• 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

宽容与无私作为合作的文化决定因素的力量。

The Power of Tolerance vs. Unselfishness as a Cultural Determinant of Cooperation.

作者信息

Eriksson Kimmo, Simpson Brent, Vartanova Irina

机构信息

School of Education, Culture and Communication, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden.

Institute for Futures Studies, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2021 Sep 7;12:678237. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678237. eCollection 2021.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678237
PMID:34557129
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8452855/
Abstract

Cooperation in collective action problems and resource dilemmas is often assumed to depend on the values of the individuals involved, such as their degree of unselfishness and tolerance. Societal differences in cooperation and cooperative norms may therefore result from cultural variation in emphasis on these personal values. Here we draw on several cross-national datasets to examine whether society-level emphasis on unselfishness and tolerance and respect for other people predict how societies vary in cooperation [in a continuous prisoner's dilemma (PD)] and in norms governing cooperation [in a common pool resource dilemma (CPR)]. The results suggest that high levels of cooperation and cooperative norms are promoted specifically by a cultural emphasis on tolerance.

摘要

集体行动问题和资源困境中的合作通常被认为取决于相关个体的价值观,比如他们的无私程度和宽容度。因此,合作及合作规范方面的社会差异可能源于对这些个人价值观强调程度的文化差异。在此,我们利用几个跨国数据集来检验社会层面上对无私、宽容以及对他人的尊重的强调,是否能够预测不同社会在合作方面(在连续囚徒困境中)以及在合作规范方面(在公共资源困境中)的差异。结果表明,对宽容的文化强调尤其能够促进高水平的合作及合作规范。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/74cd/8452855/2d08772a0ecb/fpsyg-12-678237-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/74cd/8452855/2d08772a0ecb/fpsyg-12-678237-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/74cd/8452855/2d08772a0ecb/fpsyg-12-678237-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
The Power of Tolerance vs. Unselfishness as a Cultural Determinant of Cooperation.宽容与无私作为合作的文化决定因素的力量。
Front Psychol. 2021 Sep 7;12:678237. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678237. eCollection 2021.
2
Evolutionary dynamics of the continuous iterated prisoner's dilemma.连续重复囚徒困境的进化动力学
J Theor Biol. 2007 Mar 21;245(2):258-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.09.016. Epub 2006 Sep 20.
3
The continuous prisoner's dilemma and the evolution of cooperation through reciprocal altruism with variable investment.连续囚徒困境与通过可变投资的互惠利他主义实现合作的进化
Am Nat. 2002 Oct;160(4):421-38. doi: 10.1086/342070.
4
Multinational investigation of cross-societal cooperation.跨国跨社会合作调查。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Sep 27;113(39):10836-41. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1601294113. Epub 2016 Sep 12.
5
Moral labels increase cooperation and costly punishment in a Prisoner's Dilemma game with punishment option.道德标签在具有惩罚选择的囚徒困境博弈中增加合作和昂贵的惩罚。
Sci Rep. 2021 May 13;11(1):10221. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89675-6.
6
Variable investment, the Continuous Prisoner's Dilemma, and the origin of cooperation.可变投资、连续囚徒困境与合作的起源
Proc Biol Sci. 1999 Sep 7;266(1430):1723-8. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0838.
7
Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism: How Public Goods Are Promoted.合作、信任与对抗:公共物品如何得到促进。
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2013 Dec;14(3):119-65. doi: 10.1177/1529100612474436.
8
Cultural Values in Intergroup and Single-Group Social Dilemmas.群体间和单群体社会困境中的文化价值观
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999 Mar;77(3):171-191. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2822.
9
Individual Characteristics vs. Experience: An Experimental Study on Cooperation in Prisoner's Dilemma.个体特征与经验:囚徒困境中合作的实验研究
Front Psychol. 2017 Apr 20;8:596. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00596. eCollection 2017.
10
The continuous Prisoner's dilemma: II. Linear reactive strategies with noise.连续囚徒困境:II. 带噪声的线性反应策略
J Theor Biol. 1999 Oct 7;200(3):323-38. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1999.0997.

引用本文的文献

1
How Does Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment Respond to Host Country Cultural Tolerance and Trust?中国对外直接投资如何回应东道国的文化宽容与信任?
Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 11;13:794455. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.794455. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
National parochialism is ubiquitous across 42 nations around the world.民族狭隘主义在全球 42 个国家普遍存在。
Nat Commun. 2021 Jul 22;12(1):4456. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24787-1.
2
Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies.57 个社会对规范违反应采取何种适当回应的看法。
Nat Commun. 2021 Mar 5;12(1):1481. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9.
3
Indulgence and Long Term Orientation Influence Prosocial Behavior at National Level.放纵和长期导向在国家层面影响亲社会行为。
Front Psychol. 2018 Sep 24;9:1798. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01798. eCollection 2018.
4
Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat.关系流动性可预测 39 个国家的社会行为,与历史农耕和威胁有关。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 17;115(29):7521-7526. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1713191115. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
5
Tolerance and reward equity predict cooperation in ravens (Corvus corax).宽容和奖励公平性预示着渡鸦(鸦属)的合作行为。
Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 7;5:15021. doi: 10.1038/srep15021.
6
Competition and cooperation among different punishing strategies in the spatial public goods game.空间公共物品博弈中不同惩罚策略之间的竞争与合作
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2015 Jul;92(1):012819. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.012819. Epub 2015 Jul 27.
7
Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence.文化群体选择在解释人类合作方面起着至关重要的作用:证据概述。
Behav Brain Sci. 2016 Jan;39:e30. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1400106X. Epub 2014 Oct 28.
8
Trust, conflict, and cooperation: a meta-analysis.信任、冲突与合作:一项元分析。
Psychol Bull. 2013 Sep;139(5):1090-112. doi: 10.1037/a0030939. Epub 2012 Dec 10.
9
The virtues of gossip: reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior.八卦的美德:作为亲社会行为的声誉信息共享。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 May;102(5):1015-30. doi: 10.1037/a0026650. Epub 2012 Jan 9.
10
Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis.奖励、惩罚与合作:一项元分析。
Psychol Bull. 2011 Jul;137(4):594-615. doi: 10.1037/a0023489.