行为可见增加利他偏好及其社会规范机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00481

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在不同社会偏好类型中, 研究者较为关注利他偏好及其信号功能。本研究探究在独裁者游戏中, 决策者的利他偏好如何受到分配方案对接受者可见性的影响。实验1采用行为实验结合计算建模的方法, 发现无论在选择或评分条件下, 相比于行为不可见, 当分配者的行为能够为接受者所见时, 分配者都表现出更大程度的利他偏好。此外, 相比于评分条件, 在选择时人们更加在意分配效率。实验2仅使用选择条件, 并操纵社会规范, 发现行为可见增加利他偏好的作用依赖于利他的社会规范, 当存在非利他社会规范时, 行为可见的影响减小。本研究结果表明, 在利他社会规范下, 当行为对接受者可见时, 人们将表现出更多利他偏好。

关键词: 社会偏好, 利他, 行为可见性, 反应类型, 社会规范

Abstract:

In social economic decisions, people not only care about their own payoffs but also the payoffs of others, a tendency termed altruistic preference. Numerous studies have shown that the sheer sense of being observed is sufficient to augment subjects’ altruistic choices. However, whether subjects’ altruistic behavior can be modulated by other stake-holders in the decision context remains unclear. In this study, we provide experimental evidence about the effects of visibility from receivers and social norms on the altruistic preference of the deciders in two studies. First, we confirmed the visibility effect originating from receivers on deciders’ altruistic preference in Study 1. In Study 2, we further showed that social norms modulated the effect of behavior visibility on deciders’ altruistic preference, suggesting a potential avenue via which social norms influence the relationship between behavioral visibility and altruistic preference.

Study 1 implemented a 2 (visibility: visible vs. invisible) × 2 (reaction type: choice vs. rating) × 2 (inequity aversion: AIA vs. DIA) within-subject design. We recruited 38 participants and they were required to either choose from two reward allocation options (choice task) with another partner, or rate how satisfied concerning a particular allocation (rating task) in a dictator game (DG). Participants’ behavior was either observed by their “partners” (visible condition) or remained private (invisible condition). We provided both model-free and model-based evidence for the effects of visibility on altruistic preference. Compared to the invisible condition, participants exhibited greater altruistic preference when their behavior were visible to the receivers (partners). This tendency was significant across both choice and rating tasks. In addition, participants cared more about allocation efficiency in the choice task than in the rating task. Finally, visibility alleviated the behavioral discrepancies between the rating and choice tasks, indicating that social preference and choice strategies tend to converge in the visible condition.

Study 2 implemented a 2 (visibility: visible vs. invisible) × 2 (social norm: altruistic vs. non-altruistic) within-subject design. 53 participants took part in the study with altruistic or non-altruistic social norms. Different social norms were manipulated by presenting the proportions of choosing the unfair options from previous participants: In the altruistic social norm condition, most previous participants chose the option that maximizes others’ relative payoffs, while in the non-altruistic condition it was the opposite. Our results showed that in the altruistic social norm condition, visibility significantly increased participants’ altruistic preference. However, such effect diminished in the non-altruistic social norm condition.

Our study revealed that deciders’ behavioral visibility to receivers increased altruistic preference and promoted altruistic behavior. Furthermore, the altruistic social norm played a modulatory role on the visibility effect, supporting the signaling hypothesis of altruistic preference.

Key words: social preference, altruism, visibility, reaction type, social norm

黄馨茹, 李健, 倪荫梅. (2023). 行为可见增加利他偏好及其社会规范机制. 心理学报, 55(3), 481-495.

HUANG Xinru, LI Jian, NI Yinmei. (2023). Social norm modulates the enhancement effect of behavioral visibility on altruistic preference. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(3), 481-495.

图/表 6

图1 AIA和DIA正负方向对应的社会偏好

图2 实验1流程

图3 实验1不依赖模型的结果(a) (b)选择条件, 优势和劣势情况下的自我他人收益之差; (c) (d)评分条件, 优势和劣势情况下的评分值。箱图内部的水平实线代表中位数, 水平虚线代表均值。 * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001。

图4 实验1基于模型的结果(a) (b)模型估计的AIA和DIA; (c)选择和评分条件下, 可见与不可见条件之间的AIA之差与DIA之差; (d)可见和不可条件下, 选择与评分条件之间的AIA之差与DIA之差。(a) (b)中, 每个箱图上方的显著性表示该条件下参数显著大于零, 下方的显著性表示该条件下参数显著小于零。图像最上方的显著性表示可见与不可见情况下, 选择和评分条件的差值的比较。箱图内部的水平实线代表中位数, 水平虚线代表均值。 * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001。(c) (d)中, 浅色图案为个体层面模型拟合结果, 深色图案为各个条件下的均值。

图5 实验2流程

图6 实验2结果 (a) (b)优势和劣势情况下, 自我他人收益之差; (c)平均分给他人的点数; (d) (e)分层贝叶斯模型拟合的AIA和DIA。图中, 箱图内部的水平实线代表中位数, 水平虚线代表均值。(d) (e)中, 每个箱图上方的显著性表示该条件下参数显著大于零, 下方的显著性表示该条件下参数显著小于零。 * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001。

参考文献 62

[1]	Agerström J., Carlsson R., Nicklasson L., & Guntell L. (2016). Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms. Journal of Economic Psychology, 52, 147-153. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2015.12.007 URL
[2]	Andreoni J., & Bernheim B. D. (2009). Social image and the 50-50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 1607-1636. doi: 10.3982/ECTA7384 URL
[3]	Andreoni J., & Petrie R. (2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: A glimpse into fund-raising. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7), 1605-1623. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(03)00040-9 URL
[4]	Bateson M., Nettle D., & Roberts G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412-414. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509 pmid: 17148417
[5]	Böckler A., Tusche A., & Singer T. (2016). The structure of human prosociality: Differentiating altruistically motivated, norm motivated, strategically motivated, and self-reported prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 530-541. doi: 10.1177/1948550616639650 URL
[6]	Bradley A., Lawrence C., & Ferguson E. (2018). Does observability affect prosociality? Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological Sciences, 285(1875), 20180116.
[7]	Brüne M., & Brüne-Cohrs U. (2006). Theory of mind— Evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(4), 437-455. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.08.001 URL
[8]	Burnham T. C., & Hare B. (2007). Engineering human cooperation: Does involuntary neural activation increase public goods contributions? Human Nature, 18(2), 88-108. doi: 10.1007/s12110-007-9012-2 URL
[9]	Choshen-Hillel S., & Yaniv I. (2011). Agency and the construction of social preference: Between inequality aversion and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1253-1261. doi: 10.1037/a0024557 pmid: 21767033
[10]	Choshen-Hillel S., & Yaniv I. (2012). Social preferences shaped by conflicting motives: When enhancing social welfare creates unfavorable comparisons for the self. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(5), 618-627. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500006331 URL
[11]	Cialdini R. B., Reno R. R., & Kallgren C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015 URL
[12]	Dana J., Cain D. M., & Dawes R. M. (2006). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 193-201. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.001 URL
[13]	Dempsey R. C., McAlaney J., & Bewick B. M. (2018). A critical appraisal of the social norms approach as an interventional strategy for health-related behavior and attitude change. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2180. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02180 pmid: 30459694
[14]	Elliott R., Bohart A. C., Watson J. C., & Greenberg L. S. (2011). Empathy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 43-49. doi: 10.1037/a0022187 pmid: 21401273
[15]	Elster J. (1989). Social norms and economic theory. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4), 99-117.
[16]	Fathi M., Bateson M., & Nettle D. (2014). Effects of watching eyes and norm cues on charitable giving in a surreptitious behavioral experiment. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(5), 878-887. pmid: 25331033
[17]	Fehr E., & Fischbacher U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 63-87. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4 URL
[18]	Fehr E., & Schmidt K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868. doi: 10.1162/003355399556151 URL
[19]	Fox J., & Guyer M. (1978). "Public" choice and cooperation in n-person prisoner's dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22(3), 469-481. doi: 10.1177/002200277802200307 URL
[20]	Gao X., Yu H., Sáez I., Blue P. R., Zhu L., Hsu M., & Zhou X. (2018). Distinguishing neural correlates of context-dependent advantageous- and disadvantageous- inequity aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), E7680-E7689.
[21]	Gintis H., Smith E. A., & Bowles S. (2001). Costly signaling and cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 213(1), 103-119. pmid: 11708857
[22]	Glimcher P. W., & Fehr E. (2013). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain: Second edition. Academic Press.
[23]	Haley K. J., & Fessler D. M. T. (2005). Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 245-256. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002 URL
[24]	Hamilton A., & Lind F. (2016). Audience effects: What can they tell us about social neuroscience, theory of mind and autism? Culture and Brain, 4(2), 159-177. doi: 10.1007/s40167-016-0044-5 pmid: 27867833
[25]	Hardy C. L., & van Vugt M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402-1413. pmid: 16963610
[26]	Hesslinger V. M., Carbon C., & Hecht H. (2017). The sense of being watched is modulated by arousal and duration of the perceptual episode. I-Perception, 8(6), 2041669517742179.
[27]	Hu Y., He L., Zhang L., Wölk T., Dreher J., & Weber B. (2018). Spreading inequality: Neural computations underlying paying-it-forward reciprocity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13(6), 578-589. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsy040 pmid: 29897606
[28]	Jerdee T. H., & Rosen B. (1974). Effects of opportunity to communicate and visibility of individual decisions on behavior in the common interest. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(6), 712-716. doi: 10.1037/h0037450 URL
[29]	Kawamura Y., & Kusumi T. (2017). The norm-dependent effect of watching eyes on donation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5), 659-666. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.05.003 URL
[30]	Kimbrough E. O., & Vostroknutov A. (2016). Norms make preferences social. Journal of the European Economic Association, 14(3), 608-638. doi: 10.1111/jeea.12152 URL
[31]	Lacetera N., & Macis M. (2010). Social image concerns and prosocial behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(2), 225-237. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.08.007 URL
[32]	Li O., Xu F., & Wang L. (2018). Advantageous inequity aversion does not always exist: The role of determining allocations modulates preferences for advantageous inequity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 749-749. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00749 pmid: 29887817
[33]	Liu Y., Li S., Lin W., Li W., Yan X., Wang X., … Ma Y. (2019). Oxytocin modulates social value representations in the amygdala. Nature Neuroscience, 22(4), 633-641. doi: 10.1038/s41593-019-0351-1 pmid: 30911182
[34]	Loewenstein G. F., Thompson L., & Bazerman M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 426-441. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.426 URL
[35]	McAuliffe K., Blake P. R., Kim G., Wrangham R. W., & Warneken F. (2013). Social influences on inequity aversion in children. PloS One, 8(12), e80966. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080966 URL
[36]	McAuliffe K., Blake P. R., & Warneken F. (2020). Costly fairness in children is influenced by who is watching. Developmental Psychology, 56(4), 773-782. doi: 10.1037/dev0000888 pmid: 31999186
[37]	McAuliffe K., Jordan J. J., & Warneken F. (2015). Costly third-party punishment in young children. Cognition, 134, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.013 pmid: 25460374
[38]	McBride M., & Ridinger G. (2021). Beliefs also make social-norm preferences social. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 191(3), 765-784. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2021.09.030 URL
[39]	Milinski M., Semmann D., & Krambeck H. (2002). Reputation helps solve the 'tragedy of the commons'. Nature, 415(6870), 424-426. doi: 10.1038/415424a URL
[40]	Murphy R. O., Ackermann K. A., & Handgraaf M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500004204 URL
[41]	Nettle D., Harper Z., Kidson A., Stone R., Penton-Voak I. S., & Bateson M. (2013). The watching eyes effect in the dictator game: It's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(1), 35-40. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.08.004 URL
[42]	Oda R., & Ichihashi R. (2016). Effects of eye images and norm cues on charitable donation: A field experiment in an izakaya. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(4), 147470491666887.
[43]	Oda R., Niwa Y., Honma A., & Hiraishi K. (2011). An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 166-171. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.11.002 URL
[44]	Palacios J., Fan Y., Yoeli E., Wang J., Chai Y., Sun W., … Zheng S. (2022). Encouraging the resumption of economic activity after COVID-19:Evidence from a large scale-field experiment in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(5), e2100719119.
[45]	Pereda M., Brañas-Garza P., Rodríguez-Lara I., & Sánchez A. (2017). The emergence of altruism as a social norm. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 9684. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07712-9 pmid: 28851876
[46]	Pfattheicher S., Nielsen Y. A., & Thielmann I. (2022). Prosocial behavior and altruism: A review of concepts and definitions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 124-129. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.021 URL
[47]	Piazza J., & Bering J. M. (2008). Concerns about reputation via gossip promote generous allocations in an economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(3), 172-178. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.12.002 URL
[48]	Raiffa H., & Schlaifer R. (1961). Applied statistical decision theory. University College London: Biometrika Office.
[49]	Raihani N. J., & Bshary R. (2012). A positive effect of flowers rather than eye images in a large-scale, cross-cultural dictator game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1742), 3556-3564.
[50]	Raihani N. J., & McAuliffe K. (2014). Dictator game giving: The importance of descriptive versus injunctive norms. PloS One, 9(12), e113826. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113826 URL
[51]	Roberts G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265(1394), 427-431. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0312 URL
[52]	Sáez I., Zhu L., Set E., Kayser A., & Hsu M. (2015). Dopamine modulates egalitarian behavior in humans. Current Biology, 25(7), 912-919. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.071 pmid: 25802148
[53]	Suzuki S., & Akiyama E. (2005). Reputation and the evolution of cooperation in sizable groups. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1570), 1373-1377.
[54]	Sylwester K., & Roberts G. (2010). Cooperators benefit through reputation-based partner choice in economic games. Biology Letters, 6(5), 659-662. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0209 pmid: 20410026
[55]	Tian Y. (2016). Research on game experiments of fairness preference: The influence of dominance status, punishment situation and fairness perception on the fairness preference (Unpublished master’s thesis). Harbin Engineering University, China.
	[ 田莹. (2016). 公平偏好的博弈实验研究——支配地位、惩罚情境和公平感知对公平偏好的影响 (硕士学位论文). 哈尔滨工程大学.]
[56]	Tsoi L., & McAuliffe K. (2020). Individual differences in theory of mind predict inequity aversion in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 559-571. doi: 10.1177/0146167219867957 pmid: 31449439
[57]	van Lange P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 337-349. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337 URL
[58]	van Lange P. A. M., de Bruin E. M. N., Otten W., & Joireman J. A. (1997). The development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733-746. pmid: 9325591
[59]	van Vugt M., Roberts G., & Hardy C. (2012). ompetitive altruism:A theory of reputation-based cooperation in groups. In L. Barrett & R. Dunbar(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 531-540). Oxford University Press.
[60]	Wedekind C., & Braithwaite V. A. (2002). The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology, 12(12), 1012-1015. pmid: 12123575
[61]	West S. A., Griffin A. S., & Gardner A. (2007). Social semantics: Altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20(2), 415-432. pmid: 17305808
[62]	Wu T., & Han S. (2021). Neural mechanisms of modulations of empathy and altruism by beliefs of others’ pain. eLife, 10, e66043. doi: 10.7554/eLife.66043 URL