我们为何遵守规则？

Why do we follow rules?

The discovery that around a quarter of people will follow rules unconditionally could have implications for how we create laws, finds Helen Thomson.

WOULD you follow a rule, even if doing so harms you and no one would know if you broke it? A series of experiments suggests that 1 in 4 people do exactly that: obey rules even in the absence of social pressure, punishment and personal gain. The results challenge traditional economic theories, which assume that rule-following is driven largely by extrinsic incentives, and could reshape how we design new laws.

"Following or breaking rules is what human social behaviour often amounts to," says Simon Gaechter at the University of Nottingham, UK, but researchers disagree on why we do so. "Economists tend to emphasise extrinsic incentives, and other social scientists stress the importance of conformity."

Motivated to create some unity, Gaechter and his colleagues created a variety of simple computer tasks in which more than 14,000 people were told to move a circle to a red traffic light, wait until it turned green, and then reach a finish line as quickly as possible to maximise their reward.

In each test, participants started with $20, but the reward fell by $1 per second, so breaking the rules by not waiting for the green light would mean more money. Yet despite participants being told their actions were anonymous and no one would be watching what they did, around 70 per cent of people still followed the rule, waiting for the traffic light to turn green before proceeding.

Even when the researchers pointed out the potential gain from breaking the rule, the majority of people still complied. "There was no social pressure, it was anonymous, there was absolutely no reason to follow the rule. Nevertheless, almost 60 per cent of people followed it," says Gaechter.

To explore the influence of social expectations on rule-following, the team asked participants about whether they thought others would or should obey the rule. Those who thought others would comply were more likely to follow the rule themselves, showing that even when alone, people form internal beliefs about what is socially acceptable and adjust their actions accordingly.

The study reinforces the fact that perceived social expectations influence our behaviour, says Pieter Desmet at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands – an idea that has been exploited by "nudge units" in governments. "Simply adding '9 out of 10 people pay their taxes on time' to a reminder letter can significantly speed up tax compliance. It powers some of the most effective policy nudges," he says.

However, this social expectation didn’t affect everyone: around 25 per cent of people followed the rule regardless of what they thought others would do or think, while also knowing that breaking the rule would hurt no one apart from themselves, by resulting in a smaller reward. This was the most important finding, says Gaechter. "That's showing an intrinsic respect for rules. You give these people a rule and they follow it unconditionally."

"A surprisingly large number of people will follow rules even when those rules are arbitrary, costly to follow, unenforced and not widely followed by others," says Desmet. Still, he cautions that this finding may not straightforwardly translate to the real world – other studies show the more demanding a rule, the less likely it is to be followed, for instance.

In another part of the experiment, those taking part observed how other participants behaved. Seeing others following the rule didn’t significantly alter their behaviour. However, observing others violate the rule made a modest impression, nudging a small number to do the same (Nature Human Behaviour, doi.org/g9m6h4).

Social expectations

Further variations of Gaechter's experiment introduced extrinsic penalties, for instance, stating that rule-breaking would be caught 90 per cent of the time, leading to no reward at all. This change increased compliance to about 78 per cent.

Taken together, the results suggest that while extrinsic rewards increase conformity, a substantial part of compliance stems from social expectations, and, for many people, an internalised commitment to following rules.

Gaechter says that economists have historically focused on incentivising rules as a primary driver of promoting compliance. But he argues that this overlooks the fact that many follow rules simply because they believe rules are there to be followed.

Depending on the context, that intrinsic motivation could be beneficial or could perpetuate harmful actions. "It shows that when you're designing laws, it's not just a simple cost versus benefit calculation; it's more interesting than that," says Gaechter.

Desmet thinks that there are clear implications for policy-makers, as the experiments show that even unenforced or largely symbolic rules have a powerful impact on behaviour. "Law speaks to society, influencing conduct not just through the threat of punishment, but by expressing shared norms and expectations."

这篇文章通过介绍一项关于“红绿灯”选择的大规模心理学实验，探讨了“人类为何遵守规则”这一根本性问题。研究发现，除了传统的金钱激励和惩罚威胁外，人们的行为还受到强大的内在动机和社会期望的驱动。

具体而言，研究揭示了大约四分之一的人是“无条件的守规者”，他们遵守规则是出于一种内在的尊重，即使这会给他们带来损失。同时，大多数人的行为也受到他们对“他人是否会遵守规则”的预期的影响。

最终，文章得出结论：人类的守规行为是一个复杂的混合体，由内在尊重、社会规范和外部激励共同决定。这一发现对公共政策制定者有重要启示，即法律和规则的有效性不仅依赖于惩罚，更在于它们能够塑造和表达整个社会的共同价值观与期望。

文章通过报道一项科学研究，清晰地提出了以下几个核心观点：

1. 人类行为并非纯粹理性自利： 这是全文旨在挑战和推翻的主要靶子。传统经济学认为的“成本-收益”计算无法完全解释人类的守规行为。
2. “内在尊重”是关键动机之一： 存在一部分人（约占四分之一），他们遵守规则是出于一种与生俱来或后天内化的、无条件的尊重，这是一种强大的内在力量。
3. 社会期望塑造个人行为： 我们对周围人行为的预期，会极大地影响我们自己的选择。我们会在内心形成关于“什么是社会可接受行为”的信念，并据此调整自己的行动。
4. 守规行为是多因素驱动的复杂现象： 它是内在动机（想遵守）、社会动机（别人也遵守）和外在动机（不遵守会受罚）三者混合作用的结果。有效的政策不能只关注其中一点。
5. 法律具有“表达性功能”： 法律和规则的真正威力，不仅在于其强制性，更在于其向社会传递和塑造了何为“正确行为”的信号。即使是象征性的、不被严格执行的规则，也能深刻影响人们的行为。

在动手编译之前，我们需要深入理解这篇文章的方方面面。这对我们准确传达信息、适应目标读者至关重要。

1. 信源、立场与目标受众分析

• 信源 (Source): 文章来源于《新科学家》（New Scientist）杂志。
• • 介绍： 这是一份国际知名的科普杂志，创刊于1956年，总部位于英国伦敦。它以报道科学技术的最新发展为特色，内容覆盖物理、生物、心理学等多个领域。
  • 该杂志报道科学技术的最新发展为特色，内容覆盖物理、生物、心理学等多个领域。
  • 信誉： 《新科学家》在科普界享有很高的声誉，以其严谨、清晰且引人入胜的报道风格而著称。因此，这篇文章的信源是可靠且权威的。
• 政治立场/偏向 (Political Stance/Bias):
• • 作为一份科学杂志，其立场是科学中立和客观报道。它不为特定的政治意识形态服务，而是以科学研究和事实证据为基础。
  • 在这篇文章中，作者海伦·汤姆森（Helen Thomson）客观地引述了多位研究者的观点和研究成果，甚至包括了研究的局限性（例如，实验结果可能无法直接转化到现实世界），这体现了新闻报道的平衡性原则。
• 目标受众 (Target Audience):
• • 《新科学家》的读者主要是对科学有浓厚兴趣的普通大众和非专业领域的知识分子。因此，文章的语言风格通俗易懂，避免了过多的学术术语，力求将复杂的研究讲得清晰明白。

2. 背景知识介绍

这篇文章触及了心理学和行为经济学的一些核心概念，理解它们是编译好这篇文章的关键。

• 核心冲突：传统经济学 vs. 行为科学
• • 传统经济学理论： 文章开头就提到，传统经济学认为人的行为主要由“外在激励”（extrinsic incentives）驱动，即追求个人利益最大化（比如金钱奖励）和规避惩罚。这是一种“理性人”假设。
  • 行为科学/社会心理学观点： 文章的核心就是要挑战这个观点，提出人类行为也受“内在动机”（intrinsic respect for rules）、“社会期望”（social expectations）和“从众心理”（conformity）等非物质因素的强烈影响。
• 关键概念：“轻推”（Nudge）
• • 文章中提到了一个非常重要的概念——“轻推单位”（nudge units）。这是由行为经济学家理查德·塞勒（Richard Thaler，诺贝尔经济学奖得主）提出的“轻推理论”（Nudge Theory）的实际应用。
  • “轻推”是什么？ 它指的是在不强制、不剥夺人们选择权的情况下，通过巧妙地设计环境和信息，来引导人们做出更优决策的策略。
  • 文中的例子： “在催税单上加上一句‘十分之九的人都按时缴税’”，这就是一个典型的“轻推”。它利用了人们的从众心理，暗示“按时缴税”是社会规范，从而提高了缴税率。这远比单纯的罚款威胁要“聪明”。
• 学术背书：
• • 文章引用的研究发表在**《自然·人类行为》**（Nature Human Behaviour）上，这是顶级学术期刊《自然》旗下的子刊，专注于人类行为研究。提及这一点，可以向读者证明该研究的科学性和权威性。

3. 体裁、文体与结构解析

• 体裁 (Genre): 这是一篇科普新闻特写（Popular Science News Feature）。它不是一个突发新闻，而是对一项新近发布的科学研究进行的深度解读。
• 文体 (Style):
• • 引人入胜 (Engaging): 开篇直接用一个设问句“WOULD you follow a rule, even if doing so harms you...”来吸引读者。
  • 叙事清晰 (Narrative): 清晰地描述了实验的设计、过程和结果，像在讲一个故事。
  • 权威引述 (Authoritative): 大量直接引用主要研究者西蒙·格希特（Simon Gaechter）和皮特·德斯梅特（Pieter Desmet）的话，增加了文章的可信度。
• 结构 (Structure): 文章采用了类似“倒金字塔”但更具特写色彩的结构。
• • 导语 (Lede): 标题和副标题直接点出核心发现——“约四分之一的人会无条件遵守规则”，及其重大意义——“可能影响我们如何制定法律”。
  • 核心段落 (Nut Graf): 解释了这项研究为何重要——它挑战了传统的经济学理论。
  • 主体 (Body):
  • 1. 实验介绍： 详细描述了“红绿灯”电脑实验的内容和初步结果。
    2. 核心发现： 揭示了研究的最重要发现——存在一批（约25%）无条件遵守规则的人，并引出“内在尊重规则”的概念。
    3. 延伸探讨： 进一步探讨了社会期望、观察他人行为、以及增加外部惩罚等变量对人们行为的影响。
  • 结尾 (Kicker/Conclusion): 总结了研究对现实世界，特别是对政策制定者的启示，强调法律不仅通过惩罚，更通过表达社会共同的规范和期望来影响行为，升华了主题。

具体节译步骤 (Step-by-Step Plan)

我们可以将原文的11个段落（不含副标题）进行重组和精简，最终形成一篇结构更清晰的5-6段式编译稿。

第一步：重拟导语 (Re-crafting the Lede) - 整合原文第1-2段

• 目标： 在第一段就抓住读者，直接抛出最令人惊讶的发现及其重要性。
• 策略：
• • 将原文第一段的设问和核心发现（“1 in 4 people do exactly that”）与第二段的背景（挑战传统经济学理论）合并。
  • 开门见山，用一句话概括研究的惊人之处。
• 示例方向： “一项挑战传统经济学理论的新研究发现，即使在有金钱奖励的情况下，仍有约四分之一的人会无条件遵守规则，这揭示了人类行为背后强大的内在动机，可能重塑我们设计法律的方式。”

第二步：概括实验 (Summarizing the Experiment) - 浓缩原文第3-5段

• 目标： 用最短的篇幅让读者明白实验是如何进行的。
• 策略：
• • 不必提及具体的参与人数（14,000）、起始金额（$20）或每秒扣款（$1）。这些细节对于理解核心观点并非必需。
  • 只需描述实验的核心冲突：一个匿名的电脑任务，参与者在“遵守规则但少拿钱”和“打破规则但多拿钱”之间进行选择。
  • 将初步结果（70%的人遵守）和深入探索（60%的人遵守）合并，直接说明“大多数人选择遵守”。
• 【直观对比】
• • 原文（细节繁多）： "Motivated to create some unity, Gaechter and his colleagues created a variety of simple computer tasks in which more than 14,000 people were told to... participants started with $20, but the reward fell by $1 per second..."
  • 节译后（聚焦概念）： "In a series of computer-based experiments, thousands of participants faced a simple choice: follow an arbitrary rule (like waiting for a virtual red light) which would cost them money, or break the rule to maximize their reward. Their actions were anonymous, removing any social pressure."

第三步：聚焦核心发现 (Focusing on the Core Findings) - 提炼原文第6-8段

• 目标： 清晰地呈现研究的两个最重要发现：内在动机和社会期望。
• 策略：
• • 将原文中关于“内在尊重”（intrinsic respect）和“社会期望”（social expectations）的讨论整合在一起。
  • 重点突出**25%**这个关键数字，他们是“无条件守规者”。
  • 可以简要提及“轻推”（nudge）的例子，因为它生动地解释了“社会期望”如何运作，增加了文章的趣味性。
• 示例方向： “研究揭示了两种主要的驱动力。其一是社会期望：当我们认为别人会遵守规则时，我们自己也更倾向于遵守。但更引人注目的是，研究发现了约25%的‘无条件守规者’。这些人出于对规则的‘内在尊重’，即使在违规对自己有利且无人知晓的情况下，依然选择遵守。”

第四步：整合次要发现 (Integrating Secondary Findings) - 精简原文第9-10段

• 目标： 快速处理关于“观察他人”和“引入惩罚”的补充实验。
• 策略：
• • 将这两个实验结果一笔带过，作为对主要观点的补充。不必详细说明惩罚的具体设定（90%被抓）或遵守率的变化（78%）。
  • 只需总结其意义：观察别人违规会产生轻微的负面影响，而引入惩罚机制确实能提高遵守率，但这更反衬出在没有惩罚时，内在动机和社會期望的重要性。

第五步：强化结论与启示 (Strengthening the Conclusion) - 保留并突出原文第11段

• 目标： 将文章推向高潮，有力地传达其现实意义。
• 策略：
• • 这一部分是文章的“金句”所在，应予以重点保留。
  • 研究者关于法律的“表达性功能”（expressing shared norms and expectations）的引言非常精彩，必须保留。
  • 这是我们文章的落脚点，也是给读者留下的最深刻印象。