从不对称到对称的消费机会:特权和弱势群体成员对共同资源的榨取

Laila Nockur, Stefan Pfattheicher, J. Keller
{"title":"从不对称到对称的消费机会:特权和弱势群体成员对共同资源的榨取","authors":"Laila Nockur, Stefan Pfattheicher, J. Keller","doi":"10.1177/13684302221132722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In social dilemmas, asymmetric opportunities among actors can aggravate the conflict between individual and collective interests. We examine if and under what conditions redistributing extraction opportunities symmetrically fosters sustainable resource consumption. Participants in two studies (total n=640) completed a common resource game, first under asymmetric distribution of extraction opportunities (i.e., two advantaged group members could extract more than two disadvantaged group members) and then under symmetric distribution (i.e., all group members could extract the same amount). Advantaged (vs. disadvantaged) individuals took more from the resource in the asymmetric game and voted more often for the maintenance of the asymmetric system. Consumption was overall not more sustainable under symmetric (vs. asymmetric) distribution. We did not find evidence that these effects depend on the legitimacy of status positions. Of note, the symmetric game elicited higher satisfaction and fairness ratings in both status groups. The findings demonstrate how unequal access to resources fosters unequal consumption despite broad support for symmetry as the fairer system.","PeriodicalId":108457,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"382 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From asymmetric to symmetric consumption opportunities: Extractions from common resources by privileged and underprivileged group members\",\"authors\":\"Laila Nockur, Stefan Pfattheicher, J. Keller\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13684302221132722\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In social dilemmas, asymmetric opportunities among actors can aggravate the conflict between individual and collective interests. We examine if and under what conditions redistributing extraction opportunities symmetrically fosters sustainable resource consumption. Participants in two studies (total n=640) completed a common resource game, first under asymmetric distribution of extraction opportunities (i.e., two advantaged group members could extract more than two disadvantaged group members) and then under symmetric distribution (i.e., all group members could extract the same amount). Advantaged (vs. disadvantaged) individuals took more from the resource in the asymmetric game and voted more often for the maintenance of the asymmetric system. Consumption was overall not more sustainable under symmetric (vs. asymmetric) distribution. We did not find evidence that these effects depend on the legitimacy of status positions. Of note, the symmetric game elicited higher satisfaction and fairness ratings in both status groups. The findings demonstrate how unequal access to resources fosters unequal consumption despite broad support for symmetry as the fairer system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":108457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations\",\"volume\":\"382 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221132722\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221132722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在社会困境中,行动者之间的机会不对称会加剧个人利益与集体利益之间的冲突。我们研究了重新分配开采机会是否以及在什么条件下对称地促进了可持续的资源消耗。两项研究(共n=640)的参与者完成了一个共同的资源博弈,首先是在非对称分配的抽取机会下(即两个优势群体的成员可以抽取多于两个劣势群体的成员),然后是对称分配的(即所有群体的成员可以抽取相同数量的资源)。在非对称博弈中,优势个体(相对劣势个体)从资源中获取更多,并且更频繁地投票支持维持非对称系统。总体而言,在对称(相对于非对称)分配下,消费并不更具可持续性。我们没有发现证据表明这些影响取决于地位地位的合法性。值得注意的是,对称游戏在两个地位组中都获得了更高的满意度和公平评级。研究结果表明,尽管人们普遍支持对称是更公平的制度,但对资源的不平等获取如何助长了不平等的消费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From asymmetric to symmetric consumption opportunities: Extractions from common resources by privileged and underprivileged group members
In social dilemmas, asymmetric opportunities among actors can aggravate the conflict between individual and collective interests. We examine if and under what conditions redistributing extraction opportunities symmetrically fosters sustainable resource consumption. Participants in two studies (total n=640) completed a common resource game, first under asymmetric distribution of extraction opportunities (i.e., two advantaged group members could extract more than two disadvantaged group members) and then under symmetric distribution (i.e., all group members could extract the same amount). Advantaged (vs. disadvantaged) individuals took more from the resource in the asymmetric game and voted more often for the maintenance of the asymmetric system. Consumption was overall not more sustainable under symmetric (vs. asymmetric) distribution. We did not find evidence that these effects depend on the legitimacy of status positions. Of note, the symmetric game elicited higher satisfaction and fairness ratings in both status groups. The findings demonstrate how unequal access to resources fosters unequal consumption despite broad support for symmetry as the fairer system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信