权力是零和博弈还是变和博弈?用两个博弈论实验对一个百年争论的语境相关答案进行概念化

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Pub Date : 2020-05-03 DOI:10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960
Lin Liu, Yi Yang
{"title":"权力是零和博弈还是变和博弈?用两个博弈论实验对一个百年争论的语境相关答案进行概念化","authors":"Lin Liu, Yi Yang","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Is power zero-sum (relative gain/loss) or variable-sum (absolute gain/loss)? The response to this century-old puzzle depends on how power manifests itself during human interactions in diverse contexts. While few theoretical contributions investigating this puzzle seek empirical assistance, this paper utilises two game theoretic experiments for an answer. Consisting of a randomly assigned priming treatment followed by a single round of decision-making in a choice game for three groups of participants, it tests how human subjective understanding of power translates into varied objective power exercises in different situations. Findings reveal that in a ‘power to’ context whereby people mentally value their individual agency more (i.e. freedom from others), they tend to pursue absolute than relative gains, displaying a variable-sum power exercise strategy; in contrast, in a ‘power over’ context whereby people value their ability to affect others more (i.e. interdependence with others), individuals become relative-gain maximisers, thus viewing the sum of each power exercise as zero. Therefore, we conclude that whether power is zero-sum or variable-sum is context-dependent because how power is framed and subjectively understood by agents (i.e., ‘power to’ vs. ‘power over’, as contexts) shape their objective behaviours in power transactions (i.e., ‘zero-sum’ vs. ‘variable-sum’ power exercise).","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":"72 1","pages":"38 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is power zero-sum or variable-sum? Conceptualizing a context-dependent answer to a century-old debate with two game theoretic experiments\",\"authors\":\"Lin Liu, Yi Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Is power zero-sum (relative gain/loss) or variable-sum (absolute gain/loss)? The response to this century-old puzzle depends on how power manifests itself during human interactions in diverse contexts. While few theoretical contributions investigating this puzzle seek empirical assistance, this paper utilises two game theoretic experiments for an answer. Consisting of a randomly assigned priming treatment followed by a single round of decision-making in a choice game for three groups of participants, it tests how human subjective understanding of power translates into varied objective power exercises in different situations. Findings reveal that in a ‘power to’ context whereby people mentally value their individual agency more (i.e. freedom from others), they tend to pursue absolute than relative gains, displaying a variable-sum power exercise strategy; in contrast, in a ‘power over’ context whereby people value their ability to affect others more (i.e. interdependence with others), individuals become relative-gain maximisers, thus viewing the sum of each power exercise as zero. Therefore, we conclude that whether power is zero-sum or variable-sum is context-dependent because how power is framed and subjectively understood by agents (i.e., ‘power to’ vs. ‘power over’, as contexts) shape their objective behaviours in power transactions (i.e., ‘zero-sum’ vs. ‘variable-sum’ power exercise).\",\"PeriodicalId\":20275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Science\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"38 - 57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2020.1827960","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

权力是零和(相对得失)还是变和(绝对得失)?对这个百年谜题的回答取决于权力如何在不同背景下的人类互动中表现出来。虽然研究这一难题的理论贡献很少寻求实证帮助,但本文利用两个博弈论实验来寻求答案。它包括随机分配的启动处理,然后是三组参与者在选择游戏中进行一轮决策,测试人类对权力的主观理解如何在不同情况下转化为各种客观权力练习。研究结果表明,在“权力到”的情况下,人们在心理上更重视个人代理(即不受他人影响的自由),他们倾向于追求绝对收益而不是相对收益,表现出一种可变和权力行使策略;相反,在“权力至上”的背景下,人们更看重自己影响他人的能力(即与他人相互依赖),个人成为相对收益最大化者,因此将每次权力行使的总和视为零。因此,我们得出的结论是,权力是零和还是可变和取决于情境,因为权力的框架和主体对权力的主观理解(即“权力”vs“权力”,作为情境)塑造了他们在权力交易中的客观行为(即“零和”vs“可变和”权力行使)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is power zero-sum or variable-sum? Conceptualizing a context-dependent answer to a century-old debate with two game theoretic experiments
ABSTRACT Is power zero-sum (relative gain/loss) or variable-sum (absolute gain/loss)? The response to this century-old puzzle depends on how power manifests itself during human interactions in diverse contexts. While few theoretical contributions investigating this puzzle seek empirical assistance, this paper utilises two game theoretic experiments for an answer. Consisting of a randomly assigned priming treatment followed by a single round of decision-making in a choice game for three groups of participants, it tests how human subjective understanding of power translates into varied objective power exercises in different situations. Findings reveal that in a ‘power to’ context whereby people mentally value their individual agency more (i.e. freedom from others), they tend to pursue absolute than relative gains, displaying a variable-sum power exercise strategy; in contrast, in a ‘power over’ context whereby people value their ability to affect others more (i.e. interdependence with others), individuals become relative-gain maximisers, thus viewing the sum of each power exercise as zero. Therefore, we conclude that whether power is zero-sum or variable-sum is context-dependent because how power is framed and subjectively understood by agents (i.e., ‘power to’ vs. ‘power over’, as contexts) shape their objective behaviours in power transactions (i.e., ‘zero-sum’ vs. ‘variable-sum’ power exercise).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Political Science
Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Sloppy targeting of Chinese voters in the 2020 New Zealand general election: an exploration of National and Labour’s targeting strategies Leaderless Movements? Rethinking Leaders, Spontaneity, and Organisation-Ness The Realpolitik of small states: explaining New Zealand’s silence on human rights violations in Turkey (Türkiye) and China Identity and institutional thickening of Asia and the Pacific: narrating regional belonging in the foreign policy of Indonesia Referendum campaign financing by political parties: the case of the United Kingdom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1