学龄前儿童分配模式的传递效应：心理理论和共情的作用 *

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01018

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

当他人对个体进行资源上的自私、公平或慷慨分配后, 个体倾向于以同样的分配方式对待第三个无关个体, 这一现象为资源分配模式的传递效应。研究考察自我绝对利益受到影响时这一效应在学龄前儿童中的表现以及其中可能的社会认知机制。118名4~6岁儿童被随机分到实验条件或对照条件中。实验条件下被试与匿名同伴合作完成拼图游戏后得到同伴分配的1个(自私)、3个(公平)或5个(慷慨)代币(共6个), 之后再作为分配者与另一匿名接受者完成同样的游戏; 而对照条件下被试只扮演分配者完成拼图和分配游戏。结果发现, 公平条件下公平分配比例与对照条件之间不存在显著差异, 而自私条件下自私分配模式比例和慷慨条件下慷慨分配模式比例分别高于对照条件下相应比例; 在慷慨条件下传递者比非传递者拥有更强的二级心理理论与(认知)共情能力。这提示学龄前儿童会传递自私和慷慨分配模式, 心理理论和共情更强的学龄前儿童更有可能传递慷慨分配模式。

关键词: 资源分配, 传递效应, 心理理论, 共情, 广义互惠

Abstract:

Previous studies found that children would reciprocate those having benefited them previously, a behavior termed direct reciprocity. When there was no opportunity to reciprocate, the recipient would pay it forward to a third one. The current study aimed to find whether preschoolers would pay it forward if their absolute gains would be dependent on their allocations and its potential socio-cognitive mechanisms. We hypothesized that preschoolers would pay forward others’ selfish, fair or generous allocations, but this tendency would be stronger in the selfish and fair conditions; theory of mind (ToM) as well as empathy would play a role in it.
Children aged 4 to 6 (N = 118, 63 females; M_age = 64.25 months, SD = 6.76) were randomly assigned into 3 experimental groups and 1 control group. In the experimental groups, each child was firstly asked to help an anonymous partner complete a jigsaw game (the child and the partner were to make equal contributions in the game), and then was allocated a reward of 1 token (selfish), 3 tokens (fair) or 5 tokens (generous) as the partner proposed (allocating a total of 6 tokens); subsequently, each participant completed another jigsaw game with another anonymous recipient, to whom the participant then acted as an allocator. In contrast, participants in the control group only completed the resource allocation task once as an allocator after cooperating with an anonymous partner in the jigsaw game. Participants’ abilities of ToM were measured with first-order and second-order ToM tasks. Their abilities of empathy were assessed with the Griffith Empathy Measurement (GEM), filled by their teacher-in-charge.
We found that preschoolers would pay the selfish allocations forward, and even generous ones in spite that their absolute self-interests were dependent on their decisions. Specifically, compared with children in the control group, children in the selfish or generous groups were more likely to propose a similar pattern of allocation for the anonymous recipient, which indicated that others’ patterns of allocation exerted influence on children’s decisions. In contrast, there was no significant difference between the proportion of fair allocations in the control group (80%) and the fair group (80%). Moreover, children in the generous-allocation group who paid it forward had higher levels of second-order ToM and (cognitive) empathy than those who did not do so. However, there were no such differences between these two types of participants in the selfish-allocation and fair-allocation groups.
It was suggested that preschoolers were sensitive to the patterns of allocations made by others, and they would pay it forward whether the allocations were advantageous or disadvantageous to themselves. Socio-cognitive abilities (e.g., ToM, empathy) could be important explanatory factors for this pay-forward effect. Besides, preschoolers in a collaborative context were more likely to comply with the norm of equity. Future studies might test other moderators, such as group membership of the partner, the way children acquire the resources, and explore other explanatory factors like executive functions.

Key words: resource allocation, pay-forward effect, theory of mind, empathy, generalized reciprocity.

中图分类号:

B844

谢东杰, 路浩, 苏彦捷. (2018). 学龄前儿童分配模式的传递效应：心理理论和共情的作用 ^*. 心理学报, 50(9), 1018-1028.

XIE Dongjie, LU Hao, SU Yanjie. (2018). Pay-forward effect of resource allocation in preschoolers: Role of theory of mind and empathy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(9), 1018-1028.

图/表 4

参考文献 52

1	Aguilar-Pardo D., Martínez-Arias R., & Colmenares F . ( 2013). The role of inhibition in young children’s altruistic behaviour. Cognitive Processing, 14( 3), 301-307. doi: 10.1007/s10339-013-0552-6 URL pmid: 23436211
2	Baumard N., Mascaro O., & Chevallier C . ( 2012). Preschoolers are able to take merit into account when distributing goods. Developmental Psychology, 48( 2), 492-498. doi: 10.1037/a0026598 URL pmid: 22148948
3	Beugré, C. D . ( 2009). Exploring the neural basis of fairness: A model of neuro-organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110( 2), 129-139. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.06.005 URL
4	Blake, P. R., & Rand, D. G . ( 2010). Currency value moderates equity preference among young children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31( 3), 210-218. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.012 URL
5	Blake P. R., McAuliffe K., & Warneken F . ( 2014). The developmental origins of fairness: The knowledge-behavior gap. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18( 11), 559-561. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.003 URL pmid: 25175834
6	Cohen, J. ( Ed). (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
7	Cowell J. M., Samek A., List J., & Decety J . ( 2015). The curious relation between theory of mind and sharing in preschool age children. PloS One, 10( 2), e0117947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117947 URL pmid: 25658696
8	Dadds M. R., Hunter K., Hawes D. J., Frost A. D. J., Vassallo S., Bunn P., .. Masry Y. El . ( 2008). A measure of cognitive and affective empathy in children using parent ratings. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39( 2), 111-122. doi: 10.1007/s10578-007-0075-4 URL pmid: 17710538
9	Davis, M. H . ( 2006). Empathy. In[J]. E. Stets & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions (pp. 443-466). Boston: Springer.
10	Decety, J., &Lamm, C. ( 2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. The Scientific World Journal, 6( 3), 1146-1163. doi: 10.1100/tsw.2006.221 URL pmid: 16998603
11	DeSteno D., Bartlett M. Y., Baumann J., Williams L. A., & Dickens L . ( 2010). Gratitude as moral sentiment: Emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10( 2), 289-293. doi: 10.1037/a0017883 URL pmid: 20364907
12	Fehr, E., &Fischbacher, U. ( 2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791. doi: 10.1038/nature02043 URL pmid: 14574401
13	Goldman, A. I . ( 1989). Interpretation psychologized. Mind & Language, 4( 3), 161-185.
14	Gray K., Ward A. F., & Norton M. I . ( 2014). Paying it forward: Generalized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143( 1), 247-254. doi: 10.1037/a0031047 URL pmid: 23244034
15	Grocke P., Rossano F., & Tomasello M . ( 2015). Procedural justice in children: Preschoolers accept unequal resource distributions if the procedure provides equal opportunities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 140, 197-210. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.008 URL
16	Hamilton, I. M., & Taborsky, M. ( 2005). Contingent movement and cooperation evolve under generalized reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272( 1578), 2259-2267. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3248 URL pmid: 1560194
17	Horita Y., Takezawa M., Kinjo T., Nakawake Y., & Masuda N . ( 2016). Transient nature of cooperation by pay-it-forward reciprocity. Scientific Reports, 6, 19471. doi: 10.1038/srep19471 URL pmid: 4726336
18	Kallgren C. A., Reno R. R., & Cialdini R. B . ( 2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26( 8), 1002-1012. doi: 10.1177/01461672002610009 URL
19	Lamm C., Meltzoff A. N., & Decety J . ( 2010). How do we empathize with someone who is not like us? A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22( 2), 362-376. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21186 URL
20	Leimgruber K. L., Ward A. F., Widness J., Norton M. I., Olson K. R., Gray K., & Santos L. R . ( 2014). Give what you get: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and 4-year-old children pay forward positive and negative outcomes to conspecifics. PloS One, 9( 1), e87035.
21	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 URL
22	McAuliffe K., Raihani N. J., & Dunham Y . ( 2017). Children are sensitive to norms of giving. Cognition, 167, 151-159. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.006 URL pmid: 28129890
23	McCrink K., Bloom P., & Santos L. R . ( 2010). Children’s and adults’ judgments of equitable resource distributions. Developmental Science, 13( 1), 37-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00859.x URL pmid: 20121861
24	Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. ( 2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437, 1291-1298. doi: 10.1038/nature04131 URL
25	Paulus, M. & Moore, C. ( 2015). Preschool children's anticipation of recipients’ emotions affects their resource allocation. Social Development, 24( 4), 852-867. doi: 10.1111/sode.12126 URL
26	Premack, D., &Woodruff, G. ( 1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1( 4), 515-526. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00076512 URL
27	Rutte, C., &Taborsky, M. ( 2007). Generalized reciprocity in rats. PLoS Biology, 5( 7), e196. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050196 URL
28	Salali G. D., Juda M., & Henrich J . ( 2015). Transmission and development of costly punishment in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36( 2), 86-94. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.09.004 URL
29	Schug J., Takagishi H., Benech C., & Okada H . ( 2016). The development of theory of mind and positive and negative reciprocity in preschool children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 888. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00888 URL pmid: 27445881
30	Stanca, L. ( 2009). Measuring indirect reciprocity: Whose back do we scratch? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30( 2), 190-202. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2008.07.010 URL
31	Steinbeis N., Bernhardt B. C., & Singer T . ( 2012). Impulse control and underlying functions of the left DLPFC mediate age-related and age-independent individual differences in strategic social behavior. Neuron, 73( 5), 1040-1051. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.12.027 URL
32	Sullivan K., Zaitchik D., & Tager-Flusberg H . ( 1994). Preschoolers can attribute second-order beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 30( 3), 395-402. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.30.3.395 URL
33	Takagishi H., Kameshima S., Schug J., Koizumi M., & Yamagishi T . ( 2010). Theory of mind enhances preference for fairness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105( 1-2), 130-137. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.09.005 URL
34	Wang, S., &Su, Y. J . ( 2013). From understanding to utilizing: Theory of mind and children’s distributive justice in different contexts. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45( 11), 1242-1250. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01242 URL
35	[ 王斯, 苏彦捷 . ( 2013). 从理解到使用:心理理论与儿童不同情境中的分配公平性. 心理学报, 45( 11), 1242-1250.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01242 URL
36	Wang Y. W., Zhang Z., Bai L. Y., Lin C. D., Osinsky R., & Hewig J . ( 2017). Ingroup/outgroup membership modulates fairness consideration: Neural signatures from ERPs and EEG oscillations. Scientific Reports, 7, 39827. doi: 10.1038/srep39827
37	Wansink B., Kent R. J., & Hoch S. J . ( 1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35( 1), 71-81. doi: 10.2307/3151931 URL
38	Warneken F., Lohse K., Melis A. P., & Tomasello M . ( 2011). Young children share the spoils after collaboration. Psychological Science, 22( 2), 267-273. doi: 10.1177/0956797610395392 URL pmid: 21196533
39	Warneken, F., &Tomasello, M. ( 2013). The emergence of contingent reciprocity in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116( 2), 338-350. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.06.002 URL pmid: 23917162
40	Watanabe T., Takezawa M., Nakawake Y., Kunimatsu A., Yamasue H., Nakamura M., .. Masuda N . ( 2014). Two distinct neural mechanisms underlying indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111( 11), 3990-3995. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1318570111 URL pmid: 24591599
41	Wei, Q., &Su, Y. J . ( 2018). The development of different components of empathy during preschool years. Submitted.
42	[ 魏祺, 苏彦捷 . ( 2018). 共情的不同成分在学龄前儿童中的发展. 已投稿]
43	Wellman H. M., Cross D., & Watson J . ( 2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72( 3), 655-684. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00304 URL pmid: 11405571
44	Willis M. L., Lawson D. L., Ridley N. J., Koval P., & Rendell P. G . ( 2015). The contribution of emotional empathy to approachability judgments assigned to emotional faces is context specific. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1209.
45	Wu, Z., &Su, Y. J . ( 2014). How do preschoolers’ sharing behaviors relate to their theory of mind understanding? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 120, 73-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.007 URL pmid: 24384326
46	Wu Z., Zhang Z., Guo R., & Gros-Louis J . ( 2017). Motivation counts: Autonomous but not obligated sharing promotes happiness in preschoolers. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 867. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00867 URL pmid: 28620328
47	Yu, J., &Zhu, L. Q . ( 2010). The development of children’s fair behavior: Evidence from experimental games. Advances in Psychological Science, 18( 7), 1182-1188.
48	[ 于静, 朱莉琪 . ( 2010). 儿童公平行为的发展——来自博弈实验的证据. 心理科学进展, 18( 7), 1182-1188.]
49	Yu J., Zhu L. Q., & Leslie A. M . ( 2016). Children’s sharing behavior in Mini-Dictator games: The role of In-Group favoritism and theory of mind. Child Development, 87( 6), 1747-1757. doi: 10.1111/cdev.2016.87.issue-6 URL
50	Yu, J. X., & Kou, Y. ( 2015). Paying it forward: The effect of selfishness transmission. Advances in Psychological Science, 23( 6), 1061-1069. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01061 URL
51	[ 余俊宣, 寇彧 . ( 2015). 自私行为的传递效应. 心理科学进展, 23( 6), 1061-1069.]
52	Zhang Q., Wang Y., Lui S. S. Y., Cheung E. F. C., Neumann D. L., Shum D. H. K., & Chan, R. C. K. ( 2014). Validation of the Griffith Empathy Measure in the Chinese context. Brain Impairment, 15( 1), 10-17. doi: 10.1017/BrImp.2014.1 URL

条件	男生	女生	总计
对照条件	2.87 (0.52)	2.87 (0.35)	2.87 (0.43)
自私条件	2.00 (0.78)	2.57 (0.65)	2.29 (0.76)
公平条件	2.77 (0.60)	2.82 (0.64)	2.80 (0.61)
慷慨条件	3.20 (0.78)	3.53 (1.46)	3.37 (1.16)

条件	男生	女生	总计
对照条件	2.87 (0.52)	2.87 (0.35)	2.87 (0.43)
自私条件	2.00 (0.78)	2.57 (0.65)	2.29 (0.76)
公平条件	2.77 (0.60)	2.82 (0.64)	2.80 (0.61)
慷慨条件	3.20 (0.78)	3.53 (1.46)	3.37 (1.16)

各组分配数量	心理理论			共情
各组分配数量	一级	二级	总分	情感	认知	行为	平均分
对照条件	0.13	0.12	0.17	-0.03	0.26	0.19	0.14
自私条件	0.08	0.24	0.24	0.09	-0.24	-0.07	-0.06
公平条件	-0.04	-0.01	-0.03	-0.23	-0.10	-0.11	-0.18
慷慨条件	-0.06	0.31^?	0.18	0.27	0.32^?	0.29	0.41^*
所有被试	-0.02	0.18^*	0.11	0.03	-0.05	0.05	0.00

各组分配数量	心理理论			共情
各组分配数量	一级	二级	总分	情感	认知	行为	平均分
对照条件	0.13	0.12	0.17	-0.03	0.26	0.19	0.14
自私条件	0.08	0.24	0.24	0.09	-0.24	-0.07	-0.06
公平条件	-0.04	-0.01	-0.03	-0.23	-0.10	-0.11	-0.18
慷慨条件	-0.06	0.31^?	0.18	0.27	0.32^?	0.29	0.41^*
所有被试	-0.02	0.18^*	0.11	0.03	-0.05	0.05	0.00

实验条件	心理理论			共情
实验条件	一级	二级	总分	情感	认知	行为	平均分
自私条件(n = 28)	1.75	1.18	2.93	0.64	1.59	1.80	1.20
自私条件(n = 28)	(0.65)	(0.72)	(0.94)	(1.32)	(1.38)	(1.14)	(1.13)
非传递者(n = 13)	1.77	1.38	3.15	0.65	1.37	1.77	1.13
非传递者(n = 13)	(0.60)	(0.65)	(0.80)	(1.15)	(1.53)	(1.24)	(1.16)
传递者(n = 15)	1.73	1.00	2.73	0.63	1.77	1.83	1.27
传递者(n = 15)	(0.70)	(0.76)	(1.03)	(1.49)	(1.26)	(1.08)	(1.15)
公平条件(n = 30)	1.57	0.97	2.53	1.05	1.45	2.11	1.42
公平条件(n = 30)	(0.77)	(0.85)	(1.48)	(1.47)	(1.42)	(1.17)	(1.24)
非传递者(n = 6)	1.33	0.67	2.00	1.17	1.53	2.21	1.52
非传递者(n = 6)	(0.82)	(1.03)	(1.67)	(1.75)	(1.61)	(1.45)	(1.56)
传递者(n = 24)	1.63	1.04	2.67	1.02	1.43	2.08	1.39
传递者(n = 24)	(0.77)	(0.81)	(1.44)	(1.43)	(1.41)	(1.13)	(1.19)
慷慨条件(n = 30)	1.67	1.27	2.93	0.49	0.70	1.78	0.85
慷慨条件(n = 30)	(0.71)	(0.79)	(1.11)	(1.08)	(1.10)	(0.73)	(0.71)
非传递者(n = 20)	1.70	1.05	2.75	0.24	0.39	1.67	0.62
非传递者(n = 20)	(0.66)	(0.83)	(1.21)	(1.15)	(0.89)	(0.80)	(0.61)
传递者(n = 10)	1.60	1.70	3.30	0.99	1.32	2.00	1.32
传递者(n = 10)	(0.84)	(0.48)	(0.82)	(0.72)	(1.26)	(0.53)	(0.69)
对照条件(n = 30)	1.73	1.27	3.00	0.88	1.25	2.21	1.30
对照条件(n = 30)	(0.58)	(0.69)	(0.95)	(1.29)	(1.44)	(1.10)	(1.01)
所有被试(N = 118)	1.68	1.17	2.85	0.77	1.24	1.98	1.19
所有被试(N = 118)	(0.68)	(0.77)	(1.14)	(1.30)	(1.37)	(1.05)	(1.05)