Organizations and societies rely on fines and rewards to harness people's self-interest in the service of the common good. The threat of a ticket keeps drivers in line, and the promise of a bonus inspires high performance. But incentives can also backfire, diminishing the very behavior they're meant to encourage. A generation ago, Richard Titmuss claimed that paying people to donate blood reduced the supply. Economists were skeptical, citing a lack of empirical evidence. But since then, new data and models have prompted a sea change in how economists think about incentives—showing, among other things, that Titmuss was right often enough that businesses should take note. Experimental economists have found that offering to pay women for donating blood decreases the number willing to donate by almost half, and that letting them contribute the payment to charity reverses the effect. Dozens of recent experiments show that rewarding self-interest with economic incentives can backfire when they undermine what Adam Smith called "the moral sentiments". The psychology here has escaped blackboard economists, but it will be no surprise to people in business: When we take a job or buy a car, we are not only trying to get stuff—we are also trying to be a certain kind of person. People desire to be esteemed by others and to be seen as ethical and dignified. And they don't want to be taken for suckers. Rewarding blood donations may backfire because it suggests that the donor is less interested in being altruistic than in making a dollar. Incentives also run into trouble when they signal that the employer mistrusts the employee or is greedy. Close supervision of workers coupled with pay for performance is textbook economics—and a prescription for sullen employees. Perhaps most important, incentives affect what our actions signal, whether we're being self-interested or civic-minded, manipulated or trusted, and they can imply—sometimes wrongly—what motivates us. Fines or public rebukes that appeal to our moral sentiments by signaling social disapproval (think of littering) can be highly effective. But incentives go wrong when they offend or diminish our ethical sensibilities. This does not mean it's impossible to appeal to self-interested and ethical motivations at the same time—just that efforts to do so often fail. Ideally, policies support socially valued ends not only by harnessing self-interest but also by encouraging public-spiritedness. The small tax on plastic grocery bags enacted in Ireland in 2002 that resulted in their virtual elimination appears to have had such an effect. It punished offenders monetarily while conveying a moral message. Carrying a plastic bag joined wearing a fur coat in the gallery of anti-social anachronisms.
单选题 From the first two paragraphs, we know that______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节分析题。本题可采用排除法,根据选项内容确定答案位置,然后一一排除。第二段前两句是说:几十年前,经济学家对Richard Titmuss说的付钱让人献血会使献血者减少的说法持怀疑态度,认为其缺少经验证据。由此可判断,B选项为正确答案。
单选题 According to experimental economists,______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节分析题。根据题干关键词experimental economists定位答案位置于第三段。该段第一句指出,金钱奖励使自愿献血者减少近一半。第二句给出原因,最近很多研究实验都表明,用经济奖励来激励自愿行为会起到反作用,因为这破坏了Adam Smith所说的“道德情操”。因此,D选项“经济奖励措施可能会导向相反的方向”为正确答案。
单选题 It can be known from the text that incentives are characterized as______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节推断题。第四段第一句指出;最重要的一点也许是奖励影响着我们的行为意义,无论我们是否自私自利或者热衷于公益事业,被操控还是受委托,奖励有时可能给出错误的信号,不能正确表达出是什么激励了我们的行为(比如可能暗示捐血的人是为了钱而不是为了帮助别人等)。由此推断,激励机制有暗示性的特点,A选项为正确答案。
单选题 The small tax on plastic grocery bags in Ireland is mentioned to show that______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节推断题。根据题干关键词plastic grocery bags和Ireland定位到第五段。该段提到2002年爱尔兰颁布的塑料袋税就有这种效果,使得爱尔兰彻底消除了塑料袋的使用。这种效果指的是例子的前一句:政策不仅通过遏制自我利益,而且通过鼓励公益精神来支持社会价值取向。因此,A选项为正确答案。
单选题 What is the message the author intends to convey?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:此题为细节推断题。本文讨论了激励机制有时会适得其反的现象。第一、二段指出和证明了当激励机制被广泛运用取得良好效果时,它其实也可能带来反作用的观点;第三、四段分析了激励机制产生反作用的原因,因为它破坏了“道德情操”,当这种刺激冒犯或贬低了我们的道德情操就会产生反作用;第五段表达激励机制还是可以同时满足自我利益和道德动机的。因此,综合判断四个选项,得出C选项为正确答案。