Ma Lawrence K, Tunney Richard J, Ferguson Eamonn
Personality, Social Psychology, and Health Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 8;9(12):e114976. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114976. eCollection 2014.
It is well documented that people would remunerate fair behaviours and penalize unfair behaviours. It is argued that individuals' reactions following the receipt of a gift depend on the perceived intentions of the donors. Fair intentions should prompt positive affect, like gratitude, triggering cooperative behaviours; while intended unfairness should trigger negative affect, like anger, fostering anti-social actions. It is, however, contended that when people lack information to infer others' intention they may use 'normative' beliefs about fairness - what a typical fair individual 'should' do in these circumstances - to guide their behaviour. In this experiment we examined this assertion. We had 122 participants play a one-shot, double-anonymous game with half playing as potential helpers (P1s) and half as recipients (P2s). Whether a participant was a P1 or P2 was chance-determined and all participants knew this. P1s decided whether to help P2s and whether to make their help unconditional (no repayment needed) or conditional (full or 'taxed' repayment). P2s decided whether to accept the offer and whatever conditions attached but were blind to the list of helping options available to P1s. We anticipated that recipients would refer to the 'injunctive norm' that 'fair people should help "for free" when it is only by chance that they are in a position to help'. Therefore, without knowing P1s' different helping options, unconditional offers should be rated by recipients as fairer than conditional offers, and this should be linked to greater gratitude with greater gratitude linked to greater reciprocation. Path analyses confirmed this serial mediation. The results showed that recipients of unconditional offers, compared to conditional ones, interpreted the helpers' motives as more helpful, experienced greater gratitude and were more eager to reciprocate. The behavioural data further revealed that, when given a latter option to default, 38% of recipients of conditional offers did so.
有充分的文献记载表明,人们会对公平行为给予回报,对不公平行为进行惩罚。有人认为,个人在收到礼物后的反应取决于对捐赠者意图的感知。公平的意图应引发积极的情感,如感激之情,从而触发合作行为;而意图不公平则应引发消极的情感,如愤怒,进而助长反社会行为。然而,有人认为,当人们缺乏推断他人意图的信息时,他们可能会使用关于公平的“规范性”信念——一个典型的公平个体“应该”在这些情况下做什么——来指导自己的行为。在本实验中,我们检验了这一论断。我们让122名参与者进行一场一次性的、双盲游戏,其中一半扮演潜在帮助者(P1),另一半扮演接受者(P2)。参与者是P1还是P2由随机决定,所有参与者都知道这一点。P1决定是否帮助P2,以及是提供无条件帮助(无需回报)还是有条件帮助(全额或“征税”回报)。P2决定是否接受提议及其附带的任何条件,但对P1可用的帮助选项列表不知情。我们预计接受者会参考“指令性规范”,即“当公平的人只是偶然处于能够提供帮助的位置时,他们应该‘免费’提供帮助”。因此,在不知道P1的不同帮助选项的情况下,接受者应该会认为无条件提议比有条件提议更公平,而且这应该与更多的感激之情相关联,更多的感激之情又与更多的回报相关联。路径分析证实了这种系列中介作用。结果表明,与有条件提议的接受者相比,无条件提议的接受者将帮助者的动机解读为更具帮助性,体验到更多的感激之情,并且更渴望回报。行为数据进一步显示,当有后者违约的选项时,38%的有条件提议接受者选择了违约。