公平加工的情境依赖性：来自行为的证据

心理与行为研究 ›› 2016, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (5): 600-604.

公平加工的情境依赖性：来自行为的证据

王珍珍^1,2,蒋文明²

1浙江理工大学心理系，杭州 310018;
2 安徽大学哲学系，合肥 230039

收稿日期:2015-05-03 出版日期:2016-10-20 发布日期:2016-11-29
通讯作者: 蒋文明，E-mail：jwm2004psybnu@126.com。
基金资助:
安徽大学211青年基金项目（E12333040059）。

The Context-Dependency of Fairness Processing: Evidence from Behavior Study

Wang Zhenzhen^1,2, Jiang Wenming²

1 Department of Psychology, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018;
2 Department of Philosophy, Anhui University, Hefei 230039

Received:2015-05-03 Online:2016-10-20 Published:2016-11-29

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用最后通牒博弈范式，考察利益水平及社会距离对个体公平加工的影响，探讨公平加工的情境依赖性。实验结果表明：（1）对分配提议的加工受到利益水平的调节，不利不公平条件下被试更加注重公平。（2）提议的不同水平影响被试的拒绝行为，提议越不公平，拒绝率越高。（3）虽然社会距离的主效应不显著，但在实际情境中，较近的社会距离下人们对公平的要求更严格，证实公平加工具有情境依赖性。

关键词: 公平, 不公平厌恶, 最后通牒博弈游戏, 利益水平, 社会距离。

Abstract: In order to testify the hypothesis that fairness processing was context-dependent, the present study investigated the interaction between condition and social distance. We adopted the Ultimatum Game(UG)to probe the processes related to fairness consideration in either advantageous or disadvantageous condition with different social distance. Results indicated that condition-related differences on the fairness processing were significant, participants′ reaction time was different between unfair and fair offers in the disadvantageous condition, but this situation only happened in the familiar context group. Also, the rejection rate of unfair offers was higher in the disadvantageous than in the advantageous condition, which consisted with the findings of previous studies. Although the main effect of social distance was not significant, there in the actual context, related to strange context group, participants′ reaction time of unfair offers was slower in the familiar context group. The present findings suggested that fairness processing was context-dependent.

Key words: fairness, inequity aversion, Ultimatum Game, advantageous-disadvantageous condition, social distance.

中图分类号:

B849

王珍珍,蒋文明. 公平加工的情境依赖性：来自行为的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(5): 600-604.

Wang Zhenzhen, Jiang Wenming. The Context-Dependency of Fairness Processing: Evidence from Behavior Study[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(5): 600-604.

参考文献

[1] 苏彦捷, 穆岩.(2004). 公平——精神道德观念还是互利合作机制? 心理学探新, 23(3), 26-29.
[2] 谭玲, 夏天生, 刘勇.(2015). 不同博弈情境下社会排斥对社会决策的影响作用. 心理科学, 38(4), 946-953.
[3] 吴燕, 周晓林.(2012). 公平加工的情境依赖性：来自ERP的证据. 心理学报, 44(6), 797-806.
[4] 周晓林, 胡捷, 彭璐.(2015). 社会情境影响公平感知及相关行为的神经机制. 心理与行为研究, 13(5), 591-598.
[5] Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S.(1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. The American Economic Review, 89(1), 335-339.
[6] Burnham, T. C.(2003). Engineering altruism: A theoretical and experimental investigation of anonymity and gift giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(1), 133-144.
[7] Camerer, C. F.(2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[8] Charness, G., & Gneezy, U.(2008). What′s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68(1), 29-35.
[9] Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K.(1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
[10] Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B.(1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367-388.
[11] Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R.(1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728-741.
[12] Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R.(1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
[13] Mandel, D. R.(2006). Economic transactions among friends: Asymmetric generosity but not agreement in buyer′s and seller′s offers. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(4), 584-606.
[14] Parks, J. M., Boles, T. L., Conlon, D. E., DeSouza, E., Gatewood, W., Gibson, K., Halpern, J. J., Locke, D. C., Nekich, J. C., Straub, P., Wilson, G., & Murnighan, J. M.(1996). Distributing adventitious outcomes: Social norms, egocentric martyrs, and the effect of future relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(2), 181-200.
[15] Shapiro, E. G.(1975). Effect of expectations of future interactions on reward allocations in dyads: equality or equity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(5), 873-880.
[16] Singer, M. S.(1998). The role of subjective concerns and characteristics of the moral issue in moral considerations. British Journal of Psychology, 89(4), 663-679.
[17] Thaler, R. H.(1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(4), 195-206.
[18] Weg, E., & Smith, V.(1993). On the failure to induce meager offers in ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14(1), 17-32.
[19] Wu, Y., Leliveld, M. C., & Zhou, X.(2011). Social distance modulates recipient′s fairness consideration in the dictator game: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 88(2), 253-262.
[20] Yu, R., Hu, P., & Zhang, P.(2015). Social distance and anonymity modulate fairness consideration: An ERP study. Scientific Reports, 5, 1-12.