助人困境中反社会惩罚行为的影响因素及基于第三方惩罚的干预研究

发布时间：2018-07-06 08:46

本文选题：助人困境 + 反社会惩罚　；参考：《华中师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：社会困境(social dilemma)研究中的惩罚可以被分为利他惩罚(altruistic punishment)和反社会惩罚(antisocial punishment)。反社会惩罚是一种朝向合作者的惩罚,是一种“惩罚比自己贡献的更多的人”的行为。利他惩罚促进了社会困境中的合作行为,但反社会惩罚更多的抑制了这种合作行为。助人困境是社会困境的一种,个体对他人提供帮助,自己没有从中获得即时获益,甚至还会牺牲个人利益。因此很多人选择“只扫自己门前雪,不管他人瓦上霜”,这种选择保证了短期个人利益不受损害,但是损害了长期利益,因为从长远来看,人人不助人,人人也不能得到帮助。近年来,我国社会中呈现出了大量的反社会惩罚行为,严重影响到了助人困境中的助人行为。众多因素被发现与反社会惩罚有关,包括个体因素及社会环境因素。其中,竞争环境的激烈程度及反社会惩罚的惩罚代价效应比(cost to impact,简称C/I比)又被认为对反社会惩罚行为有着重要的影响作用。本研究通过模拟生活中的助人困境,拟探索不同的竞争环境及反社会惩罚的惩罚代价效应比对反社会惩罚行为的影响,并尝试引入第三方惩罚,对助人困境中的反社会惩罚行为进行干预。实验一采用3 (C/I1; C/I=1; C/I＞1) ×2 (高竞争环境;低竞争环境)的两因素多水平被试间设计,对不同竞争环境及不同的惩罚代价效应比对反社会惩罚行为的影响进行了研究。结果发现,反社会惩罚的惩罚代价效应比(C/I比)对于反社会惩罚行为主效应显著,C/I比值越小,被试的反社会惩罚行为越多;竞争环境对于被试的反社会惩罚行为主效应边缘显著,低竞争环境中被试的反社会惩罚行为多于高竞争环境中被试的反社会惩罚行为;竞争环境与反社会惩罚的惩罚代价效应比之间的交互效应边缘显著显著。实验二采用2 (75%惩罚概率;25%惩罚概率)×2 (金钱惩罚;社会惩罚)的两因素多水平被试间设计,研究了第三方惩罚的不同惩罚形式及不同惩罚概率对被试的反社会惩罚行为造成的影响。结果发现,当存在第三方惩罚时,受助者的反社会惩罚行为显著降低;惩罚形式对于反社会惩罚行为的主效应显著;与金钱惩罚相比,社会惩罚能够更有效的降低反社会惩罚行为;惩罚概率对于助人困境中反社会惩罚行为的主效应不显著;惩罚形式及惩罚概率二者间交互效应不显著。结论:惩罚代价效应比对于助人困境中的反社会惩罚影响显著,第三方惩罚能够有效的降低助人困境中的反社会惩罚行为,社会惩罚对于反社会惩罚行为的干预作用优于金钱惩罚。
[Abstract]:Punishment in the study of social dilemma (social dilemma) can be divided into altruistic punishment (altruistic punishment) and antisocial punishment (antisocial punishment). Anti-social punishment is a kind of punishment directed towards partners and a behavior of punishing more people than they contribute. Altruistic punishment promotes cooperative behavior in social dilemmas, but antisocial punishment inhibits it more. Helping others is a kind of social predicament. Individuals offer help to others, and they do not benefit immediately from it, even at the expense of their own interests. As a result, many people choose to "only sweep their own door snow, regardless of others on the frost," this choice to ensure that the short-term personal interests are not damaged, but harm the long-term interests, because in the long run, no one can help others, no one can get help. In recent years, a large number of antisocial punishment behaviors have appeared in our society, which have seriously affected the helping behavior in the predicament of helping others. Many factors have been found to be related to anti-social punishment, including individual factors and social environmental factors. Among them, the intensity of competition environment and the penalty cost effect of antisocial punishment are more important than (cost to impact, (C / P I ratio). By simulating the plight of helping others in life, this study intends to explore the impact of different competitive environments and the cost effect of antisocial punishment on the antisocial punishment behavior, and try to introduce the third party punishment. To intervene in antisocial punishment in the plight of helping others. In experiment 1, the effects of different competitive environments and different penalty cost ratios on the antisocial punishment behavior were studied by using a two-factor multi-level design of 3 (C / I 1; C / I > 1) 脳 2 (high competitive environment; low competitive environment). The results showed that the lower the ratio of C / I to C / I was, the more the behavior of antisocial punishment was. The main effect of the competition environment on the behavior of antisocial punishment was significant, and the behavior of antisocial punishment in the low competition environment was more than that in the high competition environment. The penalty cost effect of competitive environment and anti-social punishment is more significant than the edge of the interaction effect between competition environment and anti-social punishment. In experiment 2, two factors (75% probability of punishment, 25% probability of punishment) 脳 2 (monetary punishment; social punishment) were used to design two factors, The effects of different punishment forms and different punishment probabilities on the antisocial punishment behavior of the subjects were studied. The results showed that, when there was third party punishment, the behavior of antisocial punishment was significantly reduced, and the main effect of punishment form on antisocial punishment was significant. Social punishment can reduce the antisocial punishment behavior more effectively; the main effect of punishment probability on helping others in the plight of anti-social punishment behavior is not significant; punishment form and punishment probability interaction effect is not significant. Conclusion: the cost effect of punishment is more significant than that of antisocial punishment in helping others' predicament. Third party punishment can effectively reduce the antisocial punishment behavior in helping others' dilemma. The intervention effect of social punishment on anti-social punishment is superior to that of monetary punishment.
【学位授予单位】：华中师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B842

【相似文献】