新发展大学英语阅读与写作4课文翻译Looking good by doing good寻找好行善

新发展大学英语阅读与写作4课文翻译Lookinggoodbydoinggood寻找好行善新发展大学英语阅读与写作4课文翻译Lookinggoodbydoinggood寻找好行善新发展大学英语阅读与写作4课文翻译Lookinggoodbydoinggood寻找好行善资料仅供参考文件编号：2022年4月新发展大学英语阅读与写作4课文翻译Lookinggoodbydoinggood寻找好行善版本号：A修改号：1页次：1.0审核：批准:发布日期：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.寻找好行善[2009年1月15日]经济焦点寻找好行善2009年1月15日来自经济学人印刷版回报人民的慷慨可能会适得其反插图由江淮Depczyk在波士顿当代艺术学院（ICA），装在一个巨大的玻璃和金属建筑海港的边缘博物馆大厅一个大匾，确定其最慷慨的赞助人。谁停下来看看的游客会发现，一些捐助者，其中包括两名是谁给了ICA的超过250万美元，已选择不透露他们的名字。这种沉默是不寻常的：私人礼物给慈善机构的不到1％是匿名的。大多数人（包括ICA的主顾绝大多数），希望他们的善行被谈论。在“Richistan”一书中对美国的新富，罗伯特·弗兰克写在佛罗里达州棕榈滩的存在主要是为了宣传其富有的居民（以慈善的几个社会出版物的至少前伯纳德·麦道夫涉嫌庞氏骗局留下他们中的一些与小左给）。事实证明，私人和公共慷慨之间的区别是理解什么促使人们把钱给慈善机构或献血，它的作用是昂贵的实干家，主要造福他人帮助。这种行为很普遍，而且越来越多。该十亿$306美国人给了慈善事业在2007年的三倍以上捐赠在1965年的金额。虽然这很大一部分来自像比尔·盖茨和沃伦·巴菲特，他的慈善事业备受关注富豪，谦虚仔也给他们的时间和金钱的慷慨。2001年的一项调查发现，美国家庭的89％给了慈善事业，和成人的44％自愿9m的全职工作当量。减税解释一些陌生人的仁慈。但绝不是全部。经济学家，谁倾向于认为自我利益支配的人大部分动作，都好奇，并已确定了几个理由来解释这种善行。减税是的，当然，主要的人之一，但捐助者有时也直接为他们的痛苦付出和感谢信的单纯的思想就足以说服别人咳出。有些人甚至充当出于纯粹的利他主义。但最有趣的是另一种解释，这是人们做的好，部分是因为它使他们看起来好于那些意见，他们所关心的。经济学家称之为“形象的动机”。杜克大学的丹阿雷利，特拉维夫大学解剖学的Bracha和哥伦比亚大学的StephanMeier法所追求的，通过实验，以测试图像动机的重要性，以及为深入了解不同的激励因素如何相互作用的。他们的研究结果，他们在一个新的文件*报告，表明图像动机问题很多，至少在实验室。更有趣的是，他们发现的证据表明，货币激励实际上可以减少慈善捐赠，当人们被看好在别人眼中的渴望驱动部分。关于慈善的形象建设的一种手段关键的东西，当然，它可以工作只有别人知道这件事，并认为有问题的慈善机构的积极评价