Subjects: Other Disciplines >> Synthetic discipline submitted time 2023-10-09 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Fairness plays a critical role in maintaining the social order. To understand fairness development, numerous studies have examined children's upholding fairness behaviors, such as resource allocation. In particular, the emergence of third-party altruism in Chinese children at the age of 8−10 is an important turning point in fairness development. Third-party altruism refers to the behavior of individuals voluntarily paying costs to punish violators, which is a form of prosocial behavior. Most previous studies have confirmed that social value orientation (SVO) affects prosocial behaviors, and some cognitive neuroscience studies have found that SVO and emotion together affect prosocial behaviors. However, we do not know the specific mechanisms by which children's SVO and emotions affect their third-party altruistic behaviors. Additionally, because third-party altruism can adopt punishment and compensation, the mechanisms may be different. Therefore, through two experiments, this study aimed to investigate the mechanisms of children's SVO and emotion on third-party altruism and the difference between children's third-party punishment and compensation behaviors in three offer conditions (i.e., high inequality, moderate inequality, and equality). Experiment 1 was based on the third-party punishment task and aimed to investigate the effect of children’s SVO on their emotion and punitive behaviors and to verify the mediating role of emotion. We recruited 233 children aged 10−12 years. After completing the demographic information, they were instructed to complete three third-party punishment tasks revised from the dictator game. The proposer in the dictator game offered one, three, and five coins from 10 coins to the recipient successively. As the third party, children reported the level of pleasure and decided whether to spend any integer of their endowed five coins to punish the proposer in each task. For every coin spent, two coins were deducted from the proposer’s endowment. The results revealed that prosocial children (vs. the pro-self) were more unpleased and spent more coins to punish the proposer, and emotion played a mediating role in the relationship between SVO and third-party punitive behaviors in the high inequality condition but not in the moderate inequality or equality conditions. To deeply understand children’s third-party altruistic behaviors and compare the two kinds of behaviors, we conducted Experiment 2 based on the third-party compensation task. We recruited 238 children aged 10−12 years. The experimental procedure was similar to that of Experiment 1, except that children in Experiment 2 spent coins to compensate the recipient rather than punish the proposer. The results revealed that prosocial children (vs. the pro-self) spent more coins to compensate the recipient in the high and moderate inequality conditions; emotion played a mediating role in the relationship between SVO and third-party compensation behaviors only in the high inequality condition. As for the difference between the two kinds of third-party altruistic behaviors, children in the third-party compensation (vs. punishment) task had less emotional fluctuation when confronted with three offers and spent more coins to maintain a fair order in the moderate unequal condition. These findings suggest that SVO had a stable effect on third-party punishment and compensation in 10- to 12-year-old children under all three offer conditions, and that emotion mediated the relationship between SVO and each kind of third-party altruistic behavior when children were confronted with an extremely unfair offer. Additionally, the children showed different levels of pleasure and behavior in the two third-party altruistic tasks. Our study contributes to revealing the mechanisms of SVO and emotion on two kinds of third-party altruistic behaviors and suggests that prosocial orientation is a critical factor in fostering children’s third-party altruism.
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2023-09-13
Abstract： Third-party punishment (TPP) refers to the punitive behaviors that individuals impose on violators as third parties or observers in order to uphold social norms. Many studies have provided insight into the neural mechanisms underlying TPP behavior. However, few studies have focused on the overall role of functional brain networks. This paper reviews the researches related to TPP in the past decade and summarizes the relevant theoretical models and brain networks. Based on the previous studies, we propose a cognitive neural network model of TPP, which could systematically explain and integrate the neural mechanisms behind TPP behavior. In this model, the affective and reward systems are the TPP power sources, and the cognitive system is mainly responsible for responsibility assessment as well as punishment selection. The reward network, the salient network, the default mode network and the central executive network are involved in different cognitive processing stages, respectively. The model establishes the connection between TPP behavior-related research at the psychological and the cognitive-neural level and provides a more holistic and comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms of TPP behavior. In the future, it is necessary to use meta-analysis or machine learning algorisms in order to explore third-party intervention preferences and the underlying cognitive neural mechanisms in different contextual information and more complex social contexts.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Previous studies on risk-taking behaviors in decision-making for oneself and others are inconsistent, possibly because previous studies have not considered the influence of decision-making situations and the interpersonal characteristics of decision-makers on their decision-making behaviors. Social value orientation (SVO) is a typical interpersonal trait. SVO refers to the social preferences of individuals when they allocate resources to themselves and others. Individuals can usually be divided into prosocials and proselfs according SVO. The purpose of the present study was to explore the impact of SVO on self-other risk decision-making and its mechanisms. The integrative model of SVO implies that prosocials care more about the effects of decision-making on others than proselfs. Therefore, we hypothesized that proselfs might be more comfortable with risk than prosocials in making decisions on behalf of others, and that the level of concern for the interests of others might mediate the SVO effects of decision-makers on self-other risk decisions.In the present study, the participants first filled out the SVO slider measure, then completed a mixed gambling game on the computer, and finally filled out the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) that measures empathy. The mixed gambling game included 480 rounds of gambling, each with two options: the uncertainty option, and the certainty option with a result of 0. Choosing uncertainty meant gambling, while choosing certainty meant not gambling. Participants were asked to choose whether to gamble for themselves and strangers in different situations. Uncertainty options were 50% probability to win a certain value (potential gain value, G) and 50% probability of losing a certain value (potential loss value, L). The values of G {20, 22, ..., 50} and the values of L {20, 22, ..., 48} were paired to obtain 240 combinations, which were randomly divided into four groups. The independent variables were beneficiary (self/other) and SVO (proself/prosocial). There were three dependent variables: level of risk-taking, loss aversion, and the degree of concern for potential gains and losses. The results showed that prosocials exhibited similar risk-taking and sensitivity to potential gains and losses when making decisions for strangers, while proselfs showed more tolerance for risk-taking and less sensitivity to others’ gains and losses. Both prosocials and proselfs showed less loss aversion when making decisions for strangers than for themselves. The mediation-effect analysis indicated that the difference in self-other risk decision-making could be partially mediated by loss aversion and sensitivity to others’ potential losses, and the SVO effect on the differences in self-other risk decision-making could be partially mediated by the sensitivity to others’ potential losses. These findings suggest that SVO can affect self-other risk decision-making and that this effect may play a role through the degree of concern for the interests of others, which indicates that SVO in decision-makers affects behaviors in making decisions for strangers. Therefore, in future studies of self-other risk decisions, SVO should be taken into account in the interpersonal characteristics of decision makers.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Recipients often reject unfair offers at the cost of their own interests in ultimatum games (UGs), reflecting their fairness preference. Yet fairness preference is not invariable. It is affected by various factors, among which empathy plays an important role. Individuals might, for example, sacrifice own interests to help others in need. This kind of behavior not only is contrary to the pursuit of self-interest maximization but also violates fairness principles. As individuals are not only concerned about fairness but also care for others, this study focuses on managing the relationship between the two potentially conflicting goals. We explored individuals’ behaviors and time dynamic processes of brain activities when fairness conflicted with empathy. It was hypothesized that empathy could modulate fairness-related decision making behaviors and ERPs. Thirty-seven college students (26 females, 21.00 ± 2.07 years) participated in this study and completed multiple ultimatum games. EEG signals were recorded during play. In the task, the proposers were underprivileged students (empathy condition) and ordinary children (non-empathy condition). Each proposer distributed 10 yuan between themself and one recipient. The participants played as recipients who would choose to accept or reject distribution offers (fair, disadvantageous unfair, advantageous unfair) by the proposers. The proposers and recipients would get the assigned money only if participants accepted the distribution offers. They received nothing if participants rejected the offer. The behavioral results showed that the acceptance rate in the empathy condition was greater than that in the non-empathy condition for the disadvantageous unfair condition, while the opposite result occurred in the advantageous unfair condition. The EEG results showed that in the non-empathy condition, the advantageous unfair offer induced more negative anterior N1 (AN1) than it did in the empathy condition, but there was no difference between the disadvantageous unfair versus fair conditions. In the advantageous unfair condition, the P2 amplitude of the empathy condition was significantly more positive than that for the non-empathy condition, while in the disadvantageous unfair condition, P2 amplitude of the non-empathy condition was slightly positive than that of the empathy condition. The disadvantageous unfair offer induced more negative medial frontal negativity (MFN) in the empathy condition, while no difference was found between fair versus unfair offers in the non-empathy condition. Additionally, the amplitude of P3 was larger in the fair versus the unfair conditions as it was not modulated by empathy. These findings suggest that experimentally-induced state empathy modulates fairness-related decision making behaviors and accompanying neural activity. Behavioral results indicate that state empathy takes priority in guiding people's behavior when it conflicts with the fairness criterion. For EEG results, empathy mainly modulates the early stage of the fairness concern and affects early attention and motivation as well as cognition and emotion. In later stages, the higher cognitive process represented by P3 is modulated only by fairness, not empathy. In conclusion, our study systematically explored and compared behavior patterns of fairness processing with temporal dynamic characteristics of brain activities by modulating empathy. The findings provide further insight into fairness-related decision making behaviors. They indicate the potential to influence individuals’ behaviors and cognition by manipulating empathy.
Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-10
Abstract：
Fairness plays a critical role in maintaining the social order. To understand fairness development, numerous studies have examined children's upholding fairness behaviors, such as resource allocation. In particular, the emergence of third-party altruism in Chinese children at the age of 8−10 is an important turning point in fairness development. Third-party altruism refers to the behavior of individuals voluntarily paying costs to punish violators, which is a form of prosocial behavior. Most previous studies have confirmed that social value orientation (SVO) affects prosocial behaviors, and some cognitive neuroscience studies have found that SVO and emotion together affect prosocial behaviors. However, we do not know the specific mechanisms by which children's SVO and emotions affect their third-party altruistic behaviors. Additionally, because third-party altruism can adopt punishment and compensation, the mechanisms may be different. Therefore, through two experiments, this study aimed to investigate the mechanisms of children's SVO and emotion on third-party altruism and the difference between children's third-party punishment and compensation behaviors in three offer conditions (i.e., high inequality, moderate inequality, and equality).
Experiment 1 was based on the third-party punishment task and aimed to investigate the effect of children’s SVO on their emotion and punitive behaviors and to verify the mediating role of emotion. We recruited 233 children aged 10–12 years. After completing the demographic information, they were instructed to complete three third-party punishment tasks revised from the dictator game. The proposer in the dictator game offered one, three, and five coins from 10 coins to the recipient successively. As the third party, children reported the level of pleasure and decided whether to spend any integer of their endowed five coins to punish the proposer in each task. For every coin spent, two coins were deducted from the proposer’s endowment. The results revealed that prosocial children (vs. the pro-self) were more unpleased and spent more coins to punish the proposer, and emotion played a mediating role in the relationship between SVO and third-party punitive behaviors in the high inequality condition but not in the moderate inequality or equality conditions.
To deeply understand children’s third-party altruistic behaviors and compare the two kinds of behaviors, we conducted Experiment 2 based on the third-party compensation task. We recruited 238 children aged 10–12 years. The experimental procedure was similar to that of Experiment 1, except that children in Experiment 2 spent coins to compensate the recipient rather than punish the proposer. The results revealed that prosocial children (vs. the pro-self) spent more coins to compensate the recipient in the high and moderate inequality conditions; emotion played a mediating role in the relationship between SVO and third-party compensation behaviors only in the high inequality condition. As for the difference between the two kinds of third-party altruistic behaviors, children in the third-party compensation (vs. punishment) task had less emotional fluctuation when confronted with three offers and spent more coins to maintain a fair order in the moderate unequal condition.
These findings suggest that SVO had a stable effect on third-party punishment and compensation in 10- to 12-year-old children under all three offer conditions, and that emotion mediated the relationship between SVO and each kind of third-party altruistic behavior when children were confronted with an extremely unfair offer. Additionally, the children showed different levels of pleasure and behavior in the two third-party altruistic tasks. Our study contributes to revealing the mechanisms of SVO and emotion on two kinds of third-party altruistic behaviors and suggests that prosocial orientation is a critical factor in fostering children’s third-party altruism.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Physiological Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2021-11-19
Abstract： Recipients often reject unfair offers at the cost of their own interests in ultimatum games (UGs), reflecting their fairness preference. Yet fairness preference is not invariable. It is affected by various factors, among which empathy plays an important role. Individuals might, for example, sacrifice own interests to help others in need. This kind of behavior not only is contrary to the pursuit of self-interest maximization but also violates fairness principles. As individuals are not only concerned about fairness but also care for others, this study focuses on managing the relationship between the two potentially conflicting goals. We explored individuals’ behaviors and time dynamic processes of brain activities when fairness conflicted with empathy. It was hypothesized that empathy could modulate fairness-related decision making behaviors and ERPs. Thirty-seven college students (26 females, 21.00 ± 2.07 years) participated in this study and completed multiple ultimatum games. EEG signals were recorded during play. In the task, the proposers were underprivileged students (empathy condition) and ordinary children (non-empathy condition). Each proposer distributed 10 yuan between themself and one recipient. The participants played as recipients who would choose to accept or reject distribution offers (fair, unfair–disadvantageous, unfair–advantageous) by the proposers. The proposers and recipients would get the assigned money only if participants accepted the distribution offers. They received nothing if participants rejected the offer. The behavioral results showed that the acceptance rate in the empathy condition was greater than that in the non-empathy condition for the disadvantageous–unfair condition, while the opposite result occurred in the advantageous–unfair condition. The EEG results showed that in the non-empathy condition, the advantageous–unfair offer induced more negative anterior N1 (AN1) than it did in the empathy condition, but there was no difference between the disadvantageous–unfair versus fair conditions. In the advantageous–unfair condition, the P2 amplitude of the empathy condition was significantly more positive than that for the non-empathy condition, while in the disadvantageous–unfair condition, P2 amplitude of the non-empathy condition was slightly positive than that of the empathy condition. The disadvantage–unfair offer induced more negative medial frontal negativity (MFN) in the empathy condition, while no difference was found between fair versus unfair offers in the non-empathy condition. Additionally, the amplitude of P3 was larger in the fair versus the unfair conditions as it was not modulated by empathy. These findings suggest that experimentally-induced state empathy modulates fairness-related decision making behaviors and accompanying neural activity. Behavioral results indicate that state empathy takes priority in guiding people's behavior when it conflicts with the fairness criterion. For EEG results, empathy mainly modulates the early stage of the fairness concern and affects early attention and motivation as well as cognition and emotion. In later stages, the higher cognitive process represented by P3 is modulated only by fairness, not empathy. In conclusion, our study systematically explored and compared behavior patterns of fairness processing with temporal dynamic characteristics of brain activities by modulating empathy. The findings provide further insight into fairness-related decision making behaviors. They indicate the potential to influence individuals’ behaviors and cognition by manipulating empathy." "
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Other Disciplines of Psychology submitted time 2018-10-26 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract：已有的经颅直流电刺激(transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS)研究证明, 右腹外侧前额叶(right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, RVLPFC)是社会情绪调节的重要脑区, 激活RVLPFC可显著降低人们对社会性负性情绪体验的强度。社会功能受损是抑郁症患者或抑郁倾向人群的重要特征之一。该群体对社会排斥的敏感性高, 且对负性社会情绪体验的情绪调节能力降低。在本研究中, 我们采用外显的情绪调节任务, 研究了高、低抑郁水平的两组成年人被试在RVLPFC接受阳性tDCS后其情绪调节能力的改变。结果表明, 虽然采用tDCS激活RVLPFC可帮助被试通过情绪调节(认知重评)减弱负性情绪体验, 但高抑郁水平被试的负性情绪强度下降程度明显小于低抑郁水平被试。另外本文还发现, 与源于个人的负性情绪相比, tDCS效应对源于社会的负性情绪(即社会排斥)更强。本研究是采用电或磁刺激提高抑郁人群社会情绪调节能力的首次尝试。实验结果表明, 高抑郁水平成年人的RVLPFC仅通过单次、短时间(34 min)的tDCS激活, 其情绪调节能力并未得到显著提升。这提示对抑郁倾向群体或抑郁症患者的干预或治疗需要多次施加tDCS。
Hits
YES
Hits
Downloads
Comment