Stagnaro Michael N, Arechar Antonio A, Rand David G
Department of Psychology, Yale University, United States.
Department of Psychology, Yale University, United States.
Cognition. 2017 Oct;167:212-254. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.017. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
What makes people willing to pay costs to help others, and to punish others' selfishness? Why does the extent of such behaviors vary markedly across cultures? To shed light on these questions, we explore the role of formal institutions in shaping individuals' prosociality and punishment. In Study 1 (N=707), American participants who reported living under higher quality cooperation-enforcing institutions (police and courts) gave significantly more in a Dictator Game (DG), but did not punish significantly more in a Third-Party Punishment Game (TPPG). In Study 1R (N=1705), we replicated the positive relationship between reported institutional quality and DG giving observed in Study 1. In Study 2 (N=516), we experimentally manipulated institutional quality in a repeated Public Goods Game with a centralized punishment institution. Consistent with the correlational results of Study 1 and 1R, we found that centralized punishment led to significantly more prosociality in a subsequent DG compared to a no-punishment control, but had no significant direct effect on subsequent TPPG punishment (only an indirect effect via increased DG giving). Thus we present convergent evidence that the quality of institutions one is exposed to "spills over" to subsequent prosociality but not punishment. These findings support a theory of social heuristics, suggest boundary conditions on spillover effects of cooperation, and demonstrate the power of effective institutions for instilling habits of virtue and creating cultures of cooperation.
是什么让人们愿意付出代价去帮助他人,并惩罚他人的自私行为?为什么这些行为的程度在不同文化中存在显著差异?为了阐明这些问题,我们探讨了正式制度在塑造个体亲社会行为和惩罚行为方面的作用。在研究1(N = 707)中,报告生活在更高质量合作执行制度(警察和法院)下的美国参与者在独裁者博弈(DG)中给予的更多,但在第三方惩罚博弈(TPPG)中惩罚并不显著更多。在研究1R(N = 1705)中,我们复制了研究1中观察到的报告制度质量与DG给予之间的正相关关系。在研究2(N = 516)中,我们在一个带有集中惩罚制度的重复公共物品博弈中对制度质量进行了实验性操纵。与研究1和1R的相关结果一致,我们发现与无惩罚对照组相比,集中惩罚在随后的DG中导致了显著更多的亲社会行为,但对随后的TPPG惩罚没有显著直接影响(只有通过增加DG给予产生的间接影响)。因此,我们提供了趋同的证据,表明一个人所接触到的制度质量“溢出”到随后的亲社会行为,但不是惩罚行为。这些发现支持了一种社会启发式理论,提出了合作溢出效应的边界条件,并证明了有效制度在灌输美德习惯和创造合作文化方面的力量。