Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany.
Technical University of Munich, Germany.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2023 Mar;49(3):429-446. doi: 10.1177/01461672211067675. Epub 2022 Feb 1.
In six studies, we consistently observed (3PP) to decrease under . Our research suggests that, under ambiguity, some people experience concerns about punishing unfairly. Those with higher (vs. lower) other-oriented justice sensitivity (Observer JS) reduced 3PP more pronouncedly (in Studies 1-3 and 4b, but not replicated in Studies 4-5). Moreover, those who decided to resolve the ambiguity (hence, removing the risk of punishing unfairly) exceeded the 3PP observed under no ambiguity (Study 4). However, we did not consistently observe these concerns about punishing unfairly to affect 3PP (Studies 4-5). We further considered whether people could use ambiguity as justification for remaining passive-thus, avoiding the costs of 3PP. We did not find conclusive evidence supporting this notion. Taken together, ambiguity entails a situational boundary of 3PP that sheds light on the prevalence of this behavior and, potentially, on its preceding decision-making.
在六项研究中，我们一致观察到（3PP）在 下减少。我们的研究表明，在模棱两可的情况下，有些人会担心不公正地惩罚他人。那些具有更高（而非更低）的他人导向公正敏感性（观察者 JS）的人，（在研究 1-3 和 4b 中，但在研究 4-5 中没有得到复制），更明显地减少了 3PP。此外，那些决定解决模棱两可的人（因此，消除了不公正惩罚的风险）超过了在没有模棱两可情况下观察到的 3PP（研究 4）。然而，我们并没有一致观察到这些对不公正惩罚的担忧会影响 3PP（研究 4-5）。我们进一步考虑了人们是否可以利用模棱两可作为保持被动的理由，从而避免 3PP 的成本。我们没有发现支持这一观点的确凿证据。综上所述，模棱两可带来了 3PP 的情境边界，这揭示了这种行为的普遍性，以及可能的决策制定。
