公平还是效率? 完成动机对亲社会行为偏好的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.2202

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在亲社会行为中, 帮助者通常会面临公平与效率的权衡。以往研究发现, 当公平与效率无法兼顾, 人们往往忽视对少数人的帮助效率, 倾向于将捐赠资源平均分配给更多人。本文通过6个实验, 发现完成动机有助于提高个体对帮助效率的关注。具体而言, 当求助不涉及生存需求时, 在所有受助者的困难均不能被完全解决的情境中, 帮助者更倾向公平; 而在能完全解决少数受助者所有困难的情境中, 帮助者对公平的倾向降低, 对效率的倾向提高, 这一选择偏好的变化受个体完成动机中介。此外, 个体完成动机在不涉及公平因素的更广泛的捐助情境中也能有效促进个体的捐赠金额。这一发现推动了有效利他理论的进一步发展, 并为有效利他的实现提供了潜在的干预措施。

关键词: 捐赠行为, 公平, 效率, 完成动机

Abstract:

In prosocial behavior, helpers often face a trade-off between equity and efficiency due to limited resources. Previous research has shown that individuals are prone to prioritize equitable resource distribution when faced with incompatibility between fairness and efficiency. This tendency indicates that helpers frequently overlook the efficiency of aid provided to a minority in favor of equal assistance to a large group. This study hypothesizes that when the efficiency of assisting a few individuals reaches 100%, helpers may be prompted by completion motivation, resulting in a change in their decision-making regarding equity and efficiency.
We conducted six experiments to validate our hypothesis. Experiment 1 (N = 194) examined individual prosocial decision-making preferences in situations where assistance could not be fully provided (non-completable situations; inefficient help for all) as opposed to situations where complete assistance could be provided for a few beneficiaries (completable situations; efficient help for minority). Experiment 2 (N = 115) explored how different levels of efficiency in options influence individual helping preferences in non-completable situations, thus controlling for potential confounding effects of preference for high efficiency. Based on the results of Experiments 1 and 2, Experiment 3 (N = 164) further explored the mechanisms underlying the differences in helping preferences in these scenarios, thereby highlighting the mediating role of relative completion motivation. To investigate the contextual boundaries of completion motivation in shaping prosocial behavior preferences, Experiment 4 (N = 168) employed a refined experimental design that categorized helping contexts into survival-related and development-related situations. Building upon these findings, Experiment 5 (N = 133) examined whether completion motivation could enhance donation behaviors in broader prosocial contexts not constrained by fairness-efficiency trade-offs. Afterward, Experiment 6 (N = 123) was conducted to eliminate potential confounding effects of psychological ownership, thus strengthening the robustness of the observed relationship between completion motivation and prosocial behavior.
The six experiments revealed that when the difficulties of all of the beneficiaries could not be completely resolved, participants displayed a strong preference for fairness. Conversely, when the difficulties of a few beneficiaries could be fully addressed, they showed a decreased inclination toward fairness and an increased inclination toward efficiency (Experiment 1). This notable shift in decision-making was significantly mediated by individual completion motivation (Experiment 3), rather than by a general preference for higher-efficiency options (Experiment 2). Specifically, in non-completable situations, a high motivation for fairness drove individuals to choose fair options. Conversely, in completable situations, an increased motivation for completion prompted more individuals to prefer efficiency options. Moreover, the stimulating effect of completion motivation on the preference for efficiency was observed solely in development-related helping contexts while proving ineffective in survival-related situations (Experiment 4). In addition, individual completion motivation had a significant positive influence on donation amounts in broader contexts where fairness considerations were absent (Experiment 5), after controlling for potential confounding effects of psychological ownership (Experiment 6).
This study significantly enhances our understanding of the relationship between equity and efficiency in prosocial behavior by highlighting the critical role of completion motivation. The findings suggest that helpers are apt to prioritize fairness when no one can benefit completely; however, they shift toward efficiency when some individuals can be fully assisted. These insights have practical implications for designing interventions aimed at promoting effective altruism, underscoring the importance of helping efficiency while considering the psychological motivations that influence individuals’ prosocial decisions.

Key words: donation behavior, fairness, efficiency, completion motivation

中图分类号:

B849: C91

李维维, 欧敏华, 康志强, 文雨婷, 林雪晴. (2025). 公平还是效率? 完成动机对亲社会行为偏好的影响. 心理学报, 57(12), 2202-2219.

LI Weiwei, OU Minhua, KANG Zhiqiang, WEN Yuting, LIN Xueqing. (2025). Equity or efficiency? Impact of completion motivation on prosocial behavior preferences. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(12), 2202-2219.

图/表 6

图1 帮助情境(可否完成)与帮助效率水平对帮助偏好的影响: (A)帮助情境(可否完成)对个体帮助偏好的影响(研究1); (B) 帮助效率水平在不可完成情境中对个体帮助偏好的影响(研究2)。

图2 帮助情境(可否完成)对帮助偏好及动机水平的影响: (A)帮助情境(可否完成)对个体帮助偏好的影响; (B) 帮助情境(可否完成)对个体公平动机及完成动机的影响。** p < 0.01

图3 帮助情境(可否完成)影响个体帮助偏好的中介机制

注: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

图4 帮助情境(可否完成)与求助需求类型对帮助偏好的影响: (A)生存需求情境下, 帮助可完成性对个体帮助偏好的影响; (B) 帮助情境(可否完成)与求助需求类型(生存或发展)对个体帮助偏好的交互影响。

图5 进度提醒对捐赠金额及完成动机的影响: (A)进度提醒对个体捐赠金额的影响; (B)进度提醒对个体完成动机与责任感的影响。* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001

图6 进度提醒(有或无)影响个体捐赠金额的中介机制

注: *** p < 0.001

参考文献 74

[1]	Aknin L. B., Mayraz G., & Helliwell J. F. (2016). The emotional consequences of donation opportunities. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(2), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1163409 doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1163409 URL
[2]	Bergh R., & Reinstein D. (2021). Empathic and numerate giving: The joint effects of victim images and charity evaluations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(3), 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619893968 doi: 10.1177/1948550619893968 URL
[3]	Berman J. Z., Barasch A., Levine E. E., & Small D. A. (2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29(5), 834-844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617747648 doi: 10.1177/0956797617747648 URL pmid: 29659341
[4]	Cai R., Wang Y. C., & Zhang T. (2025). Does metaverse stimulate tourism prosocial behavior? A mindfulness-driven model with a psychological ownership perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 37(4), 1065-1096. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-08-2023-1130 doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2023-1130 URL
[5]	Caviola L., Schubert S., & Greene J. D. (2021). The psychology of (in) effective altruism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(7), 596-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.015 doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.015 URL pmid: 33962844
[6]	Chen Y. G., Dai R. Y., Yao J. R., & Li Y. X. (2019). Donate time or money? The determinants of donation intention in online crowdfunding. Sustainability, 11(16), 4269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164269 doi: 10.3390/su11164269 URL
[7]	Colby H., DeWitt J., & Chapman G. B. (2015). Grouping promotes equality: The effect of recipient grouping on allocation of limited medical resources. Psychological Science, 26(7), 1084-1089. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615583978 doi: 10.1177/0956797615583978 URL pmid: 26078294
[8]	Conrad F. G., Couper M. P., Tourangeau R., & Peytchev A. (2010). The impact of progress indicators on task completion. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 417-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.03.001 URL pmid: 20676386
[9]	Converse B. A., Tsang S., & Hennecke M. (2023). The value of mere completion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(11), 3021-3036. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001434 doi: 10.1037/xge0001434 URL
[10]	Crowne D. P., & Marlowe D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358 doi: 10.1037/h0047358 URL
[11]	Cryder C. E., Loewenstein G., & Seltman H. (2013). Goal gradient in helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1078-1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.003 URL
[12]	Dai H. C., & Zhang D. J. (2019). Prosocial goal pursuit in crowdfunding: Evidence from Kickstarter. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(3), 498-517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718821697 doi: 10.1177/0022243718821697 URL
[13]	Darley J. M., & Batson C. D. (1973). "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034449 doi: 10.1037/h0034449 URL
[14]	Daunizeau J., Sheskin M., & Baumard N. (2016). Switching away from utilitarianism: The limited role of utility calculations in moral judgment. Plos One, 11(8), e0160084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160084 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160084 URL
[15]	Dewitte S., & Schouwenburg H. C. (2002). Procrastination, temptations, and incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators and the punctual. European Journal of Personality, 16(6), 469-489. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.461 doi: 10.1002/per.461 URL
[16]	Dovidio J. F., Piliavin J. A., Schroeder D. A., & Penner L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[17]	Edwards A. R., Thorpe R., Masser B. M., & Barlow F. K. (2024). “Yeah, this is my donation”: An application of psychological ownership in blood donation. Journal of Health Psychology, 30(5), 1028-1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053241254581 doi: 10.1177/13591053241254581 URL
[18]	Fahrenwaldt A., Olsen J., Rahal R. M., & Fiedler S. (2025). Intuitive deontology? A systematic review and multivariate, multilevel meta-analysis of experimental studies on the psychological drivers of moral judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 151(4), 428-454. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000472 doi: 10.1037/bul0000472 URL
[19]	Fisher M., & Mormann M. (2022). The off by 100% bias: The effects of percentage changes greater than 100% on magnitude judgments and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(4), 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac006 doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucac006 URL
[20]	Frey B. S., Savage D. A. & Torgler B. (2010). Interaction of natural survival instincts and internalized social norms exploring the Titanic and Lusitania disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(11), 4862-4865. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911303107
[21]	Gainsburg I., Pauer S., Abboub N., Aloyo E. T., Mourrat J. C., & Cristia A. (2023). How effective altruism can help psychologists maximize their impact. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221079596 doi: 10.1177/17456916221079596 URL
[22]	Gawronski B., Armstrong J., Conway P., Friesdorf R., & Hütter M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086 doi: 10.1037/pspa0000086 URL pmid: 28816493
[23]	Ghoshal S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.16132558
[24]	Gillon R. (1985). Philosophical medical ethic rights. British Medical Journal, 290(6485), 1890-1891. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.290.6485.1890 doi: 10.1136/bmj.290.6485.1890 URL
[25]	Gino F., & Pierce L. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 142-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.003 URL
[26]	Gordon-Hecker T., Schneider I. K., Shalvi S., & Bereby- Meyer Y. (2020). Leaving with something: When do people experience an equity-efficiency conflict? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(2), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2205 doi: 10.1002/bdm.v34.2 URL
[27]	Gu Y. J., Botti S., & Faro D. (2018). Seeking and avoiding choice closure to enhance outcome satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 792-809. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy025 doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucy025 URL
[28]	Haley K. J., & Fessler D. M. (2005). Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 245-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002 URL
[29]	Huang L., Lei W., Xu F., Liu H., Yu L., Shi F., & Wang L. (2020). Maxims nudge equitable or efficient choices in a trade-off game. Plos One, 15(6), e0235443. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235443 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235443 URL
[30]	Hsu M., Anen C., & Quartz S. R. (2008). The right and the good: Distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science, 320(5879), 1092-1095. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153651 doi: 10.1126/science.1153651 URL pmid: 18467558
[31]	Jaeger B., & Vugt M. V. (2022). Psychological barriers to effective altruism: An evolutionary perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 130-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.008 doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.008 URL
[32]	Jensen J. D., King A. J., & Carcioppolo N. (2013). Driving toward a goal and the goal-gradient hypothesis: The impact of goal proximity on compliance rate, donation size, and fatigue. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(9), 1881-1895. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12152 doi: 10.1111/jasp.2013.43.issue-9 URL
[33]	Jhang J. H., & Lynch J. G. (2015). Pardon the interruption: Goal proximity, perceived spare time, and impatience. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(5), 1267-1283. https://doi.org/10.1086/679308 doi: 10.1086/679308 URL
[34]	Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., & Thaler R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59(4), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1086/296367
[35]	Karlan D., & Wood D. H. (2017). The effect of effectiveness: Donor response to aid effectiveness in a direct mail fundraising experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2016.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.05.005 URL
[36]	Karni E., Salmon T., & Sopher B. (2007). Individual sense of fairness: An experimental study. Experimental Economics, 11(2), 174-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9165-1 doi: 10.1007/s10683-007-9165-1 URL
[37]	Kivetz R., Urminsky O., & Zheng Y. (2006). The goal- gradient hypothesis resurrected: Purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.39 doi: 10.1509/jmkr.43.1.39 URL
[38]	Kouchaki M., Smith-Crowe K., Brief A. P., & Sousa C. (2013). Seeing green: Mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.12.002 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.12.002 URL
[39]	Kreps T. A., & Monin B. (2011). “Doing well by doing good”? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 99-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.008 doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.008 URL
[40]	Kupor D. M., Reich T., & Shiv B. (2014). Can't finish what you started? The effect of climactic interruption on behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.006 URL
[41]	Kuppuswamy V., & Bayus B. L. (2017). Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 72-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.004 URL
[42]	Li M., & Chapman G. B. (2009). “100% of anything looks good”: The appeal of one hundred percent. Psychological Science, 16(1), 156-162. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.156
[43]	Li M., & Chapman G. B. (2013). A big fish or a small pond? Framing effects in percentages. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 190-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.003 URL
[44]	Li Y., & Pandelaere M. (2024). The purity premium effect: The asymmetrical value change around pure products. Psychology Marketing, 41(2), 328-343. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21937 doi: 10.1002/mar.v41.2 URL
[45]	Liang B. C. (2021). The goal is attainable: The effects of goal gradient and sub-goals on escalation of commitment in a new product evaluation. Innovation & Management Review, 18(3), 258-275. https://doi.org/10.1108/Inmr-05-2020-0064
[46]	Lin J., Xu Y. B., Yang Y., Zhang Q. P., & Kou Y. (2024). Network analysis and core dimensions of adolescent prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(9), 1252-1265. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01252 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01252 URL
	[林靓, 徐博雅, 杨莹, 张庆鹏, 寇彧. (2024). 青少年亲社会行为的网络分析及核心维度. 心理学报, 56(9), 1252-1265. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01252 ] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01252 URL
[47]	MacAskill W. (2015). Doing good better: Effective altruism and a radical new way to make a difference. Guardian Faber Publishing.
[48]	Markowitz E. M., Slovic P., Västfjäll D., & Hodges S. D. (2023). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1017/s193029750000526x doi: 10.1017/S193029750000526X URL
[49]	Merchant A., Ford J. B., & Sargeant A. (2010). Charitable organizations' storytelling influence on donors' emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 754-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.013 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.013 URL
[50]	Metzger L. A., & Günther I. (2019). Is it what you say or how you say it? The impact of aid effectiveness information and its framing on donation behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 83, 101461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101461 doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2019.101461 URL
[51]	Morvinski C. (2022). The effect of unavailable donation opportunities on donation choice. Marketing Letters, 33(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09613-4 doi: 10.1007/s11002-021-09613-4 URL
[52]	Moskowitz G. B. (2002). Preconscious effects of temporary goals on attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(4), 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00001-x doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00001-X URL
[53]	Penner L. A., Dovidio J. F., Piliavin J. A., & Schroeder D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141 URL pmid: 15709940
[54]	Persson E., & Tinghög G. (2023). The effect of fast and slow decision-making on equity-efficiency tradeoffs and moral repugnance. Royal Society Open Science, 10(9), 230558. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230558 doi: 10.1098/rsos.230558 URL
[55]	Pierce J. L., Kostova T., & Dirks K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84-107. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84 doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84 URL
[56]	Roberts A. R., Imas A., & Fishbach A. (2024). Can’t wait to pay: The desire for goal closure increases impatience for costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(6), 1019-1035. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000367 doi: 10.1037/pspa0000367 URL
[57]	Ruan B. W., Polman E., & Tanner R. J. (2024). The one-away effect: The pursuit of mere completion. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(5), 945-961. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad030 doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucad030 URL
[58]	Schroeder, D. A., & Graziano W. G. (Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.001.0001
[59]	Schweitzer M. E., Ordóñez L., & Douma B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 422-432. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159591 doi: 10.2307/20159591 URL
[60]	Sharps D. L., & Schroeder J. (2019). The preference for distributed helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 954-977. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000179 doi: 10.1037/pspi0000179 URL pmid: 30883144
[61]	Shi R., Qi W. G., Ding Y., Liu C., & Shen W. (2020). Under what circumstances is helping an impulse? Emergency and prosocial traits affect intuitive prosocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, 109828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109828 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109828 URL
[62]	Shine A., Simonyan Y., & Johnson S. (2022, November). Consumer choices around corporate giving: Should companies prioritise aid to the most effective causes? Paper presented at Society of Judgement and Decision Making, San Diego, CA.
[63]	Tobler P. N., Kalis A., & Kalenscher T. (2008). The role of moral utility in decision making: An interdisciplinary framework. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8(4), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.4.390
[64]	Ubel P. A., Baron J., Nash B., & Asch D. A. (2000). Are preferences for equity over efficiency in health care allocation "all or nothing"? Medical Care, 38(4), 366-373. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200004000-00003 URL pmid: 10752968
[65]	Ubel P. A., DeKay M. L., Baron J., & Asch D. A. (1996). Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints — Is it equitable? New England Journal of Medicine, 334(18), 1174-1177. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199605023341807 doi: 10.1056/NEJM199605023341807 URL pmid: 8602185
[66]	Van Staveren I. (2007). Beyond utilitarianism and deontology: Ethics in economics. Review of Political Economy, 19(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538250601080776 doi: 10.1080/09538250601080776 URL
[67]	Wang S. S. (2024). Streaming for good: Streamer-viewer interaction, beneficiary focus, and donation progress. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 29(2), e1849. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1849
[68]	Wang T. H., Shen S. J., Cheng Z. P., & Xie X. F. (2024). From surviving to thriving: How preferences shift in helping resource allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 30(4), 571-585. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000516 doi: 10.1037/xap0000516 URL
[69]	Wang Y. L., & Xie X. F. (2020). Halfway to my request is not halfway to my heart: Underestimating appreciation for partial help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(10), 1466-1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220975276 doi: 10.1177/0146167220975276 URL
[70]	Weng H. Y., Fox A. S., Hessenthaler H. C., Stodola D. E., & Davidson R. J. (2015). The role of compassion in altruistic helping and punishment behavior. Plos One, 10(12), e0143794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143794 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143794 URL
[71]	Xie D. J., Meng P., & Su Y. J. (2019). “Favoring my playmate seems fair”: Inhibitory control and theory of mind in preschoolers’ self-disadvantaging behaviors. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.03.004 URL
[72]	Yu J. X., Wang Y., Yu J. L., & Zeng J. M. (2021). Racial ingroup bias and efficiency consideration influence distributive decisions: A dynamic analysis of time domain and time frequency. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, 630811. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.630811 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.630811 URL
[73]	Zhang S. M., & Feng T. Y. (2020). Modeling procrastination: Asymmetric decisions to act between the present and the future. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(2), 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000643 doi: 10.1037/xge0000643 URL
[74]	Zhu M., Yang Y., & Hsee C. K. (2018). The mere urgency effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(3), 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy008