This article examines how people recall and describe instances of hypocrisy in their own and others’ behaviour. N = 302 participants provided two written examples. The first example recalled a time when someone called the participant a hypocrite, while the other recalled an instance when the participant perceived someone else’s behaviour as hypocritical. One goal of the study was to discover if real-world examples of hypocrisy reflect only mere inconsistency, consistent with the construct’s narrow use in psychology, or if they contain other distinctive defining features. A typology was used to code the examples, based loosely on Crisp and Cowton’s philosophical distinction between four forms of hypocrisy: direct inconsistency, pretence, blame, and complacency. A second goal was to uncover reliable actor-observer differences in perceptions of hypocrisy. Results indicated that the four forms occur in real-world examples of both self and others’ hypocrisy. Interestingly, a new fifth form, indirect inconsistency, emerged from the data, adding nuance to the initial hypothesis. Finally, several actor-observer differences in perceptions of hypocrisy arose and are discussed. The results indicate that hypocrisy is a much more complicated phenomenon than previously considered and provide the impetus for new areas of research.
展开▼
机译:本文研究了人们如何以自己和他人的行为来回忆和描述虚伪的事例。 N = 302名参与者提供了两个书面示例。第一个示例回顾了某人称参与者为伪君子的时间,而另一个示例回顾了某例,参与者认为某人的行为是虚伪的。这项研究的目的之一是发现现实世界中虚伪的例子是否仅反映出前后矛盾,与构造论在心理学上的狭义使用相一致,或者它们是否包含其他独特的定义特征。示例使用一种类型学来编码,大致基于Crisp和Cowton在四种伪善形式之间的哲学区别:直接不一致,假装,责备和自满。第二个目标是揭示伪善观念中可靠的演员观察者差异。结果表明,这四种形式都出现在现实世界中关于自我和他人伪善的例子中。有趣的是,从数据中出现了新的第五种形式,间接不一致,给最初的假设增加了细微差别。最后,讨论了伪善知觉中的演员观察者差异。结果表明伪善是比以前考虑的复杂得多的现象,并为新的研究领域提供了动力。
展开▼