of the road, to be found by passers-by. The rightful owner is missing his or her old bike and by taking the stolen bike home, one robs the person of the small chance of getting it back.Appendix ESample Questionnaire in Session 3

Please indicate one score for each question, from scale of 1 (totally unacceptable) to 7( totally acceptable), based on the moral dilemma case of stolen bikeQuestion 1: Is it acceptable for teacher to take and keep the abandoned bike for your own use, rather than giving the bike to police (on condition that you are poor)??Question 3: Is it acceptable for you to take and keep the abandoned bike for your own use, rather than giving the bike to police (on condition that you are poor)?Question 7: Is it acceptable for others to take and keep the abandoned bike for your own use, rather than giving the bike to police (on condition that you are poor)?