中文导读 人们常把违规者说成个别“坏苹果”，仿佛问题只在那一个人身上。但俗话说“一个烂苹果坏了一筐”——阿姆斯特丹大学的一项新研究为此提供了实验证据。研究者在2024年美国大选前招募了750名美国人，让他们在屏幕上的100个格子里选出最亮的一格；按规则选能拿奖励，可越往右选钱越多。参与者随后会看到另一人的选择及其政党立场，并可修改答案。结果显示：看到别人守规矩只让违规略有减少，看到严重违规却让许多人大幅违规，甚至“变本加厉”；对方与自己同一政党时影响更强。计算机模拟表明，少数人不断加码就可能让整个群体走向普遍违规；不过约三分之一的人始终守规。圣安德鲁斯大学的学者提醒，这项游戏较为抽象且没有惩罚，与现实的联系尚未证实。文章按“常见看法—实验方法—结果—推演—局限”展开，阅读时可留意 but、still、even though 等词如何表达转折与让步。
正文 When people break rules at work or in public life , leaders often blame a “bad apple ”, as if one person’s choice stays with that person . A new study suggests the old saying may be closer to the truth : one bad apple can spoil the barrel . Seeing others break a rule , especially in a big way , can lead people to break it even more .
本段译文 当有人在职场或公共生活中违反规则时，领导者常常归咎于一个“坏苹果”，仿佛一个人的选择只与这个人有关。一项新研究表明，那句老话可能更接近事实：一个坏苹果会毁掉一整桶。看到别人违规，尤其是严重违规，可能会让人们违规得更厉害。
The study was led by Lucas Molleman of the University of Amsterdam and published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B . Before the 2024 US presidential election , the team recruited 750 Americans for an online experiment . The group was split almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats .
本段译文 这项研究由阿姆斯特丹大学的卢卡斯·莫勒曼牵头，发表在《英国皇家学会学报B》上。在2024年美国总统选举之前，研究团队招募了750名美国人参加一项在线实验。参与者中共和党人和民主党人几乎各占一半。
The task was simple . Each person watched an animated “ shooting star ” move across a row of 100 squares and was told to pick the square that lit up most brightly . The correct choice earned a real money reward . But there was a temptation squares farther to the right paid more . Following the rule and helping oneself were no longer the same thing .
本段译文 任务很简单。每个人观看一颗动画“流星”划过一排100个方格，并被要求选出亮得最强的那个方格。正确的选择可以赢得真实的金钱奖励。但这里有个诱惑：越靠右的方格给的钱越多。遵守规则和为自己谋利不再是一回事。
Many people were tempted from the start . In 23 percent of first choices , players picked the squares with the highest reward . Then they were shown what an earlier player had done , including that person’s political party , and could change their answer . This was repeated six times .
本段译文 许多人一开始就受到了诱惑。在23%的首次选择中，参与者选了奖励最高的方格。随后，他们会看到之前一位参与者的做法，包括此人所属的政党，并可以修改自己的答案。这一过程重复了六次。
What others did mattered . Seeing someone follow the rule only slightly reduced rule-breaking , and seeing a small violation slightly increased it . But seeing a serious violation led many players to break the rule much more , and some went even further than the person they had watched . The effect was stronger when that person belonged to the same political party .
本段译文 别人的做法很重要。看到有人遵守规则，只让违规行为略有减少；看到轻微违规，违规行为略有增加。但看到严重违规后，许多参与者的违规程度大大增加，有些人甚至比他们看到的那个人走得更远。当那个人与自己属于同一政党时，这种影响更强。
The researchers then used computer models to see what might happen in a large group . If only a few people kept going beyond what they saw , the whole group could quickly move from general honesty to widespread rule-breaking . Still , about a third of players followed the rule every time , even though it paid less .
本段译文 研究人员随后用计算机模型推演在大群体中可能发生的情况。只要少数人不断超出自己所见的违规程度，整个群体就可能迅速从普遍诚实转向大范围违规。不过，大约三分之一的参与者每次都遵守规则，尽管这样拿到的钱更少。
Not everyone agrees on how far the results reach . Stephen Reicher of the University of St Andrews , who was not part of the study , said the game was abstract and had no punishment , so its link to real life is unproven . He also noted that people are not simply infected by others ’ behavior : who those others are matters . Many people who see a riot , he said , help clean up afterward
本段译文 对于这些结果能推广到多远，并非人人意见一致。没有参与这项研究的圣安德鲁斯大学的斯蒂芬·赖歇尔表示，这个游戏较为抽象，而且没有惩罚，因此它与现实生活的联系尚未得到证实。他还指出，人们并不是单纯被他人的行为“传染”：那些人是谁很重要。他说，许多看到骚乱的人会在事后帮忙清理。
新闻来源