Suppr超能文献

不假思索地冒生命危险:直觉决策与极端利他主义。

Risking your life without a second thought: intuitive decision-making and extreme altruism.

作者信息

Rand David G, Epstein Ziv G

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America; Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America; School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America.

Pomona College, Claremont, CA, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2014 Oct 15;9(10):e109687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109687. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

When faced with the chance to help someone in mortal danger, what is our first response? Do we leap into action, only later considering the risks to ourselves? Or must instinctive self-preservation be overcome by will-power in order to act? We investigate this question by examining the testimony of Carnegie Hero Medal Recipients (CHMRs), extreme altruists who risked their lives to save others. We collected published interviews with CHMRs where they described their decisions to help. We then had participants rate the intuitiveness versus deliberativeness of the decision-making process described in each CHMR statement. The statements were judged to be overwhelmingly dominated by intuition; to be significantly more intuitive than a set of control statements describing deliberative decision-making; and to not differ significantly from a set of intuitive control statements. This remained true when restricting to scenarios in which the CHMRs had sufficient time to reflect before acting if they had so chosen. Text-analysis software found similar results. These findings suggest that high-stakes extreme altruism may be largely motivated by automatic, intuitive processes.

摘要

当面临帮助处于生命危险中的人的机会时,我们的第一反应是什么?我们会立即采取行动,之后才考虑自身风险吗?还是必须靠意志力克服本能的自我保护才能行动?我们通过研究卡内基英雄奖章获得者(CHMRs)的证词来调查这个问题,这些人都是冒着生命危险拯救他人的极端利他主义者。我们收集了已发表的对CHMRs的采访,其中他们描述了自己帮助他人的决定。然后让参与者对每个CHMR陈述中所描述的决策过程的直观性与审慎性进行评分。结果显示,这些陈述被判定绝大多数由直觉主导;比一组描述审慎决策的对照陈述明显更具直觉性;并且与一组直观对照陈述没有显著差异。当仅限于CHMRs有足够时间思考(如果他们选择思考的话)再行动的场景时,情况依然如此。文本分析软件也得出了类似的结果。这些发现表明,高风险的极端利他主义可能很大程度上是由自动的、直观的过程驱动的。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/493e/4198114/852b52783b96/pone.0109687.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验