• 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

当人们受到公平对待时,自利型不诚实在激励合作方面部分替代了公平。

Self-Serving Dishonesty Partially Substitutes Fairness in Motivating Cooperation When People Are Treated Fairly.

机构信息

MOE Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality, Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China.

Computing Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.

出版信息

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 23;19(10):6326. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19106326.

DOI:10.3390/ijerph19106326
PMID:35627863
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9140579/
Abstract

Fairness is a key expectation in social interactions. Its violation leads to adverse reactions, including non-cooperation and dishonesty. The present study aimed to examine how (1) fair (unfair) treatment may drive cooperation (defection) and honesty (self-serving dishonesty), (2) dishonesty primes further moral disengagement and reduced cooperation, and (3) dishonesty weakens (substitutes) the effect of fairness on cooperation. The prisoner's dilemma (Experiment 1 and 2) and die-rolling task (Experiment 2) were employed for capturing cooperation and dishonest behaviors, respectively. To manipulate perceived unfairness, participants were randomly assigned to play the prisoner's dilemma game, where players either choose more cooperation (fair condition) or defection (unfair condition). Results of Experiment 1 ( = 102) suggested that participants perceive higher unfairness and behave less cooperatively when the other player primarily chooses defection. Results of Exp. 2 ( = 240) (a) confirmed Exp. 1 results, (b) showed that players in the unfair condition also show more self-serving dishonest behavior, and (c) that dishonest behavior weakens the effect of fairness on cooperation. Together, these results extended previous work by highlighting the self-serving lies when the opponent is fair trigger higher cooperation, presumably as a means to alleviate self-reflective moral emotions or restore justice.

摘要

公平是社会互动中的一个关键期望。其违反会导致负面反应,包括不合作和不诚实。本研究旨在探讨(1)公平(不公平)待遇如何驱动合作(背叛)和诚实(利己型不诚实),(2)不诚实如何进一步引发道德脱离和合作减少,以及(3)不诚实如何削弱(替代)公平对合作的影响。囚徒困境(实验 1 和 2)和掷骰子任务(实验 2)分别用于捕捉合作和不诚实行为。为了操纵感知到的不公平,参与者被随机分配到囚徒困境游戏中,其中玩家要么选择更多的合作(公平条件),要么选择背叛(不公平条件)。实验 1(n=102)的结果表明,当另一个玩家主要选择背叛时,参与者会感到更高的不公平,并表现出更少的合作行为。实验 2(n=240)的结果(a)证实了实验 1 的结果,(b)表明不公平条件下的玩家也表现出更多的利己型不诚实行为,以及(c)不诚实行为削弱了公平对合作的影响。总之,这些结果通过强调当对手公平时利己型谎言会引发更高的合作,可能是为了减轻自我反省的道德情感或恢复公正,扩展了先前的工作。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/61f88e2b6bdf/ijerph-19-06326-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/6561e5a8390a/ijerph-19-06326-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/a1f1dc2dd532/ijerph-19-06326-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/d0e004a9b7bb/ijerph-19-06326-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/61f88e2b6bdf/ijerph-19-06326-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/6561e5a8390a/ijerph-19-06326-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/a1f1dc2dd532/ijerph-19-06326-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/d0e004a9b7bb/ijerph-19-06326-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3b68/9140579/61f88e2b6bdf/ijerph-19-06326-g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Self-Serving Dishonesty Partially Substitutes Fairness in Motivating Cooperation When People Are Treated Fairly.当人们受到公平对待时,自利型不诚实在激励合作方面部分替代了公平。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 23;19(10):6326. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19106326.
2
Cooperative Behavior in the Ultimatum Game and Prisoner's Dilemma Depends on Players' Contributions.最后通牒博弈和囚徒困境中的合作行为取决于参与者的贡献。
Front Psychol. 2017 Jun 16;8:1017. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01017. eCollection 2017.
3
A simple rule of direct reciprocity leads to the stable coexistence of cooperation and defection in the Prisoner's Dilemma game.在囚徒困境博弈中,一条简单的直接互惠规则导致了合作与背叛的稳定共存。
J Theor Biol. 2017 May 7;420:12-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.02.036. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
4
Moral reasoning and moral competence as predictors of cooperative behavior in a social dilemma.道德推理和道德能力是社会困境中合作行为的预测指标。
Sci Rep. 2023 Mar 6;13(1):3724. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-30314-7.
5
MDMA Increases Cooperation and Recruitment of Social Brain Areas When Playing Trustworthy Players in an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.MDMA 增加了在迭代囚徒困境中与可信赖玩家一起玩时的合作和社交脑区的招募。
J Neurosci. 2019 Jan 9;39(2):307-320. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1276-18.2018. Epub 2018 Nov 19.
6
Valuing rewards to others in a prisoner's dilemma game.在囚徒困境博弈中重视给予他人的奖励。
Behav Processes. 2013 Oct;99:145-9. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.07.008. Epub 2013 Jul 19.
7
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.
8
Contingencies of reinforcement in a five-person prisoner's dilemma.五人囚徒困境中的强化偶然性
J Exp Anal Behav. 2004 Sep;82(2):161-76. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2004.82-161.
9
Expectation and cooperation in prisoner's dilemmas: The moderating role of game riskiness.囚徒困境中的期望与合作:博弈风险的调节作用。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Apr;23(2):353-60. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0911-7.
10
Neural mechanisms of cooperation and fairness in iterative prisoner's dilemma.迭代囚徒困境中的合作与公平的神经机制。
Behav Brain Res. 2025 Jan 5;476:115272. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2024.115272. Epub 2024 Sep 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Perceived social fairness and trust in government serially mediate the effect of governance quality on subjective well-being.民众感知的社会公平和对政府的信任,在治理质量对主观幸福感的影响中起连续中介作用。
Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 10;14(1):15905. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67124-4.

本文引用的文献

1
The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior.关于谎言的真相:不诚实行为的元分析。
Psychol Bull. 2019 Jan;145(1):1-44. doi: 10.1037/bul0000174.
2
Fairness informs social decision making in infancy.公平性影响婴儿期的社会决策。
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 14;13(2):e0192848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192848. eCollection 2018.
3
Social Decision Making in Adolescents and Young Adults: Evidence From the Ultimatum Game and Cognitive Biases.青少年和青年的社会决策:来自最后通牒博弈和认知偏差的证据。
Psychol Rep. 2019 Feb;122(1):135-154. doi: 10.1177/0033294118755673. Epub 2018 Feb 5.
4
Economic inequality increases risk taking.经济不平等会增加冒险行为。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 May 2;114(18):4643-4648. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1616453114. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
5
Young Children's Development of Fairness Preference.幼儿公平偏好的发展
Front Psychol. 2016 Aug 30;7:1274. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01274. eCollection 2016.
6
Extortion can outperform generosity in the iterated prisoner's dilemma.在重复囚徒困境中,敲诈策略可能比慷慨策略表现得更好。
Nat Commun. 2016 Apr 12;7:11125. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11125.
7
Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies.内在诚实与社会中违规行为的普遍性。
Nature. 2016 Mar 24;531(7595):496-9. doi: 10.1038/nature17160. Epub 2016 Mar 9.
8
Fairness norms and theory of mind in an ultimatum game: judgments, offers, and decisions in school-aged children.最后通牒博弈中的公平规范与心理理论:学龄儿童的判断、提议与决策
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 13;9(8):e105024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105024. eCollection 2014.
9
There is no joy like malicious joy: schadenfreude in young children.没有哪种快乐能像恶意的快乐那般:幼儿的幸灾乐祸。
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 2;9(7):e100233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100233. eCollection 2014.
10
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.使用 G*Power 3.1 进行统计功效分析:相关和回归分析的检验。
Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.