人性化促进碳分配中的平等而非效率偏好

IF 6.1 1区 心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Lingling Huang , Li Liu , Jianning Dang , Cong Wei , Xiaoyan Miao , Zhen Liu
{"title":"人性化促进碳分配中的平等而非效率偏好","authors":"Lingling Huang ,&nbsp;Li Liu ,&nbsp;Jianning Dang ,&nbsp;Cong Wei ,&nbsp;Xiaoyan Miao ,&nbsp;Zhen Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Decisions regarding international carbon allocation present an efficiency–equality dilemma. In addition to serving national interests, recent studies have shown the moral value foundations of carbon allocation preferences. Nevertheless, concentrating only on the moral values of the allocator is insufficient; the allocator's moral concern for the allocatees often plays an equally or even more crucial role. Inspired by the moral concern model of humanization, we propose that the humanization of allocatees boosts empathy toward them, thereby promoting equality (versus efficiency) preference in carbon allocation. The results of three studies (<em>N</em> = 911) reveal that humanization increases selection of more equal (versus efficient) allocation proposals (Studies 1–3) and decreases credit allocation differences between allocatees (Studies 2 and 3). Further, enhanced empathy is found to mediate these effects (Studies 2 and 3). By identifying the roles of humanization and empathy in carbon allocation preferences, this research provides a moral concern framework for understanding international carbon allocation controversies and has important implications for promoting climate governance cooperation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":"100 ","pages":"Article 102481"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Humanization promotes equality over efficiency preference in carbon allocation\",\"authors\":\"Lingling Huang ,&nbsp;Li Liu ,&nbsp;Jianning Dang ,&nbsp;Cong Wei ,&nbsp;Xiaoyan Miao ,&nbsp;Zhen Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Decisions regarding international carbon allocation present an efficiency–equality dilemma. In addition to serving national interests, recent studies have shown the moral value foundations of carbon allocation preferences. Nevertheless, concentrating only on the moral values of the allocator is insufficient; the allocator's moral concern for the allocatees often plays an equally or even more crucial role. Inspired by the moral concern model of humanization, we propose that the humanization of allocatees boosts empathy toward them, thereby promoting equality (versus efficiency) preference in carbon allocation. The results of three studies (<em>N</em> = 911) reveal that humanization increases selection of more equal (versus efficient) allocation proposals (Studies 1–3) and decreases credit allocation differences between allocatees (Studies 2 and 3). Further, enhanced empathy is found to mediate these effects (Studies 2 and 3). By identifying the roles of humanization and empathy in carbon allocation preferences, this research provides a moral concern framework for understanding international carbon allocation controversies and has important implications for promoting climate governance cooperation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Psychology\",\"volume\":\"100 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102481\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424002548\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424002548","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有关国际碳分配的决策存在效率与平等的两难选择。除了服务于国家利益,近期的研究还显示了碳分配偏好的道德价值基础。然而,仅仅关注分配者的道德价值是不够的,分配者对被分配者的道德关怀往往起着同等甚至更重要的作用。受人性化道德关怀模型的启发,我们提出,对被分配者的人性化关怀会增强对他们的同理心,从而促进碳分配中的平等(相对于效率)偏好。三项研究(N = 911)的结果显示,人性化增加了对更平等(相对于效率)分配方案的选择(研究 1-3),并减少了分配者之间的信用分配差异(研究 2 和 3)。此外,研究还发现,移情作用的增强对这些效果具有中介作用(研究 2 和 3)。通过确定人性化和移情在碳分配偏好中的作用,本研究为理解国际碳分配争议提供了一个道德关怀框架,并对促进气候治理合作具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Humanization promotes equality over efficiency preference in carbon allocation
Decisions regarding international carbon allocation present an efficiency–equality dilemma. In addition to serving national interests, recent studies have shown the moral value foundations of carbon allocation preferences. Nevertheless, concentrating only on the moral values of the allocator is insufficient; the allocator's moral concern for the allocatees often plays an equally or even more crucial role. Inspired by the moral concern model of humanization, we propose that the humanization of allocatees boosts empathy toward them, thereby promoting equality (versus efficiency) preference in carbon allocation. The results of three studies (N = 911) reveal that humanization increases selection of more equal (versus efficient) allocation proposals (Studies 1–3) and decreases credit allocation differences between allocatees (Studies 2 and 3). Further, enhanced empathy is found to mediate these effects (Studies 2 and 3). By identifying the roles of humanization and empathy in carbon allocation preferences, this research provides a moral concern framework for understanding international carbon allocation controversies and has important implications for promoting climate governance cooperation.
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
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
140
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space
×
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