在最后通牒博弈中对警察撒谎:以色列样本的实验研究。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychological Reports Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-06 DOI:10.1177/00332941231180443
Eitan Elaad
{"title":"在最后通牒博弈中对警察撒谎:以色列样本的实验研究。","authors":"Eitan Elaad","doi":"10.1177/00332941231180443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two studies examined lying, fair sharing, and trust of Israeli police officers and laypeople to police and non-police target persons in the Ultimatum Game. Participants aimed to retain as many resources as possible in a sharing situation. To this end, they could conceal resources from the target person. Thus, a measure of lying was created by letting participants act in a specific role. Results indicated that police officers lied less to police targets than non-police targets. Conversely, laypeople lied more to police targets and less to non-police targets. Police officers' preference for honest sharing with police targets and laypeople's selfish sharing with police targets signified the first study's results. Results were explained by ingroup-outgroup differences, further inspired by severe events undermining the Israeli police's reputation. One year later, similar but weaker results were obtained in a second study. Police officers trusted police targets more than non-police targets, and laypeople trusted police targets less than non-police targets.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"2530-2549"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lying to Police Officers in the Ultimatum Game: An Experimental Study With Israeli Samples.\",\"authors\":\"Eitan Elaad\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00332941231180443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Two studies examined lying, fair sharing, and trust of Israeli police officers and laypeople to police and non-police target persons in the Ultimatum Game. Participants aimed to retain as many resources as possible in a sharing situation. To this end, they could conceal resources from the target person. Thus, a measure of lying was created by letting participants act in a specific role. Results indicated that police officers lied less to police targets than non-police targets. Conversely, laypeople lied more to police targets and less to non-police targets. Police officers' preference for honest sharing with police targets and laypeople's selfish sharing with police targets signified the first study's results. Results were explained by ingroup-outgroup differences, further inspired by severe events undermining the Israeli police's reputation. One year later, similar but weaker results were obtained in a second study. Police officers trusted police targets more than non-police targets, and laypeople trusted police targets less than non-police targets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2530-2549\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231180443\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231180443","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

两项研究调查了最后通牒游戏中以色列警察和外行人对警察和非警察目标人的谎言、公平分享和信任。参与者的目标是在共享的情况下保留尽可能多的资源。为了达到这个目的,他们会对目标人物隐瞒资源。因此,通过让参与者扮演特定的角色,创造了一种衡量谎言的方法。结果表明,警察对警察目标的谎言比对非警察目标的谎言少。相反,外行人对警察目标撒谎更多,对非警察目标撒谎更少。警察倾向于诚实地与警察目标分享,外行人倾向于自私地与警察目标分享,这是第一项研究的结果。结果可以用群体内和群体外的差异来解释,而破坏以色列警察声誉的严重事件进一步激发了这种差异。一年后,在第二项研究中获得了类似但较弱的结果。警察对警察目标的信任高于非警察目标,而外行人对警察目标的信任低于非警察目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lying to Police Officers in the Ultimatum Game: An Experimental Study With Israeli Samples.

Two studies examined lying, fair sharing, and trust of Israeli police officers and laypeople to police and non-police target persons in the Ultimatum Game. Participants aimed to retain as many resources as possible in a sharing situation. To this end, they could conceal resources from the target person. Thus, a measure of lying was created by letting participants act in a specific role. Results indicated that police officers lied less to police targets than non-police targets. Conversely, laypeople lied more to police targets and less to non-police targets. Police officers' preference for honest sharing with police targets and laypeople's selfish sharing with police targets signified the first study's results. Results were explained by ingroup-outgroup differences, further inspired by severe events undermining the Israeli police's reputation. One year later, similar but weaker results were obtained in a second study. Police officers trusted police targets more than non-police targets, and laypeople trusted police targets less than non-police targets.

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
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
×
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