新研究表明，即使是硬幣翻轉也會影響我們的行為

從歷史上看，許多旨在解釋歧視的心理理論都集中在小組過程上，而不是我們對個人的反應方式。

Imagine you are asked to give a small amount of money to a stranger. It's not your money, so it doesn't cost you anything. You're just deciding how much they get.

想像一下，要求您給一個陌生人少量錢。這不是您的錢，所以它不會花任何錢。您只是在決定他們得到多少。

But first, a pair of coins is flipped - one for you and one for the stranger - and you are told the results.

但是首先，一雙硬幣被翻轉了 - 一個是給您的，一個為陌生人 - 您被告知結果。

Would the coin flip change how much money you give? Specifically, would you give them a larger amount if you both got heads or tails than if you got different results?

硬幣翻轉會更改您付出的錢嗎？具體來說，如果您既有頭或尾巴，又要給他們更多的效果嗎？

As we discovered in a series of experiments with more than 1,400 participants, the coin flip - or other seemingly insignificant points of similarity or difference - might well affect your behaviour.

正如我們在一系列具有1400多名參與者的實驗中發現的那樣，硬幣翻轉或其他看似相似或差異的點可能會影響您的行為。

In a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we show how understanding why even a coin flip can influence behaviour might help us understand what makes people discriminate against others.

在美國國家科學院會議錄中的一篇新論文中，我們展示了為什麼即使是硬幣翻轉也會影響行為的原因可能有助於我們了解什麼使人們歧視他人。

'Us' versus 'them'

“我們”與“他們”

Historically, many psychological theories that aim to explain discrimination have focused on group processes, rather than on how we respond to individual people.

從歷史上看，許多旨在解釋歧視的心理理論都集中在小組過程上，而不是我們對個人的反應方式。

This focus on group processes followed, in part, from the discovery that people benefit their own group over another group even if the division into groups had happened based on seemingly irrelevant features.

這種關注的重點是，即使人們基於看似無關緊要的特徵，人們就發現人們將自己的小組對自己的群體受益，即使人們將自己的小組對自己的小組受益。

The use of such features has been crucial for explaining the core psychology of discrimination, stripped from any wider societal elements such as race, gender, values or attitudes.

這種特徵的使用對於解釋歧視的核心心理至關重要，這些心理從種族，性別，價值觀或態度等更廣泛的社會因素中剝奪。

In the seminal "minimal group" experiment, people were assigned to one of two groups based on seemingly irrelevant differences. Some groups were split by a preference for the paintings of Paul Klee versus those of Wassily Kandinsky, others by whether they had over- or underestimated the number of dots in an image. Some were even allocated to groups by a random event like a coin flip.

在開創性的“最小群體”實驗中，基於看似無關的差異，人們被分配給兩個組之一。一些小組的偏愛是保羅·克萊（Paul Klee）的繪畫而不是瓦西莉·坎丁斯基（Wassily Kandinsky）的繪畫，而另一些小組是通過圖像中的點數過高還是低估了。有些甚至通過隨機事件（例如硬幣翻轉）分配給組。

The result? Klee fans tended to give financial benefits to other Klee fans ahead of Kandinsky enthusiasts. Likewise, people in the "heads" group favoured their own group over those in the "tails" group.

結果？ Klee的球迷傾向於在Kandinsky愛好者之前向其他Klee粉絲帶來經濟利益。同樣，“頭”小組中的人們比“尾巴”小組中的人更喜歡自己的小組。

The results could not be explained easily by existing research at the time. Some theories had emphasised that people show favour towards an individual after agreeing on more meaningful topics than painting preferences or dots estimations. The meaningful topics were things like one's belief system, values or political or religious views.

當時現有研究無法輕易解釋結果。一些理論強調，與繪畫偏好或點估計相比，人們同意更有意義的話題後，人們對一個人表示讚賞。有意義的話題是一個人的信仰體系，價值觀或政治或宗教觀點。

Small studies had also found that a coin flip - which didn't lead to explicitly dividing people into groups - was not enough to make people show discriminatory tendencies.

小型研究還發現，硬幣翻轉並沒有導致明確的人分組 - 不足以使人們表現出歧視性傾向。

An influential theory called social identity theory thus concluded that social categorisation - thinking in terms of "us" versus "them" - could lead to people discriminating. This was tied to an idea that people elevate their self-image or improve their self-esteem by benefiting their own group over others.

因此，一個稱為社會認同理論的有影響力的理論得出的結論是，社會分類 - 以“我們”與“他們”的思考 - 可以導致人們歧視。這與人們的想法相關，即人們通過使自己的群體比他人相比，提高自己的自我形像或提高自尊心。

New research emphasises a role for even random similarity versus difference

新的研究強調甚至隨機相似性與差異的角色

In our recent research, we set out to reassess whether group division is crucial to understand discriminatory tendencies.

在我們最近的研究中，我們著手重新評估小組部門是否對了解歧視性傾向至關重要。

We carried out seven experiments with over 1,400 participants in total (all based in the United Kingdom).

我們進行了七個實驗，總共1400多名參與者（全部位於英國）。

The study analysed data from participants who were asked to either repeatedly choose their preferred painting from two, estimate the number of dots presented in a "cloud", or take part in a coin toss.

該研究分析了參與者的數據，他們被要求從兩分之二反複選擇他們的首選繪畫，估計“雲”中呈現的點數，或者參加硬幣折騰。

After each choice or coin flip, participants had to assign money to another person (the same person each time).

每次選擇或硬幣翻轉後，參與者必須將錢分配給另一個人（每次同一個人）。

The only information participants were given about the other individual was their outcome in the same situation. Neither participants nor the other person were assigned to groups. Someone asked to pick between two paintings, for instance, was only told which painting the person they were allocating money to preferred in that instance.

在同一情況下，唯一給出了有關另一個人的信息參與者。參與者和另一個人都沒有被分配給小組。例如，有人要求在兩幅繪畫之間挑選兩幅畫作，只是告訴哪個人將錢分配給在這種情況下偏愛的人。

Participants allocated on average 43.1% more money to another person who demonstrated the same judgement - or chance outcome - to their own.

參與者平均向另一個向自己表現出相同判斷或機會結果的人分配了43.1％的錢。

Our research demonstrates that some of our discriminatory tendencies may be driven by individual difference versus sameness even when that difference or sameness is based on random chance, like a coin flip.

我們的研究表明，即使這種差異或相同性是基於隨機的機會，例如硬幣翻轉，我們的某些歧視性傾向也可能是由個體差異與相同性驅動的。

The findings raise the possibility that more basic neural processes than thinking about groups may have contributed to these outcomes.

這些發現提出了這樣的可能性，即比對群體的思考更多的基本神經過程可能導致了這些結果。

Detecting a difference often comes with a conflict signal in the brain, and may come with negative emotions. Sameness with another person may hence lead to a more favourable treatment. However, this potential explanation will require further research.

檢測差異通常帶有大腦中的衝突信號，並且可能帶有負面情緒。因此，與他人的相同性可能會導致更有利的治療。但是，這種潛在的解釋將需要進一步的研究。

Why does this matter?

為什麼這很重要？

The findings can help understand our own tendencies for favouring another person.

這些發現可以幫助理解我們自己偏愛另一個人的傾向。

Previous research had suggested that "incidental similarity" with somebody, such as sharing a birthday or a name, can influence pro-social behaviour or liking because we associate the person with the way we see ourselves.

先前的研究表明，與某人（例如共享生日或名字）的“偶然相似性”會影響親社會的行為或喜歡，因為我們將人與自己看待自己的方式聯繫在一起。

Our research surprisingly suggests that something similar can happen on the basis of an even less-relevant chance event such as a coin flip.

我們的研究令人驚訝地表明，基於相關的機會事件（例如硬幣翻轉）可能會發生類似的事情。

This may affect how we think about discrimination. We usually understand discrimination as making unfair distinctions between people based on groups or other social categories.

這可能會影響我們對歧視的看法。我們通常將歧視理解為基於群體或其他社會類別之間的人之間的不公平區別。

Our research suggests future perspectives on discrimination may incorporate a role for individual-level difference, too.

我們的研究表明，關於歧視的未來觀點也可能納入個人級別差異的作用。

Does this new understanding suggest ways we can lessen discrimination? At this

這種新的理解是否暗示了我們可以減少歧視的方法？在這個