内群体偏爱或黑羊效应?经济博弈中公平规范执行的群体偏见

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00329

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

公平规范执行代指人们自愿损耗利益来惩罚违反公平原则行为的意愿和行为, 被视为人类社会的重要特征及维持合作行为的关键因素。群体认同是指个体对其所属群体身份的知觉及其所付诸于该群体身份上的价值与情绪, 直接影响着群际互动中人们的公平规范执行行为。基于多种资产分配任务, 国内外学者发现公平规范执行中群体偏见存在两种矛盾的表现形式：人们有时更愿意接受内群体成员的不公提议, 表现为内群体偏爱现象(the in-group favoritism, IGF), 有时又更愿意拒绝内群体成员的不公提议, 表现出黑羊效应(the black sheep effect, BSE)。当前, 纯粹偏好理论和规范聚焦理论常被用来解释上述两种相悖的现象。未来研究应侧重从多种视角揭示公平规范执行偏见的边界条件, 比较多种线索操纵所致偏见的差异性, 促进两种理论的融合与补充, 并增强其潜在神经机制的探索。

关键词: 公平规范执行, 群体偏见, 纯粹偏好理论, 规范聚焦理论

Abstract:

Fairness norm enforcement refers to the willingness to incur personal costs to punish violations of fairness norms, which was thought to be a hallmark of human society and play a key role in cooperative interactions. Group identity refers to some knowledge of one’s group membership together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership, which directly influences people’s fairness norm enforcement during inter-group context. Using a variety of asset allocation game, researchers found group bias exerted a critical effect on fairness norm enforcement, while existing in two opposite patterns. Sometimes, people were more likely to accept unfair offer from in-groups, reflecting the pattern of in-group favoritism, but sometimes people were also more likely to punish norm violations from in-group members, revealing the form of the so-called black sheep effect. Currently, norms focused theory and mere preferences theory have usually been used to explain the above contradictory phenomena. Based on this review, future research directions should explore the boundary conditions of this bias, compare the difference of this parochial altruism induced by variable group identity, emphasize the integration of different theories, and enhance the exploration of its underlying neural mechanisms.

Key words: fairness norm enforcement, group bias, mere preferences theory, norms focused theory

中图分类号:

B849: C91

张振, 齐春辉, 王洋, 赵辉, 王小新, 高晓雷. (2020). 内群体偏爱或黑羊效应?经济博弈中公平规范执行的群体偏见. 心理科学进展 , 28(2), 329-339.

ZHANG Zhen, QI Chunhui, WANG Yang, ZHAO Hui, WANG Xiaoxin, GAO Xiaolei. (2020). In-group favoritism or the black sheep effect? Group bias of fairness norm enforcement during economic games. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(2), 329-339.

图/表 1

参考文献 67

[1]	柏子琳, 伍海燕, 方永超, 韩红, 牛盾 . ( 2018). 方言对社会决策及情绪的影响——来自电生理的证据. 心理科学, 41( 5), 1171-1177.
[2]	董军, 付淑英, 卢山, 杨绍峰, 齐春辉 . ( 2017). 自我控制失败的理论模型与神经基础. 心理科学进展, 26( 1), 134-143.
[3]	郭庆科, 徐萍, 吴睿, 胡姗姗 . ( 2016). 群体偏好与年级对小学生利他惩罚行为的影响. 心理发展与教育, 32( 4), 402-408.
[4]	刘长江, 郝芳 . ( 2014). 社会困境问题的理论架构与实验研究. 心理科学进展, 22( 9), 1475-1484.
[5]	罗艺, 封春亮, 古若雷, 吴婷婷, 罗跃嘉 . ( 2013). 社会决策中的公平准则及其神经机制. 心理科学进展, 21( 2), 300-308.
[6]	王芹, 白学军, 袁心颖, 尹吉端 . ( 2018). 经济博弈中不同性别儿童的“以貌取人”对决策行为的影响. 内蒙古师范大学学报 (自然科学汉文版), 47( 6), 522-526.
[7]	王芹, 白学军 . ( 2010). 最后通牒博弈中回应者的情绪唤醒和决策行为研究. 心理科学, 33( 4), 844-847.
[8]	王益文, 张文新 . ( 2002). 3~6岁儿童“心理理论”的发展. 心理发展与教育, 18( 1), 11-15.
[9]	王益文, 张振, 张蔚, 黄亮, 郭丰波, 原胜 . ( 2014). 群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注. 心理学报, 46( 12), 1850-1859.
[10]	温芳芳, 佐斌 . ( 2018). 最简群体范式的操作, 心理机制及新应用. 心理科学, 41( 3), 713-719.
[11]	徐丹妮, 李建升, 陈硕 . ( 2012). 社会分组影响对不公平分配的决策反应. 第十五届全国心理学学术会议论文摘要集.
[12]	严磊, 佐斌, 张艳红, 吴漾, 杨林川 . ( 2018). 交叉分类及其对刻板印象的影响. 心理科学进展, 26( 7), 1272-1283.
[13]	杨邵峰, 齐春辉, 张志超, 张振 . ( 2018). 价值取向对自我他人决策时公平规范执行的影响. 心理与行为研究, 16( 6), 834-840.
[14]	张瀚月, 赵玉芳 . ( 2018). 社会距离对不公平行为回应的影响. 西南大学学报 (自然科学版), 40( 2), 140-145.
[15]	张慧, 马红宇, 徐富明, 刘燕君, 史燕伟 . ( 2017). 最后通牒博弈中的公平偏好: 基于双系统理论的视角. 心理科学进展, 26( 2), 319-330.
[16]	佐斌, 温芳芳, 宋静静, 代涛涛 . ( 2019). 社会分类的特性、维度及心理效应. 心理科学进展, 27( 1), 141-148.
[17]	Abrams, D., Palmer, S. B., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & van de Vyver, J . ( 2014). Evaluations of and reasoning about normative and deviant ingroup and outgroup members: Development of the black sheep effect. Developmental Psychology, 50( 1), 258-270.
[18]	Apps, M., Mckay, R., Azevedo, R. T., Whitehouse, H., & Tsakiris, M . ( 2018). Not on my team: Medial prefrontal cortex responses to ingroup fusion and unfair monetary divisions. Brain & Behavior, 8( 8), e01030.
[19]	Balliet, D., Wu, J., & de Dreu, C. K . ( 2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140( 6), 1556-1581.
[20]	Baumgartner, T., Götte, L., Gügler, R., & Fehr, E . ( 2012). The mentalizing network orchestrates the impact of parochial altruism on social norm enforcement. Human Brain Mapping, 33( 6), 1452-1469.
[21]	Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E . ( 2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442( 7105), 912-915.
[22]	Biella, M., & Sacchi, S . ( 2018). Not fair but acceptable… for us! Group membership influences the trade off between equality and utility in a third party ultimatum game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 117-131.
[23]	Bowles, S . ( 2006). Group competition, reproductive leveling, and the evolution of human altruism. Science, 314( 5805), 1569-1572.
[24]	Brewer, M. B . ( 1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?. Journal of Social Issues, 55( 3), 429-444.
[25]	Brüne, M., Tas, C., Wischniewski, J., Welpinghus, A., Heinisch, C., & Newen, A . ( 2012). Hypnotic ingroup- outgroup suggestion influences economic decision-making in an ultimatum game. Consciousness & Cognition, 21( 2), 939-946.
[26]	Choi, J. K., & Bowles, S . ( 2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318( 5850), 636-640.
[27]	Cikara, M., & van, Bavel, J., J . ( 2014). The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9( 3), 245-274.
[28]	Delton, A. W., & Krasnow, M. M . ( 2017). The psychology of deterrence explains why group membership matters for third-party punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38( 6), 734-743.
[29]	Doosje, B., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Koomen, W . ( 1999). Perceived group variability in intergroup relations: The distinctive role of social identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 10( 1), 41-74.
[30]	Dorrough, A. R., & Glöckner, A . ( 2016). Multinational investigation of cross-societal cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113( 39), 10836-10841.
[31]	Ellemers, N., & Jetten, J . ( 2013). The many ways to be marginal in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17( 1), 3-21.
[32]	Everett, J. A., Faber, N. S., & Crockett, M . ( 2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 15.
[33]	Everett, J. A., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & de Dreu, C. K . ( 2015). Economic games and social neuroscience methods can help elucidate the psychology of parochial altruism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 861.
[34]	Fatfouta, R., Meshi, D., Merkl, A., & Heekeren, H. R . ( 2017). Accepting unfairness by a significant other is associated with reduced connectivity between medial prefrontal and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. Social Neuroscience, 13( 1), 61-73.
[35]	Feng, C., Luo, Y. J., & Krueger, F . ( 2015). Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 36( 2), 591-602.
[36]	Friston, K., Schwartenbeck, P., FitzGerald, T., Moutoussis, M., Behrens, T., & Dolan, R. J . ( 2014). The anatomy of choice: Dopamine and decision-making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B. Biological Sciences, 369( 1655), 20130481.
[37]	Goette, L., Huffman, D., & Meier, S . ( 2006). The impact of group membership on cooperation and norm enforcement: Evidence using random assignment to real social groups. American Economic Review, 96( 2), 212-216.
[38]	Güth, W., & Kocher, M. G . ( 2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 396-409.
[39]	Halevy, N., & Katz, J. J . ( 2013). Conflict templates: Thinking through interdependence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22( 3), 217-224.
[40]	Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., ... Ziker, J . ( 2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312( 5781), 1767-1770.
[41]	Hewig, J., Kretschmer, N., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Coles, M. G., Holroyd, C. B., & Miltner, W. H . ( 2011). Why humans deviate from rational choice. Psychophysiology, 48( 4), 507-514.
[42]	Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H . ( 2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53( 1), 575-604.
[43]	Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., & Brewer, M. B . ( 2017). Social identity: The role of self in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20( 5), 570-581.
[44]	Huettel, S. A., & Kranton, R. E . ( 2012). Identity economics and the brain: Uncovering the mechanisms of social conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367( 1589), 680-691.
[45]	Jordan, J. J., McAuliffe, K., & Warneken, F . ( 2014). Development of in-group favoritism in children’s third- party punishment of selfishness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111( 35), 12710-12715.
[46]	Kubota, J. T., Li, J., Bar-David, E., Banaji, M. R., & Phelps, E. A . ( 2013). The price of racial bias: Intergroup negotiations in the ultimatum game. Psychological Science, 24( 12), 2498-2504.
[47]	Lane, T . ( 2016). Discrimination in the laboratory: A meta- analysis of economics experiments. European Economic Review, 90, 375-402.
[48]	McAuliffe, K., & Dunham, Y . ( 2016). Group bias in cooperative norm enforcement. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 371( 1686), 20150073.
[49]	McAuliffe, K., & Dunham, Y . ( 2017). Fairness overrides group bias in children’s second-party punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146( 4), 485-494.
[50]	McLeish, K. N., & Oxoby, R. J . ( 2011). Social interactions and the salience of social identity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32( 1), 172-178.
[51]	Mendoza, S. A., Lane, S. P., & Amodio, D. M . ( 2014). For members only: Ingroup punishment of fairness norm violations in the ultimatum game. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5( 6), 662-670.
[52]	Mills, B. M., Tainsky, S., Green, B. C., & Leopkey, B . ( 2017). The ultimatum game in the college football rivalry context. Journal of Sport Management, 32( 1), 11-23.
[53]	Morese, R., Rabellino, D., Sambataro, F., Perussia, F., Valentini, M. C., Bara, B. G., & Bosco, F. M . ( 2016). Group membership modulates the neural circuitry underlying third party punishment. PloS One, 11( 11), e0166357.
[54]	Otten, S . ( 2016). The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 85-89.
[55]	Reimers, L., Büchel, C., & Diekhof, E. K . ( 2017). Neural substrates of male parochial altruism are modulated by testosterone and behavioral strategy. NeuroImage, 156, 265-276.
[56]	Schiller, B., Baumgartner, T., & Knoch, D . ( 2014). Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35( 3), 169-175.
[57]	Shinada, M., Yamagishi, T., & Ohmura, Y . ( 2004). False friends are worse than bitter enemies: “Altruistic” punishment of in-group members. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25( 6), 379-393.
[58]	Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C . ( 1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33( 47), 94-109.
[59]	Valenzuela, A., & Srivastava, J . ( 2012). Role of information asymmetry and situational salience in reducing intergroup bias: The case of ultimatum games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38( 12), 1671-1683.
[60]	Wang, G., Li, J., Li, Z., Wei, M., & Li, S . ( 2016). Medial frontal negativity reflects advantageous inequality aversion of proposers in the ultimatum game: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1639, 38-46.
[61]	Wang, L., Zheng, J., Meng, L., Lu, Q., & Ma, Q . ( 2016). Ingroup favoritism or the black sheep effect: Perceived intentions modulate subjective responses to aggressive interactions. Neuroscience Research, 108, 46-54.
[62]	Wang, Y., Zhang, Z., Bai, L., Lin, C., Osinsky, R., & Hewig, J . ( 2017). Ingroup/outgroup membership modulates fairness consideration: Neural signatures from ERPs and EEG oscillations. Scientific Reports, 7, 39827.
[63]	Weisman, K., Johnson, M. V., & Shutts, K . ( 2015). Young children's automatic encoding of social categories. Developmental Science, 18( 6), 1036-1043.
[64]	Wu, Y., Hu, J., van Dijk, E., Leliveld, M. C., & Zhou, X . ( 2012). Brain activity in fairness consideration during asset distribution: Does the initial ownership play a role?. PloS One, 7( 6), e39627.
[65]	Wu, Z., & Gao, X . ( 2018). Preschoolers’ group bias in punishing selfishness in the Ultimatum Game. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 280-292.
[66]	Yudkin, D. A., Rothmund, T., Twardawski, M., Thalla, N., & van Bavel, J. J . ( 2016). Reflexive intergroup bias in third-party punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145( 11), 1448-1459.
[67]	Zheng, Y., Yang, Z., Jin, C., Qi, Y., & Liu, X . ( 2017). The influence of emotion on fairness-related decision making: A critical review of theories and evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1592.