不对称社会困境和社会善念对合作行为的影响
The Influence of Asymmetric Social Dilemmas and Social Goodness on Cooperative Behavior
DOI: 10.12677/ap.2024.1410748, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 姜晓怡, 袁 媛*, 李雨阳：南京特殊教育师范学院特殊教育学院，江苏 南京
关键词: 合作行为；社会善念；不对称社会困境；公共物品选择；Cooperative Behavior； Social Goodness； Asymmetric Social Dilemmas； Public Goods Selection
摘要: 在全球化时代蓬勃发展的趋势下，和平发展、合作共赢的时代潮流不可阻挡。本研究从现实情境出发，采用2 (不对称社会困境：相对优势、相对劣势) × 2 (社会善念感知水平：高水平、低水平)的混合实验设计。实验结果显示：1) 不对称社会困境的主效应显著(F = 25.107, p < 0.001)；2) 社会善念的主效应显著(F = 60.524, p < 0.001)；3) 在高社会善念水平下，处于相对优势情境下的个体的合作行为水平(M = 6.299, SD = 0.186)显著高于相对劣势情境下的个体合作水平(F = 30.916, p < 0.001)，中介效应分析结果显示不对称社会困境中的相对优势在社会善念的感知水平与合作行为之间具有部分中介作用(β = 0.196, p < 0.05, 95% CI = [0.005, 0.081])。该结论表明了环境因素与个人特质在个体决策中的协同影响，为管理实践提供了重要指导意义。
Abstract: Under the trend of vigorous development of the era of globalization, the trend of the times of peaceful development and win-win cooperation is unstoppable. Based on the real-world situation, this study adopted a mixed experimental design of 2 (asymmetric social dilemmas: relative advantages and disadvantages) × 2 (social kindness perception level: high and low level). The experimental results showed that: 1) the main effect of asymmetric social dilemma was significant (F = 25.107, p < 0.001); 2) The main effect of social benevolence was significant (F = 60.524, p < 0.001); 3) Under the high level of social kindness, the level of cooperative behavior of individuals in the context of relative advantage (M = 6.299, SD = 0.186) was significantly higher than that of individuals in the context of relative disadvantage (F = 30.916, p < 0.001), and the results of mediating effect analysis showed that the relative advantage in asymmetric social dilemma had a partial mediating effect between the perceived level of social kindness and cooperative behavior (β = 0.196, p < 0.05, 95% CI = [0.005, 0.081]). This conclusion shows the synergistic influence of environmental factors and personal characteristics in individual decision-making, and provides important guiding significance for management practice.
文章引用：姜晓怡, 袁媛, 李雨阳 (2024). 不对称社会困境和社会善念对合作行为的影响. 心理学进展, 14(10), 462-473. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2024.1410748

参考文献

[1] 陈可炫, 邓永光, 吴铁钧(2024). 价值取向和社会距离对大学生合作行为的影响. 校园心理, 22(1), 37-41.
[2] 陈满琪(2016). 社会正念及其与道德关系的研究. 中国社会心理学评论, (1), 151-164.
[3] 窦凯, 刘耀中, 王玉洁, 聂衍刚(2018a). “乐”于合作: 感知社会善念诱导合作行为的情绪机制. 心理学报, 50(1), 101-114.
[4] 窦凯, 聂衍刚(2017). 合作行为的神经机制及研究展望. 广州大学学报(社会科学版), 16(12), 41-48.
[5] 窦凯, 聂衍刚, 王玉洁, 刘耀中(2018b). 信任还是设防? 互动博弈中社会善念对合作行为的促进效应. 心理科学, 41(2), 390-396.
[6] 赖正芳(2023). 合作型人力资源管理对员工的组织内社会网络的影响. 东方企业文化, (S1), 88-90.
[7] 凌晓丽, 孙鹏(2019). 损失情境下社会困境中的合作行为. 心理与行为研究, 17(3), 377-383.
[8] 刘长江, 郝芳(2014). 社会困境问题的理论架构与实验研究. 心理科学进展, 22(9), 1475-1484.
[9] 刘长江, 郝芳(2015). 不对称社会困境中的决策:行为的双重模式. 心理科学进展, 23(1), 1-10.
[10] 宋有明, 丁凤琴, 石文典, 陈晓惠(2018). 文化差异视角下个体合作行为的产生、影响机制建构及认知神经基础. 心理科学, 41(5), 1227-1232.
[11] 孙鹏, 凌晓丽(2023). 社会价值取向与损失情境对不同时间压力下双人社会困境中合作行为的影响. 心理与行为研究, 21(1), 94-101.
[12] 孙庆洲, 黄靖茹, 虞晓芬, 高倾德(2023). 授人以鱼还是授人以渔? 高、低社会阶层的捐助行为差异. 心理学报, 55(10), 1677-1699.
[13] 田德荣, 刘建飞(2023). 人类命运共同体中的主权国家及其关系. 南海学刊, 9(6), 95-105.
[14] 田一, 王莉, 许燕, 焦丽颖(2021). 中国人社会善念的心理结构. 心理学报, 53(9), 1003-1017.
[15] 王怀勇, 许雅梅, 岳思怡, 陈雅姣(2023). 感知社会善念对信任修复的促进: 社会距离与时间距离的调节作用. 心理科学, 46(1), 113-120.
[16] 王伊萌, 张敬敏, 汪凤炎, 许文涛, 刘维婷(2023). 勿以善小而不为: 正念与智慧——社会善念与观点采择的链式中介. 心理学报, 55(4), 626-641.
[17] 严益霞, 刘颜蓥, 丁芳(2022). 心理理论与社会互动方式对初中生社会善念发展的影响. 心理发展与教育, 38(4), 485-494.
[18] 杨啸林, 李盛丹歌(2023-09-22). 应对气候变化需要全球合作. 经济日报, p. 4.
[19] 张京菁(2023). 国际交流与合作的重要性及其在未来全球发展中的角色. 见 2023高等教育科研论坛论文集(pp. 125-126).
[20] 张曼(2021). 非线性收益结构下的空间公共品博弈与合作演化研究. 硕士学位论文, 武汉: 武汉理工大学.
[21] 张珊明, 尹美, 韦泉(2024). 社会善念对大学生主观幸福感的影响: 一个有调节的中介模型. 心理技术与应用, 12(1), 32-42.
[22] 郑晓莹, 彭泗清, 彭璐珞(2015). “达”则兼济天下? 社会比较对亲社会行为的影响及心理机制. 心理学报, 47(2), 243-250.
[23] Burton-Chellew, M. N. (2022). The Restart Effect in Social Dilemmas Shows Humans Are Self-Interested Not Altruistic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, e2210082119.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Chang, H. I., Dawes, C. T., & Johnson, T. (2018). Political Inequality, Centralized Sanctioning Institutions, and the Maintenance of Public Goods. Bulletin of Economic Research, 70, 251-268.[CrossRef] 
[25] Engel, C., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2021). Social Mindfulness Is Normative When Costs Are Low, but Rapidly Declines with Increases in Costs. Judgment and Decision Making, 16, 290-322.[CrossRef] 
[26] Hübner, V., Staab, M., Hilbe, C., Chatterjee, K., & Kleshnina, M. (2024). Efficiency and Resilience of Cooperation in Asymmetric Social Dilemmas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121, e2315558121.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Li, Z., & Alharthi, S. (2024). Oil Revenue and Production Cost Disconnect and Its Impact on the Environment: Economic Globalization in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Countries. Geoscience Frontiers, 15, Article ID: 101772.[CrossRef] 
[28] Liu, Q., Cui, H., Huang, B., Huang, Y., Sun, H., Ru, X. et al. (2023). Inter-Brain Neural Mechanism and Influencing Factors Underlying Different Cooperative Behaviors: A Hyperscanning Study. Brain Structure and Function, 229, 75-95.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29] Parks, C. D., Xu, X., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). Does Information about Others’ Behavior Undermine Cooperation in Social Dilemmas? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 260-274.[CrossRef] 
[30] Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and Prosocial Behavior: A Theoretical Framework and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146, 30-90.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Van Doesum, N. J., de Vries, R. E., Blokland, A. A. J., Hill, J. M., Kuhlman, D. M., Stivers, A. W. et al. (2020). Social Mindfulness: Prosocial the Active Way. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15, 183-193.[CrossRef] 
[32] Van Doesum, N. J., Murphy, R. O., Gallucci, M., Aharonov-Majar, E., Athenstaedt, U., Au, W. T. et al. (2021). Social Mindfulness and Prosociality Vary across the Globe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2023846118.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33] Van Doesum, N. J., Van Lange, D. A. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Social Mindfulness: Skill and Will to Navigate the Social World. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 86-103.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The Psychology of Social Dilemmas: A Review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125-141.[CrossRef] 
[35] Watson, R., Morgan, T. J. H., Kendal, R. L., Van de Vyver, J., & Kendal, J. (2021). Social Learning Strategies and Cooperative Behaviour: Evidence of Payoff Bias, but Not Prestige or Conformity, in a Social Dilemma Game. Games, 12, Article No. 89.[CrossRef]