富人真的比穷人更吝啬吗？（更新）

嘿，你好。

Hey there.

史蒂文·杜布纳。

Steven Dubner.

你即将听到的这一集是我们最初在2017年制作的，但我们已经更新了内容，现在作为由慈善机构‘直接捐赠’发起的新活动‘播客对抗贫困’的一部分重新播放。

The episode you're about to hear is one that we originally made in 2017, but we have updated it and are replaying it now as part of a new campaign called Pods Fight Poverty, which is run by the charity Give Directly.

他们的目标是直接向贫困国家的家庭提供援助，而根据相关学术研究，这确实是一个非常好的想法。

Their goal is to, well, give directly to families in poorer countries, which according to the academic research on the topic is a really good idea.

如果你因此受到鼓舞想要捐款——我希望你会——请访问 givedirectly.org/freakradio。

If you are inspired to give, and I hope you are, go to givedirectly.org/freakradio.

我们正与一群其他播客主持人共同参与这项活动，目标是共同筹集100万美元，以帮助700个家庭摆脱贫困。

We are joining a bunch of fellow podcasters here, and the goal is to collectively raise $1,000,000, which will lift 700 families out of poverty.

700个家庭。

700 families.

这足以让人感到欣慰。

That's something to feel good about.

再次访问 givedirectly.org/freakradio，了解更多关于这个公益事业的信息。

Again, go to givedirectly.org/freakradio to learn more about this cause.

感谢你尽己所能的捐赠，一如既往，感谢你的收听。

Thanks for giving whatever you can, and as always, thanks for listening.

促使这一想法的，是过去四五年间日益兴起的关于收入差距扩大的讨论。

What inspired this is a discussion that has come up in the last four or five years about the growing income disparity.

富者愈富，贫者愈贫。

Rich growing richer, the poorer poorer.

这是吉姆·安德罗尼。

That's Jim Andrioni.

我是加州大学圣地亚哥分校的经济学教授。

I'm a professor of economics at the University of California in San Diego.

他现在谈到的这个讨论，我猜你自己也经历过。

The discussion he's talking about now I'm guessing you've had this discussion yourself.

数据显示，富人正变得越来越富有。

The rich, as the data have shown, are getting richer.

因此，了解富人是否会为整个社会的利益着想非常重要。

So it's important to know whether the rich are going to work in the best interest of the whole society.

一个显而易见的问题是：财富如何影响一个人对待他人的方式？

One obvious question to ask, how does wealth affect how a given person treats other people?

到目前为止，科学证据并不令人乐观。

The scientific evidence to date has been not very encouraging.

所以，不只是你一个人这样觉得。

So, no, it's not just you.

科学也证实，一个人拥有的钱越多，他越可能变得无礼、粗鲁、自私。

Science also agrees that the more money a person has, the more likely she is to be an inconsiderate rude jerk.

我们走上街头，想看看这种观点有多普遍。

We took to the streets to see how widely held this view is.

我们问了一个简单的问题。

We asked a simple question.

你认为谁更自私？

Who do you think are more selfish?

富人还是穷人？

Rich people or poor people?

这是个难题，因为我都认识。

That's a tough question because I've known both.

富人更自私，因为如果你生活舒适，看到旁边的人生活艰难却不去帮他们，那就是自私。

Oh, rich people are more selfish because if you live in comfortable and you see the next man out here not living and you can't help him, that's selfish.

那就是自私。

That is selfish.

我会说穷人更愿意给予，因为他们知道一无所有是什么感觉。

I would say the poor person is more willing to give because they know what it's like like to not have.

我不认为这取决于你的财富。

I don't think it depends on your wealth.

我认为这取决于你是怎样的人以及你如何被抚养长大。

I think it depends on the type of person you are and the way you were raised.

也许是富人，我觉得是因为更多的污名化。

Maybe rich people, I think, just because of maybe more of the stigma.

我不知道他们是否真的如此，但我认为富人是这样的。

I don't know if they actually are, but I think rich people.

我不知道这个问题的答案。

I don't know the answer to that.

我认识一些非常慷慨的富人。

I know a number of rich people who are extremely generous.

但与此同时，我也见过无家可归者之间彼此非常慷慨。

But at the same time, I have seen homeless people be very generous with each other.

我认为这取决于个人。

I think it depends on the individual.

我不认为这一定是经济状况决定的。

I don't necessarily think it's an economic determination.

然而，我们被告知，这确实是经济状况决定的。

We've been told, however, that it is an economic determination.

在一个不平等日益加剧的国家，保罗·皮夫进行了一系列令人震惊的研究。

In a country more and more polarized by inequality, Paul Piff led a series of startling studies.

富裕的参与者从孩子那里拿走的糖果是贫穷参与者的好两倍。

Wealthier participants took two times as much candy from children as did poor participants.

有许多研究指出，在某些领域、某些方面，富人似乎更少具有亲社会性——这是心理学家使用的术语。

There are a lot of studies that came out saying that in some domains, some ways, a lot of ways, the rich people seem to be less pro social is the term that the psychologists use for that.

是的。

Yeah.

在社会中，普遍存在一种观点，认为富人非常自私。

There's all this view, right, in society that the rich are super selfish.

这是另一位经济学家简·斯托普。

That's Jan Stope, another economist.

甚至在《圣经》中，也有这样一句话：骆驼穿过针眼，比财主进天国还容易。

Even in the bible, right, there's this quote that it is easier for a camel to crawl through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

甚至在流行歌曲中，你也会听到关于富人多么自私的描述。

Even in pop songs, you'll hear about how selfish the the rich are.

人人都知道这场较量是事先安排好的。

Everybody knows the fight was fixed.

穷人一直贫穷。

The poor stay poor.

富人越来越富。

The rich get rich.

但这里有一件重要的事情要注意。

But here's something important to keep in mind.

许多关于富人自私的科学证据来自实验室实验。

A lot of the scientific evidence for the rich being selfish came from lab experiments.

但实验室环境和现实环境之间存在差异。

But there are differences between the lab, our lab setting, and the field.

这是另一位经济学家尼科斯·尼基福拉基斯。

That's Nikos Nikiforakis, another economist.

因此，重要的是要在现实中检验你的直觉。

So it's important to go and check your intuition in the field.

这正是尼基福拉基斯、斯托普和安德里奥尼所做的事情。

And that's exactly what Nikiforakis, Stope, and Andrioni did.

他们进行了一项实地实验。

They ran a field experiment.

那我们为什么不直接把这些信件投到富人和穷人的家里，看看谁更友善呢？

Well, why don't we just go and throw these letters to houses of the rich and the poor people and see, you know, who is nicer?

谁更具有亲社会行为？

Who is more prosocial?

整个实验只需要一件荷兰邮递员的制服、一些装满现金的信封，以及一点点荒诞感。

All it took was a Dutch postal worker's uniform, some envelopes stuffed with cash, and a slight sense of the absurd.

今天，在《魔鬼经济学》广播节目中，这项实验揭示了什么？

Today on Freakonomics Radio, what did this experiment show?

是的。

Yeah.

对我们来说，结果非常令人震惊。

So for us, the results were quite shocking.

这里是《魔鬼经济学》广播节目，这档播客探索一切事物的隐藏面，由主持人史蒂芬·都伯纳为您呈现。

This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything with your host, Steven Dubner.

那么，你会认为自己是个利他主义者吗？还是不是？

So would you consider yourself an altruistic person, not altruistic?

嗯，你知道的，

Well, you know,

当你研究利他主义时，人们总是假设你之所以这么做是因为你本身就很利他。

when you study altruism, people always presume that's because you are altruistic.

这就让很多人围在你身边，尤其是在鸡尾酒会时间，指望你请客喝酒。

So that opens you up to lots of people hanging around you and your cocktail hour time, hoping you're gonna pay for the drinks.

不过，我觉得你也可以提出相反的观点：我根本不能请你喝酒，因为那样会建立一套先验假设，暴露我研究中的偏见。

I would think you could make the opposite argument though, which is plainly I can't buy you a drink because that would, establish a set of priors that would show a bias in my research.

没错。

Yes.

这正是我的说法。

That's what I say.

你知道的？

You know?

如果我真的理解了利他主义，我就不用去研究它了。

If I understood this altruism stuff, I wouldn't have to study it.

吉姆·安德罗尼是利他主义经济学的先驱。

Jim Andrioni was a pioneer in developing what's known as the economics of altruism.

研究那些受关怀和他人福祉驱动、努力捐出钱财的人，似乎完全超出了经济学的范畴。

The idea that studying people who are governed by care and concern for others and who work hard to give their money away all seemed like outside of economics.

因此，这对我们社会学家来说，也许是心理学家的事，但真的不是经济学。

So that was something that was for us, for the sociologists to understand, maybe some psychologists, but it's really not economics.

那你为什么不让社会学家去研究呢？

Why didn't you leave it to the sociologists?

是什么让你对此产生了兴趣？

What was it that led you to become interested?

我在研究生阶段读过一篇由一位名叫拉塞尔·罗伯茨的人写的论文。

There was a paper that I read when I was in graduate school by a guy named Russell Roberts.

他得出的一些结论我觉得并不合理。

He drew some conclusions that I thought were didn't quite make sense to me.

他的观点是，人们关心的是慈善事业的总供给量，而不关心这些资金来自哪里。

And that was that he assumed that people care about the total supply of charity irrespective of where it comes from.

因此，如果政府从你口袋里拿走钱，然后捐给慈善机构，你就应该一比一地减少自己对慈善机构的捐赠。

So if the government comes and takes money from your pocket, gives that to the charity, then you should dollar for dollar withdraw donations to the charity.

所以这是否涉及‘挤出效应’的概念，即一种美元会挤出另一种美元？

So was this about the notion of crowding out and how one kind of dollar would crowd out another?

这基本上是他所探讨的内容吗？

Was that essentially what he was exploring?

是的。

Yes.

这就是我们在经济学中所说的‘挤出效应’假说：你并不关心美元的来源或它们如何到达慈善机构。

So that's what we've come to call the crowding out hypothesis in economics, that you don't care where the dollars come from or how they get to the charity.

你只关心慈善机构的最终消费和你自身的最终消费。

You just care about the final consumption of the charity and the final consumption of yourself.

任何达成这一结果的路径都是一样的。

And any path to that is just the same.

如果你持有这种假设，你就会得出这样的结论：政府应该退出帮助穷人的领域，因为如果我们是利他的，那么私营部门会独自承担起这一责任。

And if that is your assumption, you're going to be able to draw conclusions like the government should just get out of the business of helping poor people because if we're altruistic, then the the private sector will take over that responsibility all on its own.

是什么让你如此在意这一点，以至于想要采取行动、挑战它呢？

And what made you care enough about that to wanna do something about it, to wanna challenge it?

因为我这个人很固执，基本上就是这样。

Because I'm stubborn, basically.

我看到一些事情是

And I see something that is

我觉得不对劲。

I think isn't right.

我必须去弄清楚，找出让我感到不安的地方，直到我写出一篇相关的论文。

I have to kinda go figure it out and figure out what's not sitting with me until I produce a paper about it.

安德里奥尼在1988年发表的论文表明，政府的捐助并未完全挤出私人捐赠。

The paper that Andrioni produced in 1988 showed that government contributions did not completely crowd out private gifts.

这与直接的逐美元抵减模型形成对比：政府捐助每增加一美元，私人捐赠仅减少五至二十八美分。

That is in contrast to the direct dollar for dollar reduction model, a $1 increase in government contributions decreased private giving by only five to twenty eight cents.

这引出了下一个问题。

This led to the next question.

为什么这么多人在没有义务的情况下仍然捐出这么多钱？

Why do so many people give away so much money when they're not obligated?

安德罗尼将这种现象称为温暖光辉利他主义。

Andreoni called this phenomenon warm glow altruism.

人们捐赠给慈善机构的动机并非源于慈善机构本身的产出或效果，而是因为钱从我钱包里出去时，我会感到更快乐。

The idea that people are motivated to give to charities for reasons other than the output or the production of the charity itself, that I'm happier when it's coming out of my wallet.

但为什么钱从我钱包里出去时，我会更快乐呢？

But what makes me happier when it comes out of my wallet?

天啊，这里可能涉及的因素多得惊人。

That's boy, there's a just a huge list of things to think about that could possibly be at stake here.

举几个例子。

Name some.

我的个人影响。

My personal impact.

我可以缓解一些内疚感。

I can have some guilt that I'm relieving.

我有一些自豪感。

I have some pride.

我对被帮助的人怀有同情。

I have sympathy for the person that's being helped.

我获得了声誉上的提升，这有助于我在其他领域的发展。

I get a reputational boost that helps me in other domains.

所有这些都是动机。

All those things are motivations.

其中一些故事比其他故事更复杂，更难讲述。

Some of those stories are much more complicated than others to tell.

我认为很多人听到这些会说：等等，不对。

I think a lot of people would hear that and say, but wait a minute.

利他主义本应是纯粹的、无私的给予，而你却说给予能带来效用。

Altruism is meant to be, you know, pure, giving, selfless, and you're saying there's utility derived from giving.

那么，你如何调和这个矛盾呢？

So how do you square that circle?

我们称之为不纯粹的利他主义。

We call it impure altruism.

所以，我不会捐给我认为没有做善事的组织，我只会支持那些我认同并希望帮助的事业。

So, you know, I'm not gonna give to an organization that I don't think is doing good work and the work that I believe in that I wanna support.

就像我不会吃我并不饿的时候的食物一样。

Just like I'm not gonna eat food that I'm not hungry for.

但我选择的食物，是因为它味道好。

But the the actual food that I choose, I choose because it tastes good.

安德罗尼认为纯粹的利他主义非常罕见。

Andrioni was arguing that pure altruism is very rare.

更常见的是不纯粹的或温暖光辉的利他主义，这种利他主义既奖励了受助者，也奖励了施助者。

Much more common are impure or warm glow altruism, which reward the giver along with the recipient.

你可能会说，这给人类形象抹了黑，即使我们捐款给慈善机构，也想要为自己获取一些回报。

Now you might argue this presents humanity in a bad light, that even when we give to charity, we want something for ourselves.

但数据似乎正是这样表明的。

But that's what the data seem to indicate.

而且，如果你真的关心为慈善机构筹款，难道你不希望了解捐赠者的真实动机吗？

And moreover, if you really care about raising money for charity, wouldn't you like to understand a giver's true motivations?

更有价值的是，背后推动利他行为的具体无形力量是什么？

And even more valuable, what specifically are the invisible forces lying behind altruistic behavior?

过去二十五年左右，自从我发表了那篇论文以来，确实涌现了大量丰富的文献试图回答这个问题。

And that's what, basically, in the last twenty five years or so since I published that paper, there's been a huge rich literature trying to answer that question.

安德罗尼和其他经济学家从各种角度研究了利他主义，包括匹配捐款和奖金的效力、内疚感和从众心理的作用，以及金发女性通过远超他人的优势筹集更多资金的现象。

Andreoni and other economists have explored all kinds of angles on altruism, the power of matching funds and prizes, the role played by guilt and the herd mentality, and how blonde women raise more money than anyone else by a long shot.

如果你想了解更多相关内容，可以收听之前一期《魔鬼经济学》广播节目。

If you wanna hear more about this, you can check out an earlier Freakonomics Radio episode.

它叫《如何在不杀死小猫的情况下筹款》。

It's called how to raise money without killing a kitten.

近年来，随着收入不平等成为热门话题，关于收入与利他主义及其他形式亲社会行为之间关系的研究也越来越多。

Now in the last several years, as income inequality has become a hot topic, there's been more and more work on the relationship between income and altruism and other forms of what's called prosocial behavior.

你可能听说过这项研究。

You may have heard about this research.

有实验证据表明，富人更有可能在驾驶时违反交通规则、在赌博游戏中作弊、在谈判中撒谎，以及支持不道德行为，包括在工作中偷窃。

Experimental evidence that rich people are more likely to break the law while driving, cheat in a game of chance, also to lie during negotiations, and endorse unethical behavior, including stealing at work.

由此产生的学术论文在各地都上了头条。

The academic paper that resulted made headlines everywhere.

引起轰动的这篇论文出自保罗·皮夫，他是加州大学尔湾分校的心理学副教授。

The paper making headlines was by Paul Piff, an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine.

他所提供的证据至少可以说是令人不安的。

The evidence he presented was disturbing, to say the least.

那些年收入高达1.521亿美元的人，为了赢得50美元现金奖励的积分，作弊的频率是年收入低于1.5万美元的底层人群的四倍。

People all the way at the top who made a $152,100,000 dollars a year were actually cheating four times as much as someone all the way at the bottom who made under $15,000 a year just to win credits for a $50 cash prize.

但这些证据有多有说服力呢？

But how compelling was the evidence?

我们所说的行為或偏好之间是有区别的。

There's a difference between what we then call behavior or preferences.

这又是简·斯托普。

That, again, is Jan Stopp.

我是荷兰鹿特丹伊拉斯谟大学经济学系的行为经济学家。

I am a behavioral economist at the Erasmus School of Economics in The Netherlands.

那么，为什么行为与偏好之间的区别如此重要？

And the reason this matters, the difference between a behavior and preferences?

这之所以重要，是因为不同的情境会给人不同的行为激励。

The reason why this, matters is that situations give different incentives to behave differently.

我们称之为

We call

内生性问题。

it the endogeneity problem.

吉姆·安德罗尼再次提到。

Jim Andrioni again.

富人本质上就是和穷人不同的人吗？还是说，富人面临的抉择本质上就和穷人不同？

Are the rich fundamentally different people than the poor, or do the rich face fundamentally different choices than the poor?

例如，有研究表明，富人逃税的情况更多。

For example, there are studies that show that the rich tax evade more.

这是否意味着他们更自私？

Does that make them more selfish?

富人更有可能拥有自雇收入，选择逐项列支税款，更容易夸大某些扣除项，隐藏一些支出，从而更容易逃避税务检查。

A rich person is more likely to have self employment income, going to itemize their taxes, be able to overstate some deductions here, hide some things there, and more easily get away with cheating.

但如果你是穷人，你很可能有一份领取工资的工作，雇主会向国税局报告你的收入和纳税情况，你几乎没有逃税的机会。

But if you're poor, you probably have a job that pays a wage and your employer reports your income and your taxes to the IRS, there's really no opportunity for you to cheat on your taxes.

因此，之前关于富人可能在交通中超速或插队 pedestrians 的研究也是如此。

So also the previous literature, for example, about the rich maybe speeding more in traffic or cutting off other pedestrians.

一个富人可能会说，200美元不算小数目，但不会对我的生活产生实质性影响。

A rich person might say, well, $200 is not a pittance, but it won't materially affect my life.

而一个穷人会说，如果我收到200美元的交通罚单，这个月我就付不起托儿所的费用了。

Whereas a poor person would say, if I get that $200 traffic ticket, I'm not gonna be able to pay my day care worker this month.

因此，从这种行为推断富人具有更自私的偏好，似乎有些牵强。

So to conclude from this behavior that the rich have more selfish preferences, that seems like a bit of stretch.

这让我们产生了疑问。

So that made us wonder.

他们之所以产生疑问，部分原因是许多关于富人更自私的发现都来自调查或实验室实验。

They wondered in part because many of the findings about the rich being more selfish were derived from surveys or lab experiments.

但在实验室中测量利他主义这类行为可能存在一些困难。

But it can be tricky to measure something like altruism in the lab for several reasons.

是的。

Yeah.

这个术语叫做实验者需求效应。

The the term is the experimenter demand effect.

如果受试者知道自己参与了一项实验，他们的行为可能会与平时有所不同。

So if subjects know that they participate in an experiment, they may behave a little bit differently than they would otherwise.

如果他们认为你在研究慷慨，就不想被看作不慷慨。

If they think you're studying generosity, they don't want to be seen as not being generous.

此外，许多研究，例如保罗·皮夫的研究，使用的是学生作为受试者。

Also many of the studies, for example by Paul Piff, use student subjects.

然后他们用了一个技巧，让受试者被引导去思考自己是穷人或富人。

And they then use a trick where they prime these subjects to either think that they're poor or to think that they're rich.

他们通过让受试者将自己与全国最富有或最贫穷的人进行比较来实现这一点，类似这样的方法。

And they do that by having them compare themselves to the richest or the poorest people in the country, something like that.

但从客观角度来看，他们其实是一个同质化的群体，对吧？

But from an objective standpoint, they're sort of an homogenous group, right?

他们的年龄相近，财富水平也差不多。

They're about the same age and about the same wealth.

我们发现，收入最高的人实际上更不太可能捐出钱来帮助他人。

What we found is that the highest earners, they were actually substantially less likely to give to help others.

再次是尼科斯·尼基福拉基斯。

Nikos Nikiforakis again.

我是阿布扎比纽约大学的经济学教授。

I'm a professor of economics at New York University in Abu Dhabi.

他进行了自己的实验室实验。

He had run his own lab experiments.

我们实际上让一些人来到实验室，完成一项任务并赚取了一笔可观的金钱。

We actually had individuals come into the lab, perform a task and earn a non trivial amount of money.

然后我们根据他们的相对表现支付报酬，并在最后询问他们是否愿意将部分收入分享给实验室中赚得更少的其他人。

And then we paid them according to their relative performance and asked them at the end whether they would like to share some of their earnings with other people who may have earned less in the lab.

他的发现与保罗·皮夫的相似。

His findings were similar to Paul Piff's.

钱越多的人，越不愿意分享。

People with more money were less likely to share.

但问题是，实验室外的人们获取财富的方式截然不同。

But, of course, the problem here is that people outside the laboratory earn their wealth in very different ways.

有些人只是继承了巨额财富，或者天生具有天赋，提出了一个绝妙的点子从而变得非常富有。

Some people just inherit their large fortunes, or they just are born with a gift and they have a brilliant idea that makes them very wealthy.

还有哪些原因可能导致实验室的发现无法反映现实？

Why else might lab findings not reflect reality?

另一个原因是，在我们的实验室中，最具竞争力的人必然会赚得更多。

Another reason is in our lab, the most competitive people would inevitably earn more.

但在现实中，组织通常有筛选机制，我们会奖励竞争性，但同时也希望确保被任命到关键岗位的人不是那种刻薄自私、只想从组织中攫取资源的人。

But in reality, we also have vetting processes typically in organizations such that we reward competitiveness, but you also wanna make sure that the person you put in a key position is not some kind of mean spirited selfish person who just wants to extract resources from the organization.

第三个原因是什么？

And the third reason?

当然，第三个原因是，这些实验室研究通常是在学生身上进行的，而在我们的情况中，他们赚取了相当可观的金额。

And of course, the third reason is that these laboratory studies are typically done with students who earn, in our case, a considerable amount of money.

但当我们试图将这些结果推广到更广泛人群时，那些富人至少是百万富翁。

But when we're talking generalizing these results, the rich people are at least millionaires.

有一些研究使用了面板数据。

There are studies that use panels.

又是简·斯托普。

Jan Stopp again.

面板指的是自愿参与研究的一群人。

And panels being a group of people who will sign up to participate in a study.

通过这种方法，你可以让富裕或贫困的家庭都参与到你的实验中。

So with this trick, you can get rich or poor households to get involved in your experiments.

但这里我们又遇到了另一个问题，这就是我们所说的选择偏差。

But here then we have another problem, and that's what we call selection bias.

因此，可能是某种特定类型的家庭会报名参与这类面板。

So, it could be a certain type of household that signs up to participate in such panels.

而这些家庭可能是更具亲社会性、热爱科学、乐于助人的家庭。

And those could be the more pro social, scientific, do gooders households.

所以这似乎总是个问题，对吧？

So it seems it's always a problem, right?

无论你使用哪种实验方法，都会存在问题。

No matter what kind of experimental method you use, there is a problem.

你真正想做的实验是让艾迪·墨菲和丹·艾克罗伊德互换身份。

The actual experiment you'd like to do is get Eddie Murphy in here and Dan Aykroyd and trade places.

对吧？

Right?

就像电影《颠倒乾坤》里那样。

As in the movie Trading Places.

让富人变穷，穷人变富，看看他们是否会采纳彼此的行为。

Make the rich one poor and the poor one rich and see if, they adopt each other's behaviors.

我会等到你快64岁的时候再买。

I'll wait till you get to about 64, then I'd buy.

到那时，所有傻瓜都已经被清空了。

You'd have cleared out all the suckers by then.

我曾经很穷，没人喜欢我。

I was poor and no one liked me.

我丢了工作。

I lost my job.

我失去了房子。

I lost my house.

佩内洛普讨厌我。

Penelope hated me.

但你知道，我们现实中无法进行这个实验。

But, you know, we can't do that experiment in reality.

所以我们必须看看能否测量环境或人们可做选择的某些方面，从而在我们的思维和数据中模拟这个实验。

So we have to see if we can measure things about the environment or about the choices people can make that would allow us to sort of run this experiment in our minds and through our data.

如果我们能在实地设置某种条件，并且以一种人们根本不知道自己正在被研究的方式进行，那就最好了，因为这才是我们真正想研究的实际行为。

So if we can put something in the field, if we can do it in a way where people don't actually know they're being studied, that's the best because that's the actual behavior that we're trying to study.

接下来在《魔鬼经济学》广播节目中，我们将讲述安德罗尼、斯托普和尼科·法拉基斯是如何完成这项实地实验的。

Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, how Andreoni, Stope, and Niko Farakis pulled off this field experiment.

当我做这件事时，我紧张得要命。

When I did this, I was super nervous.

当然，我们也会告诉你们他们的实验结果。

And, of course, we'll tell you their results.

当我第一次看到结果时，我一度以为我们失败了。

When I first saw the results, I kind of thought we failed.

我们得到了错误的结果。

We found the wrong result.

那是在这段广告之后。

That's right after this break.

经济学家吉姆·安德罗尼、尼科斯·尼基福拉基斯和扬·斯托普想进行一项实地实验，以查明富人是否比穷人更自私。

The economists Jim Andrioni, Nikos Nikiforakis, and Jan Stope wanted to run a field experiment to find out if the rich are more selfish than the poor.

以下是斯托普的说法。

Here's Stope.

背景是，在我们的研究领域中有一个非常著名的实验室实验，叫做独裁者博弈。

The background is there is this laboratory experiment, which is pretty famous in our community, called the dictator game.

顺便说一下，我们在《超级魔鬼经济学》中详细讨论过独裁者博弈以及一个相关的博弈——最后通牒博弈。

For what it's worth, we wrote about the dictator game at length in Super Freakonomics, and a related game called Ultimatum.

在独裁者博弈中，有两个参与者。

And in the dictator game, there are two players.

一个是独裁者，他获得一笔钱，通常是10美元，然后他可以在这笔钱和接受者之间进行分配。

One is the dictator, and he gets an amount of money, typically $10, and he can split that between himself and the recipient.

你可以通过把一部分钱放进信封并交给另一个人来分配。

Split it by, say, putting some of the money in an envelope and giving it to the other person.

通常，给予的金额被视为利他主义的一种衡量标准。

And any amount of money that's given is typically interpreted as a measure for altruism.

但正如我们之前讨论的，这种实验室实验存在很多局限性，尤其是受试者意识到自己正在参与实验，这可能会增强他们表现出慷慨的意愿。

But this kind of lab experiment, as we discussed earlier, has a lot of limitations, especially the subject's awareness that they're in an experiment which might increase their desire to appear generous.

所以我一直在想，如何在现实世界中设计一个类似的游戏，让钱从天而降，人们可以选择将其在自己和他人之间分配？

So I was thinking, how can I have such a game in the real world where money comes falling from the sky, let's say, and people can choose to divide it between themselves and someone else?

然后我想到了这个信封技巧。

And then I thought of this envelope trick.

不是来自独裁者游戏的那个信封技巧。

Not the envelope trick from the dictator game.

一种不同的信封技巧。

A different kind of envelope trick.

有一个家庭，突然收到一个装有现金的信封。

So there's this household, and all of a sudden, they receive an envelope with cash.

这笔钱不属于他们，但他们有权选择退回。

It's not theirs, but they have the power to give it back.

是或否。

Yes or no.

所以这有点像他们玩了一个独裁者游戏。

So it is a little bit like they play a dictator game.

但在现实生活中，人们并不知道自己正在参与一项实验。

But then in real life and without people knowing that they participate in an experiment.

所以当简给我打电话，说他有这个方法时，我说：为什么不直接把这些信投到富人和穷人家的门口，看看谁更善良、更亲社会呢？

So when Jan phoned me up and he said, you know, I have this technique, I said, well, why don't we just go and throw these letters to houses of the rich and the poor people and see, you know, who is nicer, who is more prosocial.

我们在荷兰找到了贫困家庭和富裕家庭。

We found poor households and rich households in The Netherlands.

我们之所以在那里做，是因为我们可以获得关于这些家庭的更多数据，从而知道他们有多富裕，

And, we did it there because we can get a lot more data about the households so we can know how rich they are and

以及有多贫穷。

how poor they are.

这是因为欧洲政府，比如荷兰政府，在为研究目的收集数据方面有更开放的政策。

That's because European governments, like the Netherlands government, have much more open policies about collecting data for research purposes.

而且，简·斯托普恰好住在那里。

Plus which Jan Stope happened to live there.

我说：‘各位，让我在荷兰进行所有实验吧，因为我知道你们可能太忙了，而我本人也非常想做这件事。’

I said, look, guys, let me conduct all of the treatments here in Holland, because I just I know that you're probably too busy to do it, and I know that I would love it too much to do it.

所以我认为这对每个人来说都是双赢。

So I think it's a win win for everyone.

我们的想法是故意将一封寄给真实人物且内含真实现金的信件错投，看看人们是会留下信件，还是通过将信投入街上的邮筒寄给合法收件人。

The idea was to intentionally misdeliver a letter that was addressed to a real person with real money in it and see whether people kept the letter or send it on to the rightful recipient by dropping it into a mailbox on the street.

我们选了一张小贺卡，上面署名是来自某人的祖父。

We picked a little greeting card that was signed to be coming from somebody's grandpa.

信封正面是一幅风车的图片，一种典型的、老年人可能会选择的复古风格。

The front side was a picture of a windmill, just an old fashioned something typically that a grandfather could choose.

对吧？

Right?

然后在信封的另一面，我们写了一条消息。

And then on the other side of the envelope, we had a message.

亲爱的乔斯特，这是你祖父给你的20欧元。

Dear Joost, here is €20 for you, grandfather.

然后还有一张20欧元的钞票。

And then there was a note of €20.

收件人乔斯特是扬的真实朋友，信封上写有他真实的街道地址，以便于转交。

Joost, the addressee, was a real friend of Jan's, and the envelope listed his real street address so that it could be easily forwarded.

信封上还贴了一枚看起来真实的邮戳邮票，这是通过一些熟练的Photoshop处理实现的。

It also had a real looking postmarked stamp, courtesy of some skillful photoshopping.

只有一个奇怪的细节。

There was only one weird detail.

信封是半透明的，因此你可以清楚地看到卡片和现金。

The envelope was semi transparent, so you could clearly read the card and see the cash.

因为这样，实验中的受试者——无论是富裕家庭还是贫困家庭——都能看到祖父打算给乔斯特寄20欧元或5欧元。

Because then our subject in the experiment, the rich household or the poor household, they can see that grandfather intends to send €20 or €5 to Joost.

为了实验目的，会有两种现金处理方式，分别是5欧元或20欧元。

For experimental purposes, there would be two cash treatments, either €5 or €20.

所以我经常被问到这个问题，对吧？

And so I get this question a lot, right?

谁会把钱放在透明的信封里寄出去？

Who sends out money in a transparent envelope?

这有点奇怪，对吧？

That is kind of weird, right?

嗯。

Yeah.

但从科学角度来看，我们关注的是不同处理方式之间的差异。

But from a scientific standpoint, we are interested in treatment differences.

我们始终使用同一个信封，这意味着它的奇怪之处在所有处理方式中都是一样的。

We always use this same envelope, so that means that the weirdness of it is the same in all treatments.

好的。

Okay.

因此，收件人可以清楚地看到信封里的现金。

So the recipient can clearly see the cash inside the envelope.

现在，这既对真正的主人有利，也对意外的接收者有利。

Now this is something that's a benefit to the proper owner, but it's also benefit to the accidental recipient.

他们还准备了一些信封，里面不是放现金，而是放银行转账卡，类似于支票，因此只有指定收款人才能兑现，面额同样是5欧元和20欧元。

They also loaded some envelopes not with cash, but with bank transfer cards, something like a check, which therefore can only be cashed by the person it's made out to, again, in denominations of both 5 and €20.

这对意外收到的人毫无价值，但对预期收件人来说仍然值20欧元。

Which is worthless to the accidental recipient, but it's still worth €20 to the intended recipient.

所以，如果你有利他主义倾向，你仍然有相同的动机，因为在这两种情况下，你都能同样帮助到预期的收件人。

So if you're altruistic, you still have the same incentive because you're gonna help the intended recipient just as much in both cases.

如果你是自私的，那么当信封里是现金时，你会获得更大的收益。

If you're selfish, you're gonna benefit much more when it's got cash in it.

因此，我们尝试绘制出富人和穷人的居住分布，然后将他们随机分配到不同处理组。

So we try to map where all the rich people live and where all the poor people live, and then we randomized them into treatment.

我们的观察对象确实包含了我们想要的人群，而且不存在选择偏差。

So our observations are are filled with the people that we want, but there's also there's no selection bias.

他们识别出了360户家庭，其中180户富裕，180户贫困。

They identified 360 households, a 180 rich, a 180 poor.

贫困家庭是通过公共援助和补贴住房记录识别出来的。

The poor houses were identified by public assistance and subsidized housing records.

至于富裕家庭，我们通过该地区待售房屋的市场价值来识别。

And rich households, we identified those by the market value of the houses that were for sale in that neighborhood.

信封行动结束后，他们能够获取政府数据，以确认每个家庭的财富水平。

And after the envelope stunt was over, they'd be able to get hold of government data to confirm each household's level of wealth.

所以我们知道他们有多富或多穷。

So we know how rich and how poor they are.

富裕家庭的平均财富约为250万欧元，而贫困家庭的平均财富约为2.5万欧元。

The average wealth of the rich is about 2 and a half million, and the average wealth of the poor is about 25,000.

这几乎是100倍的差距。

So that's a factor of almost 100.

从2013年10月到12月，斯托普定期派发信封。

From October through December 2013, Stope delivered the envelopes at regular intervals.

同样，共有360封信，全部寄给小约斯特，内含现金或面值5欧元或20欧元的转账卡，并故意错投给事先确定的富裕或贫困家庭。

Again, there were 360 envelopes all addressed to little Jost, all containing either cash or transfer cards worth either 5 or €20, and all intentionally misdelivered to specifically identified rich or poor households.

是的。

Yeah.

所以通过我朋友的朋友，我成功弄到了荷兰邮政公司的官方制服。

So through friends of friends of mine, I was able to acquire an official outfit of the mail company that we have in The Netherlands.

这意味着我有一件 Polo 衫、一个邮包，甚至还有一顶帽子。

So that means I had a polo, and I had a bag, and also even I had a cap.

于是我会穿上这套衣服，骑着自行车穿梭在城市里，前往富裕家庭或贫困家庭。

So I would be dressed up and cycle through the city on my way to a rich household or a poor household.

值得一提的是，Freakonomics Radio 并不支持即使在科学研究的名义下也冒充邮递员的行为。

For the record, Freakonomics Radio does not endorse impersonating a postal worker, even in the name of scientific research.

是的。

Yeah.

实际上，当我做这件事的时候，我特别紧张。

Was actually I was When I did this, I was super nervous.

所以每当我把信封误投到邮箱时，我都尽量尽快离开。

So whenever I misdelivered an envelope at a mailbox, I tried to get out as fast as possible.

富裕家庭通常都有很大的车道，对吧？

The rich, they tend to have huge driveways, right?

因此，他们大多数人都把信箱放在街道边上。

And therefore most of them have a mailbox at the side of the street.

所以我特别喜欢那些别墅，因为那是打一枪换一个地方。

So I loved those villas because that's a hit and run.

对吧？

Right?

而且，显而易见的是，我曾经被一只狗追过。

And also, obviously, I got chased by a dog once.

但我逃掉了。

But I got away.

没人看到我。

No one saw me.

但没错。

But yeah.

我觉得这也挺酷的。

I thought that was pretty cool as well.

然后我们就等着看会出现什么。

And then we just waited to see what would show up.

所以

So

那么关键的问题是，你们发现了什么？在这种富有创意、有趣但非常不寻常的利他主义形式中，你们对富人和穷人有什么样的了解？

the big question then is what did you find, and what did you learn about rich people versus poor people in this kind of creative, interesting, albeit very unusual form of what we might call altruism?

鉴于我们之前阅读过的保罗·皮夫等人所做的研究，我们原本以为富人归还这些信封的可能性会更低。

Given the research that we had been reading from Paul Piff and others like that, we kinda expected the rich people to be less likely to return these envelopes.

但事实上，我们发现的情况恰恰相反。

What we found was, in fact, the opposite.

是的。

Yeah.

所以对我们来说，结果相当令人震惊。

So for us, the results were quite shocking.

富人归还信封的数量远远超过穷人。

The rich returned way way more than the poor.

事实上，富人返还的金额是穷人的两倍。

In fact, they returned twice as much.

因此，富人的返还率约为80%，而穷人的返还率约为40%。

So return rates of the rich were roughly 80% and return rates of the poor were roughly 40%.

而且富人并不在意信封里是否有钱。

And the rich didn't care whether there was money in the envelope or not.

无论是现金还是支票，他们的返还率都差不多。

Cash versus the check, they returned them at about the same rate.

我们发现，大约25%的现金来自贫困家庭，而大约75%的现金来自富裕家庭。

We find that roughly 25% of the cash came back from poor families, whereas roughly 75% of cash came back from the rich families.

但对我们来说，最大的震惊是发现非现金信封也被贫困家庭返还得更少。

But for us, the biggest shock was in observing that the non cash envelopes were also not returned as much by the poor families.

对于这些信封，穷人也只返还了大约一半。

The poor also, for these envelopes, returned roughly half.

因此，当我们第一次看到结果时，看起来富人实际上比穷人更有利他主义精神。

So it's looking to us when we first got the results that the rich people are actually much more altruistic than the poor.

我一度以为我们失败了。

I kind of thought we failed.

我们得到了一个错误的结果，按我的预期，穷人应该在善良程度上远超富人。

We found the wrong result, which in the sense I I did expect that the poor would greatly outperform in terms of kindness, the rich.

由于富人和穷人可能在收入以外的其他维度上存在差异，有哪些潜在的混杂因素可能影响或干扰你的研究发现？

Since rich people and poor people may differ on dimensions other than income, what were some of the potential confounding factors that might influence or pollute your findings?

是的。

Yeah.

实验结束后，我们从荷兰统计局获得了关于我们所有受试者房屋的详细数据。

So when the experiment was over, we got data from Statistics Netherlands that provided us with details on all our subject houses.

他们的教育水平、年龄，但涵盖了每个家庭中的所有人。

Their education level, their age, but for all people in each household.

我们将所有这些因素都纳入了回归分析中。

We include all of these in this regression analysis.

基本上，我们可以统计地看出这些因素是否重要。

And basically what we find, so then we can see statistically if all these factors matter.

令我们相当惊讶的是，这些因素似乎都没有影响。

Quite to our surprise, none of them seemed to have an effect.

但随后我们注意到了一些其他情况。

But then we noticed a couple other things.

首先，富人收到的信封比穷人收到的信封返还得快得多。

First of all, envelopes that the rich people got were being returned much faster than the envelopes of the poor folks.

而正是在这里，史蒂夫·列维特发挥了重要作用。

And it is here actually where, Steve Levitt played a big role.

史蒂夫·列维特是我的《魔鬼经济学》朋友和合著者。

Steve Levitt is my Freeconomics friend and co author.

他是芝加哥大学的经济学教授。

He was an economics professor at the University of Chicago.

嘿，杜布纳。

Hey Dubner.

你好吗？

How are you?