Reports an error in "When fairness is not enough: The disproportionate contributions of the poor in a collective action problem" by Eugene Malthouse, Charlie Pilgrim, Daniel Sgroi and Thomas T. Hills (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2023[Nov], Vol 152[11], 3229-3242). The third and final research question in The Collective-Risk Social Dilemma section now appears as follows: 3. If what people perceive as fair is insufficient to solve the problem, under what conditions do groups still manage to succeed? All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2023-92402-001.) Many of our most pressing challenges, from combating climate change to dealing with pandemics, are collective action problems: situations in which individual and collective interests conflict with each other. In such situations, people face a dilemma about making individually costly but collectively beneficial contributions to the common good. Understanding which factors influence people's willingness to make these contributions is vital for the design of policies and institutions that support the attainment of collective goals. In this study, we investigate how inequalities, and different causes of inequalities, impact individual-level behavior and group-level outcomes. First, we find that what people judged to be fair was not enough to solve the collective action problem: if they acted according to what they thought was fair, they would collectively fail. Second, the level of wealth (rich vs. poor) altered what was judged to be a fair contribution to the public good more than the cause of wealth (merit vs. luck vs. uncertain). Contributions during the game reflected these fairness judgments, with poorer individuals consistently contributing a higher proportion of their wealth than richer participants, which further increased inequality-particularly in successful groups. Finally, the cause of one's wealth was largely irrelevant, mattering most only when it was uncertain, as opposed to resulting from merit or luck. We discuss implications for policymakers and international climate change negotiations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

修正 Malthouse 等人的“当公平不够时：穷人在集体行动问题中的不成比例的贡献”。 （2023）。


报告尤金·马尔特豪斯 (Eugene Malthouse)、查理·皮尔格林 (Charlie Pilgrim)、丹尼尔·斯格罗伊 (Daniel Sgroi) 和托马斯·T. 希尔斯 (Thomas T. Hills) 撰写的“当公平不够：穷人在集体行动问题中的不成比例的贡献”中的错误（《实验心理学杂志：综合》，2023 年 [11 月]，第 152 卷[11]，3229-3242）。 “集体风险社会困境”部分中的第三个也是最后一个研究问题如下： 3. 如果人们认为的公平不足以解决问题，那么在什么条件下群体仍然能够成功？本文的所有版本均已更正。 （以下原文摘要出现在记录 2023-92402-001 中。）从应对气候变化到应对流行病，我们最紧迫的许多挑战都是集体行动问题：个人和集体利益相互冲突的情况。在这种情况下，人们面临着为共同利益做出个人成本高昂但集体有益的贡献的困境。了解哪些因素影响人们做出这些贡献的意愿对于设计支持实现集体目标的政策和制度至关重要。在这项研究中，我们调查不平等以及不平等的不同原因如何影响个人层面的行为和群体层面的结果。首先，我们发现人们判断的公平并不足以解决集体行动问题：如果他们按照他们认为公平的方式行事，他们就会集体失败。其次，财富水平（富人与穷人）对公共利益的公平贡献的影响大于对财富原因（功绩与运气与不确定性）的影响。 游戏期间的贡献反映了这些公平判断，较贫穷的个人始终比较富裕的参与者贡献更高比例的财富，这进一步加剧了不平等——尤其是在成功群体中。最后，一个人的财富来源在很大程度上是无关紧要的，只有当它不确定时才最重要，而不是来自功绩或运气。我们讨论对政策制定者和国际气候变化谈判的影响。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。