Suppr超能文献

亲社会行为中存在遗漏效应吗?一项关于被动慷慨与主动慷慨的实验室实验。

Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity.

作者信息

Gärtner Manja, Sandberg Anna

机构信息

Division of Economics, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Institute for International Economic Studies (IIES), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 Mar 1;12(3):e0172496. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172496. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

We investigate whether individuals are more prone to act selfishly if they can passively allow for an outcome to be implemented (omission) rather than having to make an active choice (commission). In most settings, active and passive choice alternatives differ in terms of factors such as the presence of a suggested option, costs of taking an action, and awareness. We isolate the omission effect from confounding factors in three experiments, and find no evidence that the distinction between active and passive choices has an independent effect on the propensity to implement selfish outcomes. This suggests that increased selfishness through omission, as observed in various economic choice situations, is driven by other factors than a preference for selfish omissions.

摘要

我们研究,如果个体能够被动地允许某种结果得以实施(不作为),而非必须做出主动选择(作为),他们是否更倾向于自私行事。在大多数情况下,主动和被动选择的选项在诸如是否存在建议选项、采取行动的成本以及意识等因素方面存在差异。我们在三个实验中,将不作为效应与混杂因素隔离开来,并未发现有证据表明主动选择和被动选择之间的区别会对实施自私结果的倾向产生独立影响。这表明,在各种经济选择情境中观察到的通过不作为而增加的自私行为,是由其他因素驱动的,而非对自私不作为的偏好。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/786c/5383002/81da115590b3/pone.0172496.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