人情与公正的抉择:社会距离对第三方干预的影响

Compensation or Punishment——The Effect of Social Distance on Third-party Intervention

第三方干预(third-party intervention)是一种重要的利他行为,它包括惩罚和补偿两种措施。本研究结合情境性问卷与实验法,采用修改后的独裁者博弈范式(Dictator Game,DG),让被试作为第三方对朋友或者陌生人的不公平行为进行干预,考察社会距离对第三方干预的影响。研究发现:(1)对于朋友提出的不公平方案,个体对其的惩罚轻于陌生人,而对第二方(无权者)的补偿没有显著差异。(2)个体对朋友的不公平提议的公平性判断高于陌生人,但提议引发的情绪体验没有显著差异。上述结果表明,社会距离可能通过影响个体对不公平行为的公平感知,进而影响其第三方干预行为。

The third-party intervention is the best representation of human altruistic behavior. Fairness perception and emotional experiences are two important processes in the third-party punishment. Previous studies have shown that an individual＇s fairness perception was modulated by social distance. However, how social distance influences the third-party intervention is still unknown. In order to address this issue, two experiments were conducted. In experiment 1, we used two versions of a scenario to describe an unfair behavior committed by participants＇ friend or a stranger. Then participants were asked to make an intervention toward the unfair behavior. In experiment 2, a laboratory Dictator Game （DG） was adopted to probe the impact of social distance on the third-party intervention. Participants were told that they would playa social game with two others （his/her friend and a stranger, or two strangers） in the adjacent separate cubicles. All participants were assigned to the observer （＂Person C＂） by a pseudo-random allocation of computer, and his/her friend （or a stranger） was assigned to the dictator （＂Person A＂）, and the others pretended by experiment assistants were the powerless （＂Person B＂）. In each trial, the dictator will split 100 chips between himself/herself and the powerless. After being informed of the allocation between dictator and powerless, participants as an observer were asked to evaluate the fairness of the allocation （1 = not at all, 9 = very much）, and make a decision to punish the dictator or compensate the powerless. Of the chips that were used to punish or compensate, the dictator would lose 3 or ＂Person B＂ would gain. The participants were told that the chips they kept eventually were associated with their extra participant payment. Finally, the participants were told to evaluate the feeling of the allocation, such as anger, disappointment, hatred and guilt （1 = not at all, 9 = very much）. The results of two experiments indicated that： （1） Social distance influenced the third-party punishment. For unfair allocations, the third-party punishment to friend was significantly lighter than the stranger. However, the third-party compensation had no significant difference between friend＇s or stranger＇s situation. （2） Social distance influenced the fairness perception process of third-party intervention. Friend＇s unfair allocations were perceived more equitable than stranger＇s. However, social distance had a significant influence on emotional experiences by unfair allocations. In conclusion, the third-party is unwilling to punish the dictator who is closer to him/her than a stranger. This altering in behavior that may be the result of that their fairness perception process is influenced by social distance. The results of this study have important theoretical significance in revealing how social distance influences third-party intervention.