Protecting Public Goods or Helping Free Riders? A Real-Life Moral Dilemma in Interethnic and Intraethnic Encounters.

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychological Science Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-27 DOI:10.1177/09567976251346178
Kasper Otten, Vincent Buskens, Wojtek Przepiorka, Naomi Ellemers
{"title":"Protecting Public Goods or Helping Free Riders? A Real-Life Moral Dilemma in Interethnic and Intraethnic Encounters.","authors":"Kasper Otten, Vincent Buskens, Wojtek Przepiorka, Naomi Ellemers","doi":"10.1177/09567976251346178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People often protect public goods by sanctioning free riders. This occurs in simple situations in which protecting the public good does not conflict with other moral considerations. How do people navigate situations in which protecting the public good comes at the expense of helping someone? We theorized that people would prioritize the needs of the public or another individual on the basis of the individual's group membership. To test this theory, we conducted a field experiment with male confederates approaching adult male travelers passing through check-in gates at Dutch train stations. The confederates requested to follow the travelers without checking in themselves. We observed whether travelers sanctioned the free rider by rejecting and disapproving of this request or helped by opening the gates. At three train stations, 801 travelers were approached by 10 different confederates. Group membership was varied by having five native-majority and five ethnic-minority confederates. Robust evidence was found for travelers being more likely to help native-majority free riders and to sanction ethnic-minority free riders.</p>","PeriodicalId":20745,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"514-527"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251346178","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People often protect public goods by sanctioning free riders. This occurs in simple situations in which protecting the public good does not conflict with other moral considerations. How do people navigate situations in which protecting the public good comes at the expense of helping someone? We theorized that people would prioritize the needs of the public or another individual on the basis of the individual's group membership. To test this theory, we conducted a field experiment with male confederates approaching adult male travelers passing through check-in gates at Dutch train stations. The confederates requested to follow the travelers without checking in themselves. We observed whether travelers sanctioned the free rider by rejecting and disapproving of this request or helped by opening the gates. At three train stations, 801 travelers were approached by 10 different confederates. Group membership was varied by having five native-majority and five ethnic-minority confederates. Robust evidence was found for travelers being more likely to help native-majority free riders and to sanction ethnic-minority free riders.

保护公共产品还是帮助搭便车者?种族间和种族内相遇中的现实道德困境。
人们常常通过制裁搭便车者来保护公共产品。这种情况发生在保护公共利益与其他道德考虑不冲突的简单情况下。人们如何应对以牺牲他人利益为代价来保护公共利益的情况?我们的理论是,人们会根据个人的群体成员身份优先考虑公众或另一个人的需求。为了验证这一理论,我们进行了一项实地实验,让男性同伙接近通过荷兰火车站检票口的成年男性旅客。同盟者要求跟随这些旅行者,而不需要自己办理登机手续。我们观察旅行者是通过拒绝或反对这个请求来认可搭便车者,还是通过打开大门来提供帮助。在三个火车站,801名旅客被10个不同的同盟者接近。小组成员各不相同,有5个本地多数成员和5个少数民族成员。有力的证据表明,旅行者更有可能帮助占多数的本地人搭便车,并制裁少数族裔搭便车。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Science
Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Psychological Science, the flagship journal of The Association for Psychological Science (previously the American Psychological Society), is a leading publication in the field with a citation ranking/impact factor among the top ten worldwide. It publishes authoritative articles covering various domains of psychological science, including brain and behavior, clinical science, cognition, learning and memory, social psychology, and developmental psychology. In addition to full-length articles, the journal features summaries of new research developments and discussions on psychological issues in government and public affairs. "Psychological Science" is published twelve times annually.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信