Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Human societies are unique in terms of large-scale social cooperation and trust between unrelated people (generalized trust). As an important social signaling mechanism, generalized trust reduces transaction costs, facilitates cooperative behavior, and promotes human society’s prosperity. The question of why and when people trust each other has important implications for human social interaction and economic decision-making. Previous fMRI research utilizing the Trust Game has revealed brain regions involved in the decision to trust, including medial prefrontal cortex, caudate nucleus, amygdala, insula and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. However, the extant research has failed to clearly reveal neurophysiological mechanisms of the investor’s decision-making in the Trust Game. To investigate the time course and neural oscillation courses of trust decision-making, we recorded the electroencephalographic (EEG) data of 21 healthy human participants while they played the role of trustor in the one-shot Trust Game; in this game, participants made decisions to trust or distrust the counterpart. In addition to behavioral data analysis and event-related potential (ERP) analysis, we also conducted spectral analysis to examine the neural oscillations underlying the trust game responses. Behavioral results indicated that participants made trusting decisions more than chance. Electrophysiological results suggested that distrusting choices induced a more negative N2 and a less positive P3 than did trusting choices. Spectral analysis results showed that the beta-band (18~28 Hz, 250~350 ms) power for distrusting choices was significantly larger than trusting choices; this may suggest greater inhibitory control exerted to distrust. Moreover, trusting choice after a negative outcome elicited a significant higher beta-band (15~20 Hz, 150~300 ms) power than did trusting choice after a positive outcome, while the beta-band power for distrusting choice after a negative outcome was similar compared to distrusting choice after a positive outcome. Our study provided some new insights into the psychophysiological processes underlying human’s decisions to trust strangers. Specifically, when making a decision to trust or distrust the counterpart, the distrusting choice induced a larger N2 than did the trusting choice, which may reflect greater cognitive control to inhibit trusting behavior. On the other hand, a more positive going P3 for the trusting choice than the distrusting choice may suggest that increased attention and motivation are associated with the trusting behavior. Moreover, the increased beta power across frontal areas for distrusting choices might reflect frontal inhibitory processes. These findings highlight the ingrained norm of cooperation and trust in modern societies, and provide preliminary spatio-temporal and spectral results understanding human’s decision-making in the one-shot Trust Game.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-24
Abstract： Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are the basic ethical principles of artificial intelligent robots. The ethic of robots is a significant factor that influences people’s trust in human-robot interaction. Yet how it affects people's trust, is poorly understood. In this article, we present a new hypothesis for interpreting the effect of robots’ ethics on human-robot trust—what we call the human-robot projection hypothesis (HRP hypothesis). In this hypothesis, people are based on their intelligence, e.g., intelligence for cognition, emotion, and action, to understand robots’ intelligence and interact with them. We propose that compared with robots that violate ethical principles, people project more mind energy (i.e., the level of mental capacity of humans) onto robots that abide by ethical principles, thus promoting human-robot trust. In this study, we conducted three experiments to explore how presenting scenarios where a robot abided by or violated Asimov’s principles would affect people’s trust in the robot. Meanwhile, each experiment corresponds to one of Asimov’s principles to explore the interaction effect of the types of robot’s decisions. Specifically, all three experiments were two by two experimental designs. The first within-subjects factor was whether the robot being interacted with had abided by Asimov’s principle with a “no harm” core element. The second within-subjects factor was the types of robot’s decision, with corresponding differences in Asimov’s principles among different experiments (Experiment 1: whether the robot takes action or not; Experiment 2: whether the robot obeys human’s order or not; Experiment 3: whether the robot protects itself or not). We assessed the human-robot trust by using the trust game paradigm. Experiments 1-3 consistently showed that people were more willing to trust robots that abided by ethical principles compared with those who violated. We also found that human-robot projection played a mediating role, which supports the HRP hypothesis. In addition, the significant interaction effects between the type of robot’s decision and robot abided by or violated Asimov’s principle existed in all three experiments. The results of Experiment 1 showed that action robots got more trust than inaction robots when abided by the first principle, whereas inaction robots got more trust than action robots when they violated the first principle. The results of Experiment 2 showed that disobeyed robots got less trust than obeyed robots. The detrimental effect was greater in scenarios where robots violated the second principle than in those who abided. The results of Experiment 3 showed that compared with robots that violated the third principle, the trust-promoting effect of protecting itself versus destroying itself was stronger among those who abided. The above results indicated that the reverse effects of decision types existed in both Experiments 1 and 3. Finally, the cross-experimental analysis showed that: (1) When robots abided by ethical principles, their inaction and disobedience still compromise human-robot trust. When robots violated ethical principles, their obedience incurs the least loss of human-robot trust, while their action and disobedience incur a relatively severe loss of human-robot trust. (2) When the ethical requirements of different robotic laws conflict, there was no significant difference between the importance of not harming humans and obeying human orders in terms of the human-robot trust, and both were more important than protecting robots themselves. This study helps to understand the impact of robotic ethical decision-making on human-robot trust and the important role of human-robot projection, which might have important implications for future research in human-robot interaction.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2019-01-02
Abstract： Previous social neuroscience studies focused mainly on the neural networks that sustain an understanding of a single individual’s neutral or negative intentions. However, few studies have explored those of different types of social interactive intentions performed by two or a number of individuals and their whole body movements. In addition, the spatio-temporal dynamics of understanding the kind and hostile intentions in the human brain also remain unclear. In order to address the above issue, the electroencephalograph (EEG) technique was employed to explore the dissociative neural correlates of understanding kind versus hostile intention. Twenty healthy participants were recruited for the experiment. Their behavioral data (accuracy and reaction time) and electrical brain activities were recorded while they were watching colorful photos depicting two actors’ actions and performing an intention inference task (IIT). There were three different types of action intentions: kindness, hostility and non-interactiveness (neutrality). The ERP data was analyzed using the Scan and sLoreta software in an off-line way. The Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures of mean accuracy showed no significant difference among three conditions, while a main effect of condition existed for reaction time. The reaction times of hostile intention were shorter than those of the kind and neutral intentions, while no significant difference was found between the latter two conditions. The ERP data were analyzed using a three-way repeated measure ANOVA. The ANOVA factors were intention condition (kindness, hostility and neutrality), laterality (left, midline and right areas) and caudality (frontal, central and parietal areas). Electrophysiological results showed, over the frontal area, a significantly more negative amplitude of N250 (170~270 ms) for neutral intention compared to kind and hostile intentions, and the N250 amplitudes for kind intention were also more negative than those for hostile intention, especially on the FZ electrode site. The source localization showed maximum activation in Broadman 10(BA10), in the vicinity of middle frontal gyrus, for N250 for kind and hostile intentions. At the later stage (270~450 ms), the peak amplitudes of the P300 for hostile intention were more positive than those for the kind and neutral intentions, and the P300 amplitudes for kind intention were also more positive than those for neutral intention over the central, parietal areas as well as the right hemisphere. The maximum activation for P300 of kind and hostile intentions was found in BA45, located in the vicinity of insula, and a stronger activity existed for hostile intention compared to kind intention. These findings show that there is a spatio-temporal dynamic dissociation between kind and hostile intentions understanding in the brain. Altogether, the current study provides electrophysiological evidence underlying the kind, hostile interactive intentions and non-interactive (neutral) intention understanding, and suggests a prioritized and sustained processing for hostile interactive intention. The study enriches the contents of the two-stage intention-understanding model and the putative Hierarchical & Multi-level Cognitive Framework (HMCF) in Theory of Mind." "
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2018-12-26
Abstract： "
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment