新研究表明，即使是硬币翻转也会影响我们的行为

从历史上看，许多旨在解释歧视的心理理论都集中在小组过程上，而不是我们对个人的反应方式。

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.

想象一下，要求您给一个陌生人少量钱。这不是您的钱，所以它不会花任何钱。您只是在决定他们得到多少。

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，一双硬币被翻转了 - 一个是给您的，一个为陌生人 - 您被告知结果。

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?

硬币翻转会更改您付出的钱吗？具体来说，如果您既有头或尾巴，又要给他们更多的效果吗？

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.

正如我们在一系列具有1400多名参与者的实验中发现的那样，硬币翻转或其他看似相似或差异的点可能会影响您的行为。

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.

在美国国家科学院会议录中的一篇新论文中，我们展示了为什么即使是硬币翻转也会影响行为的原因可能有助于我们了解什么使人们歧视他人。

'Us' versus 'them'

“我们”与“他们”

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

从历史上看，许多旨在解释歧视的心理理论都集中在小组过程上，而不是我们对个人的反应方式。

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.

这种关注的重点是，即使人们基于看似无关紧要的特征，人们就发现人们将自己的小组对自己的群体受益，即使人们将自己的小组对自己的小组受益。

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.

这种特征的使用对于解释歧视的核心心理至关重要，这些心理从种族，性别，价值观或态度等更广泛的社会因素中剥夺。

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.

在开创性的“最小群体”实验中，基于看似无关的差异，人们被分配给两个组之一。一些小组的偏爱是保罗·克莱（Paul Klee）的绘画而不是瓦西莉·坎丁斯基（Wassily Kandinsky）的绘画，而另一些小组是通过图像中的点数过高还是低估了。有些甚至通过随机事件（例如硬币翻转）分配给组。

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.

结果？ Klee的球迷倾向于在Kandinsky爱好者之前向其他Klee粉丝带来经济利益。同样，“头”小组中的人们比“尾巴”小组中的人更喜欢自己的小组。

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.

当时现有研究无法轻易解释结果。一些理论强调，与绘画偏好或点估计相比，人们同意更有意义的话题后，人们对一个人表示赞赏。有意义的话题是一个人的信仰体系，价值观或政治或宗教观点。

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.

小型研究还发现，硬币翻转并没有导致明确的人分组 - 不足以使人们表现出歧视性倾向。

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，一个称为社会认同理论的有影响力的理论得出的结论是，社会分类 - 以“我们”与“他们”的思考 - 可以导致人们歧视。这与人们的想法相关，即人们通过使自己的群体比他人相比，提高自己的自我形象或提高自尊心。

New research emphasises a role for even random similarity versus difference

新的研究强调甚至随机相似性与差异的角色

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

在我们最近的研究中，我们着手重新评估小组部门是否对了解歧视性倾向至关重要。

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

我们进行了七个实验，总共1400多名参与者（全部位于英国）。

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.

该研究分析了参与者的数据，他们被要求从两分之二反复选择他们的首选绘画，估计“云”中呈现的点数，或者参加硬币折腾。

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

每次选择或硬币翻转后，参与者必须将钱分配给另一个人（每次同一个人）。

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.

在同一情况下，唯一给出了有关另一个人的信息参与者。参与者和另一个人都没有被分配给小组。例如，有人要求在两幅绘画之间挑选两幅画作，只是告诉哪个人将钱分配给在这种情况下偏爱的人。

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

参与者平均向另一个向自己表现出相同判断或机会结果的人分配了43.1％的钱。

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.

我们的研究表明，即使这种差异或相同性是基于随机的机会，例如硬币翻转，我们的某些歧视性倾向也可能是由个体差异与相同性驱动的。

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

这些发现提出了这样的可能性，即比对群体的思考更多的基本神经过程可能导致了这些结果。

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.

检测差异通常带有大脑中的冲突信号，并且可能带有负面情绪。因此，与他人的相同性可能会导致更有利的治疗。但是，这种潜在的解释将需要进一步的研究。

Why does this matter?

为什么这很重要？

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

这些发现可以帮助理解我们自己偏爱另一个人的倾向。

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，与某人（例如共享生日或名字）的“偶然相似性”会影响亲社会的行为或喜欢，因为我们将人与自己看待自己的方式联系在一起。

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

我们的研究令人惊讶地表明，基于相关的机会事件（例如硬币翻转）可能会发生类似的事情。

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.

这可能会影响我们对歧视的看法。我们通常将歧视理解为基于群体或其他社会类别之间的人之间的不公平区别。

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

我们的研究表明，关于歧视的未来观点也可能纳入个人级别差异的作用。

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

这种新的理解是否暗示了我们可以减少歧视的方法？在这个