财富越多，责任越大：资金数量和来源对公共物品困境中第三方惩罚的影响

本研究探讨了公共物品困境中,初始资金的数量和来源如何影响第三方对成员贡献值的评价及惩罚。行为结果发现了“贵族责任效应”,即在同等贡献值条件下,相比于获得较少初始资金的成员,第三方会更重地惩罚获得较多初始资金的成员。当初始资金是随机分配而非通过个人努力获得时,该效应更强。在神经层面上,发现初始资金的数量和来源调节了第三方评估贡献值时所诱发的FRN和P3成分。其中FRN波幅与惩罚力度显著相关。本研究揭示了初始资金数量和来源如何调节第三方对成员贡献的评估及相关惩罚决策。     

患者主体意识在现代医学语境中的价值困境分析

患者主体意识在现代医学语境中出现了话语权的失落和自证困难,这可能引起患者的不满。对主客二分的生物医学模式教条和僵化的运用是这一困境产生的主要原因。临床医生仍习惯于将疾病作狭义的生物学理解,造成了对患者主观陈述的轻视。若想突破困境,需要认识到医学具有科学和治疗手段的不同属性,在临床中加强医生对患者的理解与尊重,回归病人的真实世界,构建医患的共同决策环境,借鉴传统中医学身心一体的哲学思想,积极转换理念,探索新的路径。     

Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation

The aggregation of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion where the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (the conclusion). This problem is known as the discursive dilemma (or paradox). The discursive dilemma is a serious problem since it is not clear whether a collective outcome exists in these cases, and if it does, what it is like. Moreover, the two suggested escape-routes from the paradox—the so-called premise-based procedure and the conclusion-based procedure—are not, as I will show, satisfactory methods for group decision-making. In this paper I introduce a new aggregation procedure inspired by an operator defined in artificial intelligence in order to merge belief bases. The result is that we do not need to worry about paradoxical outcomes, since these arise only when inconsistent collective judgments are not ruled out from the set of possible solutions.     

程序伦理在破解新冠肺炎疫情引发伦理难题中的价值

伦理程序是做出伦理决策与辩护、进行伦理审查与评价等道德决断的行为过程;程序伦理是具有一定时空顺序地做出伦理决断的行为过程伦理,保证人们遵循"应该做什么"和"应该如何做"等道德规范的伦理,有利于道德规范和实质伦理的实现。国内外新冠肺炎疫情防控遭遇或引发了积极防控是否应该和值得,防控措施限制人们的权利是否适度,卫生资源到底应该如何公正分配等大量的伦理难题。破解这些难题,程序伦理要求通过伦理行为决策、辩护、评价以及伦理审查等程序,并在程序中遵循公开与透明决断信息,沟通与协商决断措施以及评议与审查伦理决断的伦理要求。     

公共物品困境中的突显身份效应及合作动机对合作行为影响

从合作动机的激发与破坏的角度探讨公共物品困境中突显身份对合作行为的影响,同时考察社会价值取向与突显身份之间的关系。结果表明：突显合作者与突显不合作者两种方式都会提高被试的合作水平;两种突显方式的作用机制不同。突显合作者条件下,被试的合作行为受内在动机和外在动机的共同影响。而突显不合作者则会破坏被试合作的内在动机,外在动机对提高合作行为起主要作用;突显合作者条件下,合作取向的被试更多受内在动机的影响,而非合作取向的被试则更多受外在动机的影响。在突显不合作者的条件下,合作取向和非合作取向被试的合作行为都受外在动机的影响较大。     

社会距离与合作指数对不同年龄青少年合作行为影响的差异

本研究采用重复囚徒困境实验范式,考察了社会距离和合作指数对不同年龄青少年（初中生、高中生和大学生,且每个年龄段的被试数为40名）在博弈决策中的合作行为的影响。结果发现：（1）随着年龄的增加,青少年合作行为的总体趋势表现为下降;（2）社会距离对大学生的合作行为的正向作用显著,而中学生的合作行为却不受其影响;（3）个体合作率会受到合作指数的促进作用,但这种促进作用在大学生中表现的更为显著。即随年龄增长,个体会更少的采取合作行为,并且个体是否采取合作在更大程度上基于当前博弈中的收支情况和与博弈对象之间的社会距离。     

Effects of trait anger and anger expression style on competitive attack responses in a wartime prisoner’s dilemma game

We assessed the role of trait anger and anger expression style on competitive/aggressive decision making and responding. In a 100‐trial iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma (IPD), with instructions to simulate wartime interactions, competition/aggression was defined as “attacking the opponent,” and “waiting for troop reinforcements” was the noncompetitive alternative response. Prior to play, 92 university student players completed the State‐Trait Anger Expression Inventory. They were then paired to play the IPD against partners of similar or dissimilar trait anger levels. At postplay, the State Anger scale was readministered. Results showed significant preplay to postplay increases in state anger, with greater increases shown by high trait anger players. Thus, high trait anger players were especially subject to arousal. Players in the high trait anger group made more competitive/attack responses, and they were more likely to do so when paired with a high trait anger partner. As a result of the high level of competitive/aggressive play, both groups ended with a negative troop count. Trait anger as a general personality temperament was predictive of state anger, competitive/attack responses, and the number of trials before a retaliation was made. The expressive style of anger‐control was also related to manner of play. Trait anger had strong direct and indirect effects through anger control on the number of competitive attack responses. It was concluded that trait anger, especially trait anger/temperament, and anger control difficulties may be toxic personality factors in decision making and competitive behavior. Aggr. Behav. 28:117–125, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The Ethics of Opinion in Academe: Questions for an Ethical and Administrative Dilemma

If we accept that all plagiarism is wrong, the issue is black and white. But are there more challenging questions that color the issue with shades of gray that may influence or help clarify the ethical underpinnings of the act? Does intent matter? Does the venue matter? Does the form of writing matter? What about a professor when working as a private citizen, rather than in his/her academic role? Might plagiarism be mitigated when there is no associated financial gain? Is a writer’s history that exhibits impeccable ethical integrity relevant? Should these factors, and/or other factors, even be considered in a university’s administrative response — or non-response? What might employing an ethical approach contribute to wrestling with the dilemma? The authors explore critical issues that might face a senior academic administrator when confronting the need to respond on behalf of a university to a charge of plagiarism leveled by an influential newspaper against a university professor for a social responsibility-focused opinion-editorial published in this newspaper.     

乞讨的伦理分析——从乞讨作为一种手段与一种生活方式的自愿选择相区别的角度

乞讨已经成为一种社会问题,乞讨在当代中国的泛滥对社会的政治、经济、文化和社会生活都带来了比较大的冲击,在如何对待乞讨和乞讨者的问题上存在着很多的分歧,其中价值观的矛盾及其所引起的道德困境构成了对乞讨现象争论的焦点。我们必须把乞讨作为一种手段和乞讨者对一种生活方式的自愿选择区别开来。如此才能对乞讨之中手段和目的的关系、乞讨者和施舍者之间的关系、乞讨者和管理部门之间的关系进行恰当的道德定位,并为处理乞讨问题提供依据。