新發(fā)展大學(xué)英語(yǔ)閱讀與寫(xiě)作4課文翻譯Looking good by doing good尋找好行善

新發(fā)展大學(xué)英語(yǔ)閱讀與寫(xiě)作4課文翻譯Lookinggoodbydoinggood尋找好行善新發(fā)展大學(xué)英語(yǔ)閱讀與寫(xiě)作4課文翻譯Lookinggoodbydoinggood尋找好行善新發(fā)展大學(xué)英語(yǔ)閱讀與寫(xiě)作4課文翻譯Lookinggoodbydoinggood尋找好行善資料僅供參考文件編號(hào)：2022年4月新發(fā)展大學(xué)英語(yǔ)閱讀與寫(xiě)作4課文翻譯Lookinggoodbydoinggood尋找好行善版本號(hào)：A修改號(hào)：1頁(yè)次：1.0審核：批準(zhǔn):發(fā)布日期：Lookinggoodbydoinggood[Jan15th2009]EconomicsfocusLookinggoodbydoinggoodJan15th2009

FromTheEconomistprinteditionRewardingpeoplefortheirgenerositymaybecounterproductive

IllustrationbyJacDepczykALARGEplaqueinthefoyerofBoston’sInstituteforContemporaryArt(ICA),amuseumhousedinadramaticglassandmetalbuildingontheharbour’sedge,identifiesitsmostgenerouspatrons.Visitorswhostoptolookwillnoticethatsomedonors—includingtwowhogavetheICAover$—havechosennottorevealtheirnames.Suchreticenceisunusual:lessthan1%ofprivategiftstocharityareanonymous.Mostpeople(includingthevastmajorityoftheICA’spatrons)wanttheirgooddeedstobetalkedabout.In“Richistan”,abookonAmerica’snewrich,RobertFrankwritesoftheseveralsocietypublicationsinFlorida’sPalmBeachwhichexistlargelytopublicisethecharityofitswell-heeledresidents(atleastbeforeBernardMadoff’sallegedPonzischemeleftsomeofthemwithlittlelefttogive).Asitturnsout,thedistinctionbetweenprivateandpublicgenerosityishelpfulinunderstandingwhatmotivatespeopletogivemoneytocharitiesordonateblood,actswhicharecostlytothedoerandprimarilybenefitothers.Suchactionsarewidespread,andgrowing.The$306billionthatAmericansgavetocharityin2007wasmorethantripletheamountdonatedin1965.AndthoughabigchunkofthiscomesfromplutocratslikeBillGatesandWarrenBuffett,whosephilanthropyhasattractedmuchattention,modestearnersalsogivegenerouslyoftheirtimeandmoney.A2001surveyfoundthat89%ofAmericanhouseholdsgavetocharity,andthat44%ofadultsvolunteeredtheequivalentof9mfull-timejobs.Taxbreaksexplainsomeofthekindnessofstrangers.Butbynomeansall.Economists,whotendtothinkself-interestgovernsmostactionsofman,areintrigued,andhaveidentifiedseveralreasonstoexplaingooddeedsofthiskind.Taxbreaksare,ofcourse,oneofthemainones,butdonorsarealsosometimespaiddirectlyfortheirpains,andthemerethoughtofathank-youlettercanbeenoughtopersuadeotherstocoughup.Someevenactoutofsheeraltruism.Butmostinterestingisanotherexplanation,whichisthatpeopledogoodinpartbecauseitmakesthemlookgoodtothosewhoseopinionstheycareabout.Economistscallthis“imagemotivation”.DanArielyofDukeUniversity,AnatBrachaofTelAvivUniversity,andStephanMeierofColumbiaUniversitysought,throughexperiments,totesttheimportanceofimagemotivation,aswellastogaininsightsintohowdifferentmotivatingfactorsinteract.Theirresults,whichtheyreportinanewpaper*,suggestthatimagemotivationmattersalot,atleastinthelaboratory.Evenmoreintriguingly,theyfindevidencethatmonetaryincentivescanactuallyreducecharitablegivingwhenpeoplearedriveninpartbyadesiretolookgoodinothers’eyes.Thecrucialthingaboutcharityasameansofimagebuildingis,ofcourse,thatitcanworkonlyifothersknowaboutitandthinkpositivelyofthecharityinquestion.So,theacademicsargue,peopleshouldgivemorewhentheiractionsarepublic.Totestthis,theyconductedanexperimentwherethenumberoftimesparticipantsclickedanawkwardcombinationofcomputerkeysdeterminedhowmuchmoneywasdonatedontheirbehalftotheAmericanRedCross.Since92%ofparticipantsthoughthighlyoftheRedCross,givingtoitcouldreasonablybeassumedtomakepeoplelookgoodtotheirpeers.Peoplewererandomlyassignedtoeitheraprivategroup,whereonlytheparticipantknewtheamountofthedonation,orapublicgroup,wheretheparticipanthadtostandupattheendofthesessionandsharethisinformationwiththegroup.Consistentwiththehypothesisthatimagemattered,participantsexertedmuchgreatereffortinthepubliccase:theaveragenumberofclicks,at900,wasnearlydoubletheaverageof517clicksintheprivatecase.However,theacademicswantedtogoastepfurther.Inthis,theywereinfluencedbythetheoreticalmodeloftwoeconomists,RolandBenabou,ofPrincetonUniversity,andJeanTirole,ofToulouseUniversity’sInstitutd’EconomieIndustrielle,whoformalisedtheideathatifpeopledogoodtolookgood,introducingmonetaryorotherrewardsintothemixmightcomplicatematters.Anobserverwhoseessomeonegettingpaidfordonatingblood,forexample,wouldfindithardtodifferentiatebetweenthedonor’sintrinsic“goodness”andhisgreed.BloodmoneyTheideathatmonetaryincentivescouldbecounterproductivehasbeenaroundatleastsince1970,whenRichardTitmuss,aBritishsocialscientist,hypothesisedthatpayingpeopletodonatebloodwouldreducetheamountofbloodthattheygave.ButMrArielyandhiscolleaguesdemonstrateamechanismthroughwhichsuchconfoundingeffectscouldoperate.Theypresumedthattheadditionofamonetaryincentiveshouldhavemuchlessofanimpactinpublic(whereitmuddlestheimagesignalofanaction)thaninprivate(wheretheimageisnotimportant).Byaddingamonetaryrewardforparticipantstotheirexperiment,theacademicswereabletoconfirmtheirhypothesis.Inprivate,beingpaidtoclickincreasedeffortfrom548clicksto740,butinpublic,therewasnexttonoeffect.Thetrioalsoraisethepossibilitythatcleverlydesignedrewardscouldactuallydrawoutmoregenerositybyexploitingimagemotivation.Suppose,forexample,thatrewardswereusedtoencouragepeopletosupportacertaincausewithaminimumdonation.Ifthatcausethenpublicisedthosewhoweregenerouswellbeyondtheminimumrequiredofthem,itwouldshowthattheywerenotjust“initforthemoney”.Behaviouraleconomicsmayyetprovidecharitieswithsomecreativenewfund-raisingtechniques.尋找好行善[2009年1月15日]經(jīng)濟(jì)焦點(diǎn)尋找好行善2009年1月15日來(lái)自經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人印刷版回報(bào)人民的慷慨可能會(huì)適得其反插圖由江淮Depczyk在波士頓當(dāng)代藝術(shù)學(xué)院（ICA），裝在一個(gè)巨大的玻璃和金屬建筑海港的邊緣博物館大廳一個(gè)大匾，確定其最慷慨的贊助人。誰(shuí)停下來(lái)看看的游客會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，一些捐助者，其中包括兩名是誰(shuí)給了ICA的超過(guò)250萬(wàn)美元，已選擇不透露他們的名字。這種沉默是不尋常的：私人禮物給慈善機(jī)構(gòu)的不到1％是匿名的。大多數(shù)人（包括ICA的主顧絕大多數(shù)），希望他們的善行被談?wù)?。在“Richistan”一書(shū)中對(duì)美國(guó)的新富，羅伯特·弗蘭克寫(xiě)在佛羅里達(dá)州棕櫚灘的存在主要是為了宣傳其富有的居民（以慈善的幾個(gè)社會(huì)出版物的至少前伯納德·麥道夫涉嫌龐氏騙局留下他們中的一些與小左給）。事實(shí)證明，私人和公共慷慨之間的區(qū)別是理解什么促使人們把錢(qián)給慈善機(jī)構(gòu)或獻(xiàn)血，它的作用是昂貴的實(shí)干家，主要造福他人幫助。這種行為很普遍，而且越來(lái)越多。該十億$306美國(guó)人給了慈善事業(yè)在2007年的三倍以上捐贈(zèng)在1965年的金額。雖然這很大一部分來(lái)自像比爾·蓋茨和沃倫·巴菲特，他的慈善事業(yè)備受關(guān)注富豪，謙虛仔也給他們的時(shí)間和金錢(qián)的慷慨。2001年的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，美國(guó)家庭的89％給了慈善事業(yè)，和成人的44％自愿9m的全職工作當(dāng)量。減稅解釋一些陌生人的仁慈。但絕不是全部。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，誰(shuí)傾向于認(rèn)為自我利益支配的人大部分動(dòng)作，都好奇，并已確定了幾個(gè)理由來(lái)解釋這種善行。減稅是的，當(dāng)然，主要的人之一，但捐助者有時(shí)也直接為他們的痛苦付出和感謝信的單純的思想就足以說(shuō)服別人咳出。有些人甚至充當(dāng)出于純粹的利他主義。但最有趣的是另一種解釋?zhuān)@是人們做的好，部分是因?yàn)樗顾麄兛雌饋?lái)好于那些意見(jiàn)，他們所關(guān)心的。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家稱(chēng)之為“形象的動(dòng)機(jī)”。杜克大學(xué)的丹阿雷利，特拉維夫大學(xué)解剖學(xué)的Bracha和哥倫比亞大學(xué)的StephanMeier法所追求的，通過(guò)實(shí)驗(yàn)，以測(cè)試圖像動(dòng)機(jī)的重要性，以及為深入了解不同的激勵(lì)因素如何相互作用的。他們的研究結(jié)果，他們?cè)谝粋€(gè)新的文件*報(bào)告，表明圖像動(dòng)機(jī)問(wèn)題很多，至少在實(shí)驗(yàn)室。更有趣的是，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)的證據(jù)表明，貨幣激勵(lì)實(shí)際上可以減少慈善捐贈(zèng)，當(dāng)人們被看好在別人眼中的渴望驅(qū)動(dòng)部分。關(guān)于慈善的形象建設(shè)的一種手段關(guān)鍵的東西，當(dāng)然，它可以工作只有別人知道這件事，并認(rèn)為有問(wèn)題的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)的積極評(píng)價(jià)