阅读理解 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 6.From the first two paragraphs, we know that
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】根据题干定位到文章开头两段。第二段明确提到“那时经济学家对这种说法(理查德关于献血者的说法)持怀疑态度,认为其缺少经验证据”,故C项为答案。
单选题 7.According to experimental economists,
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】根据experimental economists定位到第三段。该段列举献血者的例子,说明当“道德情操”被破坏时用经济奖励去激励自愿行为会带来反效果,故不难推断B项为答案。
单选题 8.We know from the text that incentives are characterized as
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】考查全文。本文提到激励在很多情况下给人们的行为带来暗示,比如可能会暗示捐血的人是为了钱而不是为了帮助别人等,故C项implicative(有暗示性的)为正确答案。
单选题 9.The small tax on plastic grocery bags in Ireland is mentioned to show that
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】根据plastic grocery bags或Ireland定位到第五段。该段提到,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,C项符合文意,故为正确答案。
单选题 10.The text intends to tell us that
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】考查全文。本文讨论的是当“道德情操”因素被削弱,经济激励有时会产生反效果,故D项为答案。