Psychology Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Sci Rep. 2022 Jan 11;12(1):511. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04010-3.
Does stepping back to evaluate a situation from a distanced perspective lead us to be selfish or fair? This question has been of philosophical interest for centuries, and, more recently, the focus of extensive empirical inquiry. Yet, extant research reveals a puzzle: some studies suggest that adopting a distanced perspective will produce more rationally self-interested behavior, whereas others suggest that it will produce more impartial behavior. Here we adjudicate between these perspectives by testing the effects of adopting a third-person perspective on decision making in a task that pits rational self-interest against impartiality: the dictator game. Aggregating across three experiments (N = 774), participants who used third-person (i.e., distanced) vs. first-person (i.e., immersed) self-talk during the dictator game kept more money for themselves. We discuss these results in light of prior research showing that psychological distance can promote cooperation and fairmindedness and how the effect of psychological distance on moral decision-making may be sensitive to social context.
从距离的角度回顾评估一个情况会导致我们变得自私或公正吗？这个问题已经引起了几个世纪的哲学兴趣，而最近，它也成为了广泛实证研究的焦点。然而，现有的研究揭示了一个难题：一些研究表明，采取距离的视角将产生更理性的自利行为，而另一些研究则表明，它将产生更公正的行为。在这里，我们通过在一个将理性自利与公正性相冲突的任务中测试采用第三人称视角对决策的影响来解决这些观点之间的分歧：独裁者游戏。综合三个实验（N=774）的结果，在独裁者游戏中使用第三人称（即距离）自我对话的参与者比使用第一人称（即沉浸）自我对话的参与者为自己保留了更多的钱。我们根据先前的研究讨论了这些结果，这些研究表明心理距离可以促进合作和公平意识，以及心理距离对道德决策的影响可能对社会背景敏感。
