• 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

经济决策中的义务贵族跨文化研究。

A cross-cultural study of noblesse oblige in economic decision-making.

机构信息

Lakehead University, Orillia, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Hum Nat. 2013 Sep;24(3):318-35. doi: 10.1007/s12110-013-9169-9.

DOI:10.1007/s12110-013-9169-9
PMID:23749462
Abstract

A cornerstone of economic theory is that rational agents are self-interested, yet a decade of research in experimental economics has shown that economic decisions are frequently driven by concerns for fairness, equity, and reciprocity. One aspect of other-regarding behavior that has garnered attention is noblesse oblige, a social norm that obligates those of higher status to be generous in their dealings with those of lower status. The results of a cross-cultural study are reported in which marked noblesse oblige was observed on a reciprocal-contract decision-making task. Participants from seven countries that vary along hierarchical and individualist/collectivist social dimensions were more tolerant of non-reciprocation when they adopted a high-ranking perspective compared with a low-ranking perspective.

摘要

经济理论的基石是理性主体都是自利的,但实验经济学十年来的研究表明,经济决策常常受到公平、公正和互惠等因素的驱动。关注的另一个方面是贵族义务,这是一种社会规范,要求地位较高的人在与地位较低的人打交道时要慷慨大方。本文报告了一项跨文化研究的结果,在互惠合同决策任务中观察到明显的贵族义务。在社会层级和个人主义/集体主义维度上存在差异的七个国家的参与者在采用高等级视角而非低等级视角时,对非互惠行为的容忍度更高。

相似文献

1
A cross-cultural study of noblesse oblige in economic decision-making.经济决策中的义务贵族跨文化研究。
Hum Nat. 2013 Sep;24(3):318-35. doi: 10.1007/s12110-013-9169-9.
2
Are perceptions of fairness relationship-specific? The case of noblesse oblige.对公平的认知是特定于关系的吗?施惠与人的情况。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Jan;60(1):16-31. doi: 10.1080/17470210600577266.
3
The impact of adolescent females' assessments of parenthood and employment on plans for the future.青春期女性对为人父母和就业的评估对未来规划的影响。
J Youth Adolesc. 1986 Feb;15(1):29-49. doi: 10.1007/BF02140782.
4
Labor force participation and fertility: a social analysis of their antecedents and simultaneity.劳动力参与率与生育率:对其影响因素及同步性的社会分析
Hum Relat. 1984;37(11):941-67. doi: 10.1177/001872678403701105.
5
Resource allocation decisions in low-income rural households.低收入农村家庭中的资源分配决策。
Food Policy. 1985 May;10(2):100-8. doi: 10.1016/0306-9192(85)90003-x.
6
The games economists play: Why economics students behave more selfishly than other students.经济学家们玩的游戏:为何经济学专业学生比其他专业学生表现得更自私。
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 5;12(9):e0183814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183814. eCollection 2017.
7
Between professional values and the social valuation of patients: the fluctuating economy of pre-hospital emergency work.在专业价值观与患者的社会评价之间:院前急救工作中波动的经济状况。
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Feb;68(3):504-10. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.001. Epub 2008 Dec 4.
8
Response time in economic games reflects different types of decision conflict for prosocial and proself individuals.经济博弈中的反应时间反映了亲社会个体和自利个体在不同类型决策冲突中的表现。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jun 13;114(24):6394-6399. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608877114. Epub 2017 May 30.
9
Experimental Games and Social Decision Making.实验游戏与社会决策
Annu Rev Psychol. 2021 Jan 4;72:415-438. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-081420-110718. Epub 2020 Oct 2.
10
Prudential motives and reciprocal altruism.
Am J Bioeth. 2004 Fall;4(4):44-6; discussion W35-7. doi: 10.1080/15265160490906718.

引用本文的文献

1
How do preschoolers and adults ascribe authority?学龄前儿童和成年人是如何赋予权威的?
iScience. 2025 Aug 7;28(9):113279. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.113279. eCollection 2025 Sep 19.
2
How the Custom Suppresses the Endowment Effect: Exchange Paradigm in Kanak Country.习俗如何抑制禀赋效应:卡纳克地区的交换范式
Front Psychol. 2022 Jan 25;12:785721. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.785721. eCollection 2021.
3
Punishing the privileged: Selfish offers from high-status allocators elicit greater punishment from third-party arbitrators.

本文引用的文献

1
The evolution of magnanimity : When is it better to give than to receive?宽容的演变:何时给予比接受更好?
Hum Nat. 1998 Mar;9(1):1-21. doi: 10.1007/s12110-998-1009-y.
2
Social status gates social attention in humans.社会地位影响人类的社会关注度。
Biol Lett. 2012 Jun 23;8(3):450-2. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0881. Epub 2011 Nov 16.
3
Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige.男性为何追求地位?支配和威望带来的健康回报。
惩罚权贵:来自高地位分配者的自私提议会引起第三方仲裁者更大的惩罚。
PLoS One. 2020 May 14;15(5):e0232369. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232369. eCollection 2020.
4
Is participation in high-status culture a signal of trustworthiness?参与高地位文化是否是值得信赖的信号?
PLoS One. 2020 May 5;15(5):e0232674. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232674. eCollection 2020.
5
The dynamics of men's cooperation and social status in a small-scale society.小规模社会中男性的合作与社会地位动态。
Proc Biol Sci. 2019 Aug 14;286(1908):20191367. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.1367. Epub 2019 Aug 7.
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jul 22;278(1715):2223-32. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2145. Epub 2010 Dec 8.
4
Gaze allocation in a dynamic situation: effects of social status and speaking.动态情境中的目光分配:社会地位和说话的影响
Cognition. 2010 Dec;117(3):319-31. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.003. Epub 2010 Oct 20.
5
A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia.对隐性独立性的文化任务分析:比较北美、西欧和东亚。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Aug;97(2):236-55. doi: 10.1037/a0015999.
6
The Janus face of power in intergroup contexts: a further exploration of the noblesse oblige effect.群体间情境中权力的双面性:对贵族行为理应高尚效应的进一步探究。
J Soc Psychol. 2006 Dec;146(6):685-99. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.146.6.685-699.
7
Are perceptions of fairness relationship-specific? The case of noblesse oblige.对公平的认知是特定于关系的吗?施惠与人的情况。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Jan;60(1):16-31. doi: 10.1080/17470210600577266.
8
"Economic man" in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies.跨文化视角下的“经济人”:15个小规模社会中的行为实验
Behav Brain Sci. 2005 Dec;28(6):795-815; discussion 815-55. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000142.
9
Is there any "free" choice? Self and dissonance in two cultures.是否存在“自由”选择?两种文化中的自我与失调。
Psychol Sci. 2004 Aug;15(8):527-33. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00714.x.
10
Behavioural studies of strategic thinking in games.游戏中战略思维的行为研究。
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 May;7(5):225-231. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00094-9.