• 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

为贫困者赌博!可识别性会增强捐赠吗?

Gamble for the needy! Does identifiability enhances donation?

机构信息

Department of Psychology & Methods, Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany.

Department of Life Sciences & Chemistry, Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 30;15(6):e0234336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234336. eCollection 2020.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0234336
PMID:32603364
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7326157/
Abstract

To investigate how neediness and identifiability of a recipient influence the willingness of a donor to invest resources in charity-like lotteries we propose a new game, called 'need game'. Similar to the dictator game, the need game includes two players, one active player (the donor or dictator) and one passive player (the recipient). Both players require a minimum need (ND and NR), expressed in terms of points. The donor is endowed with KD points and must retain at least ND points, i.e., the need, with ND < KD, at the end of the game with n rounds. The recipient starts with KR points and must end the game with at least NR points, i.e., the need, with KR < NR < KD. The donor is asked to choose one of three different amounts from KD to place a bet on a lottery. If won, the gain is added to the endowment. If lost, the recipient receives the points. The recipient is paid only when his/her need threshold is obtained; likewise the donor gets paid only when his/her need threshold is maintained. The main focus here is on need of both players (ND = NR = 2, 200, and ND = NR = 0 serving as baseline control) and the identifiability of the recipient (no information, described by text and picture, and physical presence). We probe whether the amount invested by the donor depends on need and identifiability of the recipient. In addition, we include the framing of the game as gain or loss, different probabilities to win/lose, and different time limits as covariates. We found that each of these factors can play a role when investing in charity-like lotteries.

摘要

为了研究受助者的需求程度和可识别性如何影响捐赠者投资慈善彩票的意愿,我们提出了一个新的游戏,称为“需求游戏”。与独裁者游戏类似,需求游戏包括两个玩家,一个主动玩家(捐赠者或独裁者)和一个被动玩家(受助者)。两个玩家都需要满足一个最小需求(ND 和 NR),用点数表示。捐赠者拥有 KD 点,并且必须在 n 轮游戏结束时保留至少 ND 点,即需求,其中 ND < KD。受助者最初拥有 KR 点,并且必须在游戏结束时至少拥有 NR 点,即需求,其中 KR < NR < KD。捐赠者被要求从 KD 中选择三个不同的金额之一下注彩票。如果中奖,收益将加到捐赠者的财富中。如果输了,受助者将获得这些点数。只有当受助者的需求阈值得到满足时,受助者才会获得报酬;同样,只有当捐赠者的需求阈值得到维持时,捐赠者才会获得报酬。这里的主要关注点是两个玩家的需求(ND = NR = 2、200 和 ND = NR = 0 作为基线控制)和受助者的可识别性(无信息、文本和图片描述以及物理存在)。我们探究了捐赠者投资慈善彩票的金额是否取决于受助者的需求和可识别性。此外,我们还将游戏的框架(收益或损失)、不同的获胜/失败概率以及不同的时间限制作为协变量纳入考虑。我们发现,当投资慈善彩票时,这些因素中的每一个都可能发挥作用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a5bc/7326157/32141ad176cc/pone.0234336.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a5bc/7326157/1a22094e333f/pone.0234336.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a5bc/7326157/c68c00271106/pone.0234336.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a5bc/7326157/32141ad176cc/pone.0234336.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a5bc/7326157/1a22094e333f/pone.0234336.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a5bc/7326157/c68c00271106/pone.0234336.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a5bc/7326157/32141ad176cc/pone.0234336.g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Gamble for the needy! Does identifiability enhances donation?为贫困者赌博!可识别性会增强捐赠吗?
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 30;15(6):e0234336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234336. eCollection 2020.
2
The effect of amount and tangibility of endowment and certainty of recipients on selfishness in a modified dictator game.在一个经过修改的独裁者博弈中,捐赠的数量与可触知性以及接受者的确定性对自私行为的影响。
Psychol Rep. 2014 Jun;114(3):720-39. doi: 10.2466/31.01.PR0.114k24w8. Epub 2014 Apr 9.
3
The effect of anchors and social information on behaviour.锚和社会信息对行为的影响。
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 14;15(4):e0231203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231203. eCollection 2020.
4
The effect of $1, $5 and $10 stakes in an online dictator game.在在线独裁者游戏中,1 美元、5 美元和 10 美元赌注的效果。
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 12;8(8):e73131. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073131. eCollection 2013.
5
Anonymity versus privacy in the dictator game: revealing donor decisions to recipients does not substantially impact donor behavior.独裁者博弈中的匿名性与隐私性:向接受者披露捐赠者的决策不会对捐赠者行为产生实质性影响。
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 22;9(12):e115419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115419. eCollection 2014.
6
Near wins prolong gambling on a video lottery terminal.差点赢了会延长在视频彩票终端上赌博的时间。
J Gambl Stud. 2003 Winter;19(4):433-8. doi: 10.1023/a:1026384011003.
7
[Quality of life of living kidney donor: a national report].[活体肾供体的生活质量:一份全国性报告]
Nephrol Ther. 2011 Jul;7 Suppl 1:S1-39. doi: 10.1016/S1769-7255(11)70007-4.
8
Fair play doesn't matter: MEP modulation as a neurophysiological signature of status quo bias in economic interactions.公平竞争无关紧要:MEP 调制是经济互动中现状偏见的神经生理特征。
Neuroimage. 2014 Nov 1;101:150-8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.056. Epub 2014 Jun 28.
9
Decision making on organ donation: the dilemmas of relatives of potential brain dead donors.器官捐赠的决策:潜在脑死亡捐赠者亲属的困境
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Sep 17;16(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12910-015-0057-1.
10
The UK DCD Risk Score: A new proposal to define futility in donation-after-circulatory-death liver transplantation.英国 DCD 风险评分:一种定义脑死亡后捐献肝脏移植中无效性的新提案。
J Hepatol. 2018 Mar;68(3):456-464. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.10.034. Epub 2017 Nov 15.

引用本文的文献

1
Individual differences moderate effects in an Unusual Disease paradigm: A psychophysical data collection lab approach and an online experiment.个体差异在一种罕见疾病范式中调节效应:一种心理物理学数据收集实验室方法和一项在线实验。
Front Psychol. 2023 Mar 28;14:1086699. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1086699. eCollection 2023.
2
Keep your budget together! Investigating determinants on risky decision-making about losses.保持预算一致!研究关于亏损的风险决策的决定因素。
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 21;17(3):e0265822. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265822. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges.通过简单的道德推动增加利他主义和合作行为。
Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 15;9(1):11880. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-48094-4.
2
Altruistic behavior in cohesive social groups: The role of target identifiability.在具有凝聚力的社会群体中的利他行为:目标可识别性的作用。
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 21;12(11):e0187903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187903. eCollection 2017.
3
Thinking Fast Increases Framing Effects in Risky Decision Making.快速思考会增加风险决策中的框架效应。
Psychol Sci. 2017 Apr;28(4):530-543. doi: 10.1177/0956797616689092. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
4
Beyond gains and losses: the effect of need on risky choice in framed decisions.超越得失:框架决策中需求对风险选择的影响。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jun;102(6):1136-47. doi: 10.1037/a0027855. Epub 2012 Apr 9.
5
Framing effects and risk-sensitive decision making.框架效应与风险敏感决策。
Br J Psychol. 2012 Feb;103(1):83-97. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02047.x. Epub 2011 Jun 15.
6
Gambling on the lottery: sociodemographic correlates across the lifespan.彩票赌博:一生各阶段的社会人口学相关因素。
J Gambl Stud. 2011 Dec;27(4):575-86. doi: 10.1007/s10899-010-9228-7.
7
Lottery gambling: a review.彩票赌博:综述。
J Gambl Stud. 2011 Mar;27(1):15-33. doi: 10.1007/s10899-010-9194-0.
8
MDFT account of decision making under time pressure.时间压力下决策的多维度功能理论解释
Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Mar;10(1):157-66. doi: 10.3758/bf03196480.
9
Decision making under time pressure: an independent test of sequential sampling models.时间压力下的决策:顺序抽样模型的独立测试
Mem Cognit. 1999 Jul;27(4):713-25. doi: 10.3758/bf03211564.
10
The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks.框架、反思、概率和收益对选择任务中风险偏好的影响。
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999 Jun;78(3):204-231. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2830.