• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
The Impact of Elections on Cooperation: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment in Uganda.选举对合作的影响:来自乌干达实地实验室实验的证据
Am J Pol Sci. 2012 Oct 1;56(4):964-985. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00596.x.
2
Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans.集中制裁和合法权威促进了人类的合作。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jul 5;108(27):11023-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1105456108. Epub 2011 Jun 20.
3
Cooperative Networks: Altruism, Group Solidarity, Reciprocity, and Sanctioning in Ugandan Producer Organizations.合作网络:乌干达生产者组织中的利他主义、群体团结、互惠与制裁
AJS. 2015 Sep;121(2):355-95. doi: 10.1086/682418.
4
Corruption drives the emergence of civil society.腐败推动了公民社会的出现。
J R Soc Interface. 2014 Jan 29;11(93):20131044. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2013.1044. Print 2014 Apr 6.
5
Group leaders establish cooperative norms that persist in subsequent interactions.组长建立了在后续互动中持续存在的合作规范。
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 19;14(9):e0222724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222724. eCollection 2019.
6
Positive interactions may decrease cooperation in social dilemma experiments.积极的互动可能会减少社会困境实验中的合作。
Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 31;9(1):1017. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37674-5.
7
Group Size Effect on Cooperation in One-Shot Social Dilemmas II: Curvilinear Effect.单次社会困境中群体规模对合作的影响II:曲线效应
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 16;10(7):e0131419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131419. eCollection 2015.
8
Public goods dilemma in asexual ant societies.无性蚂蚁社会中的公共物品困境。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Oct 1;110(40):16056-60. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309010110. Epub 2013 Sep 17.
9
Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism: How Public Goods Are Promoted.合作、信任与对抗:公共物品如何得到促进。
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2013 Dec;14(3):119-65. doi: 10.1177/1529100612474436.
10
Can centralized sanctioning promote trust in social dilemmas? A two-level trust game with incomplete information.集中制裁能否促进社会困境中的信任?一个具有不完全信息的两级信任博弈。
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 16;10(4):e0124513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124513. eCollection 2015.

引用本文的文献

1
Identifying legitimacy: Experimental evidence on compliance with authority.识别合法性:关于服从权威的实验证据。
Sci Adv. 2022 Feb 18;8(7):eabj7377. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abj7377.
2
Farmer social networks: The role of advice ties and organizational leadership in agroforestry adoption.农民社交网络:建议关系和组织领导力在农林复合经营采用中的作用。
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 10;16(8):e0255987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255987. eCollection 2021.
3
The effect of group attachment and social position on prosocial behavior. Evidence from lab-in-the-field experiments.群体依附和社会地位对亲社会行为的影响。来自现场实验室实验的证据。
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58750. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058750. Epub 2013 Mar 26.

本文引用的文献

1
INSTITUTIONS AND BEHAVIOR: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY.制度与行为:民主影响的实验证据
Am Econ Rev. 2010 Dec;100(5):2205-2229. doi: 10.1257/aer.100.5.2205.
2
Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans.集中制裁和合法权威促进了人类的合作。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jul 5;108(27):11023-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1105456108. Epub 2011 Jun 20.
3
Coordinated punishment of defectors sustains cooperation and can proliferate when rare.当稀有资源发生背叛时,协调惩罚背叛者可以维持合作,并使其扩散。
Science. 2010 Apr 30;328(5978):617-20. doi: 10.1126/science.1183665.
4
The origins and evolution of leadership.领导的起源与演变。
Curr Biol. 2009 Oct 13;19(19):R911-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.027.
5
Positive interactions promote public cooperation.积极互动促进公众合作。
Science. 2009 Sep 4;325(5945):1272-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1177418.
6
Constraining free riding in public goods games: designated solitary punishers can sustain human cooperation.抑制公共物品博弈中的搭便车行为:指定的单独惩罚者能够维持人类合作。
Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jan 22;276(1655):323-9. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1082.
7
Punish or perish? Retaliation and collaboration among humans.惩罚还是灭亡?人类之间的报复与合作。
Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Nov;22(11):593-600. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.012. Epub 2007 Oct 25.
8
Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations.通过除以两个标准差对回归输入进行缩放。
Stat Med. 2008 Jul 10;27(15):2865-73. doi: 10.1002/sim.3107.
9
Five rules for the evolution of cooperation.合作进化的五条规则。
Science. 2006 Dec 8;314(5805):1560-3. doi: 10.1126/science.1133755.
10
Human cooperation: second-order free-riding problem solved?人类合作:二阶搭便车问题得到解决了吗?
Nature. 2005 Sep 22;437(7058):E8; discussion E8-9. doi: 10.1038/nature04201.

选举对合作的影响:来自乌干达实地实验室实验的证据

The Impact of Elections on Cooperation: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment in Uganda.

作者信息

Grossman Guy, Baldassarri Delia

机构信息

Department of Political Science, 225 Stiteler Hall, 208 S. 37th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6215 (

出版信息

Am J Pol Sci. 2012 Oct 1;56(4):964-985. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00596.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00596.x
PMID:23729913
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3666592/
Abstract

Communities often rely on sanctioning to induce public goods contributions. Past studies focus on how external agencies or peer sanctioning induce cooperation. In this article, we focus instead on the role played by centralized authorities, internal to the community. Combining "lab-in-the-field" experiments with observational data on 1,541 Ugandan farmers from 50 communities, we demonstrate the positive effect of internal centralized sanctioning authorities on cooperative behavior. We also show that the size of this effect depends on the political process by which authority is granted: subjects electing leaders contribute more to public goods than subjects who were assigned leaders through a lottery. To test the ecological validity of our findings, we relate farmers' behavior in the experiment to their level of cooperation in their community organization. We show that deference to authority in the controlled setting predicts cooperative behavior in the farmers' natural environment, in which they face a similar social dilemma.

摘要

社区通常依靠制裁来促使人们为公共物品做出贡献。过去的研究聚焦于外部机构或同伴制裁如何诱导合作。在本文中,我们转而关注社区内部的中央权威所发挥的作用。我们将“实地实验室”实验与来自50个社区的1541名乌干达农民的观测数据相结合,证明了内部中央制裁权威对合作行为的积极影响。我们还表明,这种影响的大小取决于授予权威的政治过程:通过选举产生领导人的受试者比通过抽签分配领导人的受试者为公共物品贡献得更多。为了检验我们研究结果的生态效度,我们将农民在实验中的行为与其在社区组织中的合作水平联系起来。我们表明,在受控环境中对权威的顺从预示着农民在自然环境中的合作行为,在自然环境中他们面临类似的社会困境。