Powerful and Bad in 2009

Recent research finds that a feeling of entitlement to power can inspire hypocrisy. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

So 2009 was, in part, a year of powerful people behaving badly.  

We had Kanye West stealing Taylor Swift’s moment at the VMA awards, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford disappearing to, ahem, hike the Appalachian trail, and of course David Letterman, Tiger Woods… 
 
Well new research to be published in Psychological Science supports the old notion that power corrupts.  Specifically, power can breed hypocrisy: the powerful can feel entitled not to obey the moral rules they demand others to follow.


Researchers assigned 172 subjects high-power roles (prime minister) and low-power roles (civil servant.) The subjects had to consider a series of moral dilemmas involving stolen bikes, breaking traffic rules, and instituting taxes. 
 
In each of five experiments the more powerful characters consistently showed moral hypocrisy.  They disapproved of immoral behavior (e.g., the over-reporting of expenses) and yet behaved badly themselves.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.



For instance, when powerful characters were given an opportunity to self-report their success in a dice game, they cheated, reporting that they won more times than they actually did.

The authors note that a sense of entitlement is key. Those who believe they are entitled to a high status position tend to be more hypocritical than those who feel they’re not deserving of power.


In fact, this latter group held themselves to a higher standard than they did others. The powerful who did not feel entitled behaved similarly to powerless characters who tend to be harder on themselves than on others.

 

—Christie Nicholson

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe