• 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

道德至高无上:道德、公平和群体认同在最后通牒范式中的作用。

Morality is Supreme: The Roles of Morality, Fairness and Group Identity in the Ultimatum Paradigm.

作者信息

Liu Wenxuan, Wang Hua, Zhu Huanjie, Zhu Xiaoyan, He Xianyou, Zhang Wei

机构信息

Key Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences (South China Normal University), Ministry of Education, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022 Aug 9;15:2049-2065. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S370155. eCollection 2022.

DOI:10.2147/PRBM.S370155
PMID:35971385
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9375565/
Abstract

PURPOSE

A large number of decision-making need to be carried out in the context of social interactions. Previous studies have demonstrated the impact of fairness perception, moral judgment, and group identity on decision-making. However, there is no clear conclusion as to how the effect of these factors existing simultaneously on decision-making and the extent to which these factors play a role.

METHODS

We manipulated the moral quality of proposers to explore the issue of whether morality has an impact on fairness perception and manipulated the moral quality of proposer and responder simultaneously forming group identity to explore whether group identity has an impact on the effect of morality on fairness in decision-making.

RESULTS

Participants displayed a higher acceptance rates for positive moral proposers than the negative moral proposers regardless of the fairness of the allocation of money (Experiment 1) and group identity (Experiment 2). However, the effect of group identity was working, though it partially supported the In-group Preference (Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 combined analysis). We hold that the group identity was influenced by morality.

CONCLUSION

When making an economic decision, morality has the supreme influence on individuals.

摘要

目的

大量决策需要在社会互动的背景下进行。先前的研究已经证明了公平感知、道德判断和群体认同对决策的影响。然而,对于这些因素同时存在对决策的影响以及这些因素发挥作用的程度,尚无明确结论。

方法

我们操纵提议者的道德品质以探究道德是否对公平感知有影响,并同时操纵提议者和响应者的道德品质以形成群体认同,从而探究群体认同是否对决策中道德对公平的影响产生作用。

结果

无论金钱分配的公平性(实验1)和群体认同(实验2)如何,参与者对积极道德提议者的接受率都高于消极道德提议者。然而,群体认同的作用是存在的,尽管它部分支持了内群体偏好(实验1和实验2的综合分析)。我们认为群体认同受到道德的影响。

结论

在做出经济决策时,道德对个体具有至高无上的影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/4a4ad214e368/PRBM-15-2049-g0005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/a49d131530fa/PRBM-15-2049-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/033115c70006/PRBM-15-2049-g0002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/865f46b53804/PRBM-15-2049-g0003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/9a6624c6ce19/PRBM-15-2049-g0004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/4a4ad214e368/PRBM-15-2049-g0005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/a49d131530fa/PRBM-15-2049-g0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/033115c70006/PRBM-15-2049-g0002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/865f46b53804/PRBM-15-2049-g0003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/9a6624c6ce19/PRBM-15-2049-g0004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b09/9375565/4a4ad214e368/PRBM-15-2049-g0005.jpg

相似文献

1
Morality is Supreme: The Roles of Morality, Fairness and Group Identity in the Ultimatum Paradigm.道德至高无上:道德、公平和群体认同在最后通牒范式中的作用。
Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022 Aug 9;15:2049-2065. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S370155. eCollection 2022.
2
Proposer's moral identity modulates fairness processing in the ultimatum game: Evidence from behavior and brain potentials.提案人的道德认同调节最后通牒博弈中的公平处理:来自行为和脑电的证据。
Int J Psychophysiol. 2024 Jul;201:112360. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2024.112360. Epub 2024 May 10.
3
You are excusable! Neural correlates of economic neediness on empathic concern and fairness perception.情有可原!经济贫困在共情关注和公平感知上的神经关联。
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2022 Feb;22(1):99-111. doi: 10.3758/s13415-021-00934-5. Epub 2021 Aug 9.
4
Evolution of fairness in the not quite ultimatum game.近似最后通牒博弈中公平性的演变
Sci Rep. 2014 May 29;4:5104. doi: 10.1038/srep05104.
5
Is it all about the self? The effect of self-control depletion on ultimatum game proposers.这都是关于自我的吗?自我控制消耗对最后通牒游戏提议者的影响。
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Jun 13;7:240. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00240. eCollection 2013.
6
The Influence of Counterfactual Comparison on Fairness in Gain-Loss Contexts.反事实比较对得失情境中公平性的影响。
Front Psychol. 2017 May 9;8:683. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00683. eCollection 2017.
7
The interplay between the proposer's role model and moral behavior modulates proposal processing in the Ultimatum Game: An ERP study.提议者的角色模型与道德行为之间的相互作用调节了最后通牒博弈中的提议处理:一项 ERP 研究。
Int J Psychophysiol. 2024 Oct;204:112424. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2024.112424. Epub 2024 Aug 22.
8
Outcomes versus intentions in fairness-related decision making: School-aged children's decisions are just like those of adults.公平决策中的结果与意图:学龄儿童的决策与成年人的决策一样。
J Exp Child Psychol. 2020 Jan;189:104704. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104704. Epub 2019 Oct 18.
9
Shall I Show My Emotions? The Effects of Facial Expressions in the Ultimatum Game.我应该表露自己的情绪吗?最后通牒博弈中面部表情的影响。
Behav Sci (Basel). 2021 Dec 30;12(1):8. doi: 10.3390/bs12010008.
10
Me first: Neural representations of fairness during three-party interactions.我先来:三方互动中公平的神经表示。
Neuropsychologia. 2020 Oct;147:107576. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107576. Epub 2020 Aug 3.

引用本文的文献

1
The consequences of AI training on human decision-making.人工智能训练对人类决策的影响。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Aug 13;121(33):e2408731121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2408731121. Epub 2024 Aug 6.

本文引用的文献

1
Neurocomputational mechanisms at play when weighing concerns for extrinsic rewards, moral values, and social image.当权衡外在奖励、道德价值观和社会形象的担忧时,神经计算机制在起作用。
PLoS Biol. 2019 Jun 6;17(6):e3000283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000283. eCollection 2019 Jun.
2
The stereotype of professional roles influences neural responses to moral transgressions: ERP evidence.职业角色刻板印象影响道德违规的神经反应:ERP 证据。
Biol Psychol. 2019 Jul;145:55-61. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.04.007. Epub 2019 Apr 18.
3
The Influence of Emotion on Fairness-Related Decision Making: A Critical Review of Theories and Evidence.
情绪对公平相关决策的影响:理论与证据的批判性综述
Front Psychol. 2017 Sep 19;8:1592. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01592. eCollection 2017.
4
Preschoolers' group bias in punishing selfishness in the Ultimatum Game.幼儿在最后通牒博弈中惩罚自私行为时的群体偏见。
J Exp Child Psychol. 2018 Feb;166:280-292. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.015. Epub 2017 Sep 28.
5
Moral transgressions corrupt neural representations of value.道德违规会破坏价值的神经表征。
Nat Neurosci. 2017 Jun;20(6):879-885. doi: 10.1038/nn.4557. Epub 2017 May 1.
6
Fairness overrides group bias in children's second-party punishment.在儿童的第二方惩罚中,公平超越了群体偏见。
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2017 Apr;146(4):485-494. doi: 10.1037/xge0000244.
7
Ingroup/outgroup membership modulates fairness consideration: neural signatures from ERPs and EEG oscillations.群体/群体外成员身份调节公平性考虑:来自 ERP 和 EEG 振荡的神经特征。
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 4;7:39827. doi: 10.1038/srep39827.
8
Medial frontal negativity reflects advantageous inequality aversion of proposers in the ultimatum game: An ERP study.内侧前额叶负波反映了最后通牒博弈中提议者对有利不平等的厌恶:一项ERP研究。
Brain Res. 2016 May 15;1639:38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2016.02.040. Epub 2016 Feb 27.
9
Ingroup favoritism or the black sheep effect: Perceived intentions modulate subjective responses to aggressive interactions.内群体偏袒或害群之马效应:感知意图调节对攻击性互动的主观反应。
Neurosci Res. 2016 Jul;108:46-54. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2016.01.011. Epub 2016 Feb 3.
10
Group bias in cooperative norm enforcement.合作规范执行中的群体偏见。
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jan 19;371(1686):20150073. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0073.