第三方惩罚的神经机制:来自经颅直流电刺激的证据
|
摘要
第三方惩罚既是社会规范在群体得以维系的基石,也是个体维护社会规范的体现。当前关注社会规范的神经研究大多基于第二方惩罚的独裁者或最后通牒实验框架,缺乏对第三方维护社会规范过程中相关脑区活动的探索,对这一过程的内在神经机制也不清楚。本文基于第三方惩罚的独裁者博弈框架,对右侧背外侧前额叶区域(DLPFC)进行不同极性的经颅直流电刺激(tDCS),同时依据第三方是否需要为其惩罚付出成本设计了零成本和有成本两个实验任务。结果发现,第三方在零成本任务的情绪反应和惩罚显著受到tDCS设置的影响,且阴极刺激显著提升了第三方的惩罚值,这表明情绪机制对第三方惩罚有着重要影响。另外,第三方在零成本和有成本任务中的惩罚差异在不同tDCS设置之间也存在显著差异,这与第三方惩罚还受到自利机制影响的观点相符。本文率先为右侧DLPFC活动影响第三方惩罚提供了神经层面的证据,且支持了第三方对社会规范的遵从与其负性情绪反应和自利加工密切相关的机制解释。
The social order of human societies is largely maintained by social norms. However, we still know little about the cognitive and emotional foundations that shape social norms, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to understand how social norms are developed and maintained. Prior neural studies, which mainly perform second-party punishment based on the ultimatum framework, rarely explore the relevant brain areas as well as the neural mechanisms of third-party punishment driven by social norms. In the current study, we provide evidences that support the influences of two types of mechanisms(i.e., negative emotions and self-interest mechanisms) on social norms compliance of third parties at opposite directions. Meanwhile, right dorsolateral prefrontal area(DLPFC) is found to play a crucial role in this process.In this study, we used transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS) to investigate whether increasing or decreasing right DLPFC excitability influenced third-party punishment in a dictator game. Following an experimental design of "between-subject(tDCS treatments: anodal, cathodal, sham) × within-subject(cost of punishment treatments: without cost, with cost)", ninety participants were first randomly assigned to receive anodal, cathodal, or sham stimulation in 15 minutes. They then performed two dictator game tasks as third parties. In Task Ⅰ(without cost) participants did not need to carry any costs for their punishment(none-cost task),while in Task Ⅱ(with cost) they were required to pay for their punishment actions.The results are given as follows. We first performed repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA to examine the effect of tDCS treatment(anodal, cathodal and sham) on emotion response. We found a significant main effect of tDCS on emotion response. Meanwhile, post-hoc analysis(SNK) showed that anodal stimulation decreased negative emotions while cathodal stimulation enhanced negative emotions. Second, the results of repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect of tDCS on punishment in the none-cost Task Ⅰ, and post-hoc analysis(SNK) showed that cathodal stimulation significantly increased punishment while the effect of anodal stimulation was insignificant. Third, we also conducted repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA to test whether the difference of the punishment between the two tasks was affected by tDCS treatments. We found that the main effect of tDCS was significant. Moreover, post-hoc analysis(SNK) showed that the difference of punishment between the two tasks was significantly higher for cathodal stimulation than for sham stimulation, while the difference of punishment between the two tasks for anodal stimulation was insignificant compared to that of sham stimulation.The present study provides one of the first neural evidences for the role of right DLPFC in third-parties' social norms compliance. The results indicate that DLPFC, by affecting the processes of negative emotions and self-interest, is an important brain area of social norms compliance. When third parties face violations of social norms, their brains first release negative emotions that drive third parties to punish violators. Further, if third parties need to pay for their compliance with social norms, their rational goals about self-interest weaken negative emotional impulses. Finally, the compliance with social norms depends on the trade-offs between negative emotions and self-interest mechanisms.
The social order of human societies is largely maintained by social norms. However, we still know little about the cognitive and emotional foundations that shape social norms, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to understand how social norms are developed and maintained. Prior neural studies, which mainly perform second-party punishment based on the ultimatum framework, rarely explore the relevant brain areas as well as the neural mechanisms of third-party punishment driven by social norms. In the current study, we provide evidences that support the influences of two types of mechanisms(i.e., negative emotions and self-interest mechanisms) on social norms compliance of third parties at opposite directions. Meanwhile, right dorsolateral prefrontal area(DLPFC) is found to play a crucial role in this process.In this study, we used transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS) to investigate whether increasing or decreasing right DLPFC excitability influenced third-party punishment in a dictator game. Following an experimental design of "between-subject(tDCS treatments: anodal, cathodal, sham) × within-subject(cost of punishment treatments: without cost, with cost)", ninety participants were first randomly assigned to receive anodal, cathodal, or sham stimulation in 15 minutes. They then performed two dictator game tasks as third parties. In Task Ⅰ(without cost) participants did not need to carry any costs for their punishment(none-cost task),while in Task Ⅱ(with cost) they were required to pay for their punishment actions.The results are given as follows. We first performed repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA to examine the effect of tDCS treatment(anodal, cathodal and sham) on emotion response. We found a significant main effect of tDCS on emotion response. Meanwhile, post-hoc analysis(SNK) showed that anodal stimulation decreased negative emotions while cathodal stimulation enhanced negative emotions. Second, the results of repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect of tDCS on punishment in the none-cost Task Ⅰ, and post-hoc analysis(SNK) showed that cathodal stimulation significantly increased punishment while the effect of anodal stimulation was insignificant. Third, we also conducted repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA to test whether the difference of the punishment between the two tasks was affected by tDCS treatments. We found that the main effect of tDCS was significant. Moreover, post-hoc analysis(SNK) showed that the difference of punishment between the two tasks was significantly higher for cathodal stimulation than for sham stimulation, while the difference of punishment between the two tasks for anodal stimulation was insignificant compared to that of sham stimulation.The present study provides one of the first neural evidences for the role of right DLPFC in third-parties' social norms compliance. The results indicate that DLPFC, by affecting the processes of negative emotions and self-interest, is an important brain area of social norms compliance. When third parties face violations of social norms, their brains first release negative emotions that drive third parties to punish violators. Further, if third parties need to pay for their compliance with social norms, their rational goals about self-interest weaken negative emotional impulses. Finally, the compliance with social norms depends on the trade-offs between negative emotions and self-interest mechanisms.
引文
Chen,S.J.,&Ma,J.H.(2011).Third-party punishment and social norm activation:The influence of social responsibility and emotion.Journal of Psychological Science,34(3),670-675.[陈思静,马剑虹.(2011).第三方惩罚与社会规范激活--社会责任感与情绪的作用.心理科学,34(3),670-675.]
Chen,S.J.,He,Q.,&Ma,J.H.(2015).The influence of thirdparty punishment on cooperation:An explanation of social norm activation.Acta Psychologica Sinica,47(3),389-405.[陈思静,何铨,马剑虹.(2015).第三方惩罚对合作行为的影响:基于社会规范激活的解释.心理学报,47(3),389-405.]
Cialdini,R.B.,&Trost,M.R.(1998).Social influence:Social norms,conformity and compliance.In D.T.Gilbert,S.T.Fiske,&G.Lindzey(Eds.),The handbook of social psychology(pp.1-17).New York,NY,US:McGraw-Hill.
Civai,C.,Miniussi,C.,&Rumiati,R.I.(2015).Medial prefrontal cortex reacts to unfairness if this damages the self:A tDCS study.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,10(8),1054-1060.
Cohen,J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.).Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Corradi-Dell'Acqua,C.,Civai,C.,Rumiati,R.I.,&Fink,G.R.(2012).Disentangling self-and fairness-related neural mechanisms involved in the ultimatum game:An fMRIstudy.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,8(4),424-431.
de la Fuente-Fernández,R.,Ruth,T.J.,Sossi,V.,Schulzer,M.,Calne,D.B.,&Stoessl,A.J.(2001).Expectation and dopamine release:Mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease.Science,293(5532),1164-1166.
Elster,J.(1989).Social norms and economic theory.Journal of Economic Perspectives,3(4),99-117.
Fan,L.C.,Lu,L.,&Liang,J.(2013).The demand for the third party punishment:An Experimental Examination.Economic Research Journal,(5),98-111.[范良聪,刘璐,梁捷.(2013).第三方的惩罚需求:一个实验研究.经济研究,(5),98-111.]
Fehr,E.,&Fischbacher,U.(2004).Third-party punishment and social norms.Evolution and Human Behavior,25(2),63-87.
Fehr,E.,&G?chter,S.(2002).Altruistic punishment in humans.Nature,415(6868),137-140.
Feinstein,J.S.,Adolphs,R.,Damasio,A.,&Tranel,D.(2011).The human amygdala and the induction and experience of fear.Current Biology,21(1),34-38.
Feng,C.,Luo,Y-J.,&Krueger,F.(2015).Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game:A coordinate-based meta-analysis.Human Brain Mapping,36(2),591-602.
Filmer,H.L.,Dux,P.E.,&Mattingley,J.B.(2014).Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function.Trends in Neurosciences,37(12),742-753.
Filmer,H.L.,Mattingley,J.B.,&Dux,P.E.(2013).Improved multitasking following prefrontal tDCS.Cortex,49(10),2845-2852.
Fischbacher,U.(2007).z-Tree:Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments.Experimental Economics,10(2),171-178.
Fischbacher,U.,G?chter,S.,&Fehr,E.(2001).Are people conditionally cooperative?Evidence from a public goods experiment.Economics Letters,71(3),397-404.
Gan,T.,Li,W.Q.,Tang,H.H.,Lu,X.P.,Li,X.L,Liu,C.,&Luo,Y.J.(2013).Exciting the right temporo-parietal junction with transcranial direct current stimulation influences moral intention processing.Acta Psychologica Sinica,45(9),1004-1014.[甘甜,李万清,唐红红,陆夏平,李小俚,刘超,罗跃嘉.(2013).经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图加工的影响.心理学报,45(9),1004-1014.]
Gan,T.,Shi,R.,Liu,C.,&Luo,Y.J.(2018).Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on the right temporo-parietal junction modulates the helpful intention processing.Acta Psychologica Sinica,50(1),36-46.[甘甜,石睿,刘超,罗跃嘉.(2018).经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对助人意图加工的影响.心理学报,50(1),36-46.]
Gospic,K.,Mohlin,E.,Fransson,P.,Petrovic,P.,Johannesson,M.,&Ingvar,M.(2011).Limbic justice--Amygdala involvement in immediate rejection in the Ultimatum Game.PLoS Biology,9(5),e1001054.
Harty,S.,Robertson,I.H.,Miniussi,C.,Sheehy,O.C.,Devine,C.A.,McCreery,S.,&O'Connell,R.G.(2014).Transcranial direct current stimulation over right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex enhances error awareness in older age.The Journal of Neuroscience,34(10),3646-3652.
Hummel,F.,Celnik,P.,Giraux,P.,Floel,A.,Wu,W.-H.,Gerloff,C.,&Cohen,L.G.(2005).Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke.Brain,128(3),490-499.
Jacobson,L.,Koslowsky,M.,&Lavidor,M.(2012).tDCSpolarity effects in motor and cognitive domains:A metaanalytical review.Experimental Brain Research,216(1),1-10.
Jordan,J.,Mcauliffe,K.,&Rand,D.(2016).The effects of endowment size and strategy method on third party punishment.Experimental Economics,19(4),741-763.
Knoch,D.,Nitsche,M.A.,Fischbacher,U.,Eisenegger,C.,Pascual-Leone,A.,&Fehr,E.(2008).Studying the neurobiology of social interaction with transcranial direct current stimulation-The example of punishing unfairness.Cerebral Cortex,18(9),1987-1990.
Knoch,D.,Pascual-Leone,A.,Meyer,K.,Treyer,V.,&Fehr,E.(2006).Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex.Science,314(5800),829-832.
Li,J.,Yin,X.,Li,D.,Liu,X.,Wang,G.,&Qu,L.(2017).Controlling the anchoring effect through transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS)to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.Frontiers in Psychology,8,1079.
Luo,J.,Ye,H.,Zheng,H.L.,Jia,Y.M.,Chen,S.,&Huang,D.Q.(2017).Modulating the activities of right and left temporo-parietal junction influences the capability of moral intention processing:A transcranial direct current stimulation study.Acta Psychologica Sinica,49(2),228-240.[罗俊,叶航,郑昊力,贾拥民,陈姝,黄达强.(2017).左右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图信息加工能力的共同作用--基于经颅直流电刺激技术.心理学报,49(2),228-240.]
Luo,Y.,Feng,C.L.,Gu,R.L.,Wu,T.T.,&Luo,Y.J.(2013).The fairness norm in social decision-making:Behavioral and neuroscience studies.Advances in Psychological Science,21(2),300-308.[罗艺,封春亮,古若雷,吴婷婷,罗跃嘉.(2013).社会决策中的公平准则及其神经机制.心理科学进展,21(2),300-308.]
Meiron,O.,&Lavidor,M.(2013).Unilateral prefrontal direct current stimulation effects are modulated by working memory load and gender.Brain Stimulation,6(3),440-447.
Nitsche,M.A.,&Paulus,W.(2001).Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans.Neurology,57(10),1899-1901.
Ochsner,K.N.,Ray,R.D.,Cooper,J.C.,Robertson,E.R.,Chopra,S.,Gabrieli,J.D.,&Gross,J.J.(2004).For better or for worse:Neural systems supporting the cognitive down-and up-regulation of negative emotion.Neuroimage,23(2),483-499.
Ravizza,S.M.,&Carter,C.S.(2008).Shifting set about task switching:Behavioral and neural evidence for distinct forms of cognitive flexibility.Neuropsychologia,46(12),2924-2935.
Rêgo,G.G.,Lapenta,O.M.,Marques,L.M.,Costa,T.L.,Leite,J.,Carvalho,S.,...Boggio,P.S.(2015).Hemispheric dorsolateral prefrontal cortex lateralization in the regulation of empathy for pain.Neuroscience Letters,594,12-16.
Reno,R.R.,Cialdini,R.B.,&Kallgren,C.A.(1993).The transsituational influence of social norms.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64(1),104-112.
Rowe,J.B.,Sakai,K.,Lund,T.E.,Rams?y,T.,Christensen,M.S.,Baare,W.F.C.,...Passingham,R.E.(2007).Is the prefrontal cortex necessary for establishing cognitive sets?Journal of Neuroscience,27(48),13303-13310.
Ruff,C.C.,Ugazio,G.,&Fehr,E.(2013).Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation.Science,342(6157),482-484.
Sakai,K.(2008).Task set and prefrontal cortex.Annual Review of Neuroscience,31(1),219-245.
Sanfey,A.G.,Rilling,J.K.,Aronson,J.A.,Nystrom,L.E.,&Cohen,J.D.(2003).The neural basis of economic decisionmaking in the ultimatum game.Science,300(5626),1755-1758.
Sellaro,R.,Nitsche,M.A.,&Colzato,L.S.(2016).The stimulated social brain:Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on social cognition.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1369(1),218-239.
Spitzer,M.,Fischbacher,U.,Herrnberger,B.,Gr?n,G.,&Fehr,E.(2007).The neural signature of social norm compliance.Neuron,56(1),185-196.
Tremblay,S.,Lepage,J.-F.,Latulipe-Loiselle,A.,Fregni,F.,Pascual-Leone,A.,&Théoret,H.(2014).The uncertain outcome of prefrontal tDCS.Brain Stimulation,7(6),773-783.
Wang,G.,Li,J.,Yin,X.,Li,S.,&Wei,M.(2016).Modulating activity in the orbitofrontal cortex changes trustees'cooperation:A transcranial direct current stimulation study.Behavioural Brain Research,303(4),71-75.
Wang,Y.,Wang Y.,Lin C.,Chen X.,Yuan B.,&Shen D.(2011).Modulation of conscientiousness on medial frontal negativity in negative emotions:An ERP study on ultimatum Game.Scientia Sinica Vitae,41(4),320-331.[王益文,王钰,林崇德,陈雪莹,袁博,沈德立.(2011).内侧额叶负波受负性情绪下责任感影响:最后通牒任务的ERP研究.中国科学:生命科学,41(4),320-331.]
Wang Y.,Zhang Z.,Zhang W.,Huang L.,Guo F.,&Yuan S.(2014).Group membership modulates the recipient’s fairness consideration in ultimatum game.Acta Psychologica Sinica,46(12),1850-1859.[王益文,张振,张蔚,黄亮,郭丰波,原胜.(2014).群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注.心理学报,46(12),1850-1859.]
Willis,M.L.,Murphy,J.M.,Ridley,N.J.,&Vercammen,A.(2015).Anodal tDCS targeting the right orbitofrontal cortex enhances facial expression recognition.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,10(12),1677-1683.
Wu,Y.,&Zhou,X.L.(2012).The context-dependency of fairness processing:Evidence from ERP study.Acta Psychologica Sinica,44(6),797-806.[吴燕,周晓林.(2012).公平加工的情境依赖性:来自ERP的证据.心理学报,44(6),797-806.]
Ye,H.,Chen,S.,Huang,D.,Wang,S.,&Luo,J.(2015).Modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex changes decision-making for risky gains and losses:A transcranial direct current stimulation study.Behavioural Brain Research,286,17-21.
Zhou,P.Y.,Wang,K.,Li,Q.,&Liu,X.(2012).Neural mechanisms of emotional modulation on memory.Chinese Science Bulletin,57(35),3367-3375.[周平艳,王凯,李琦,刘勋.(2012).情绪影响记忆的神经机制.科学通报,57(35),3367-3375.]
Zhou,Y.,Wang,Y.,Rao,L.-L.,Yang,L.-Q.,&Li,S.(2014).Money talks:Neural substrate of modulation of fairness by monetary incentives.Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience,8,150.
(1)该实验思路是,被试首先被分为独裁者、接受者或第三方三种类型之一,其中独裁者获得100点实验币并在自己和接受者之间任意分配,接受者只能被动接受独裁者的分配方案,不能影响任何人的收益。这一过程中第三方可以选择付出一定的成本去惩罚提出不公平提议的独裁者,规则是第三方自身每付出1点成本,独裁者的收益将被扣除3点。
(2)对于以右侧DLPFC为目标脑区的tDCS研究,选取Cz作为参考电极位置是比较常见的选择(Ruff et al.,2013;Harty et al.,2014;Li et al.,2017)。头皮位置Cz对应于右侧和左侧中央沟的汇合,相比其他位置(如眼眶),该区域及其附近的脑区对认知活动的影响通常较小。特别是,Spitzer,Fischbacher,Herrnberger,Gr?n和Fehr(2007)的fMRI研究发现Cz附近的脑区没有在独裁者博弈中激活,Ruff等(2013)也指出该区域作为tDCS参考电极不会干扰社会规范相关的神经活动。因此本文选取Cz作为参考电极位置。
(3)本文tDCS实验采用双盲设计,包括被试和讲解实验说明的主持人在内均不知晓被试接受的是阳极刺激、阴极刺激还是虚拟刺激等信息。为实现这一目的,有两个主持人分别负责tDCS刺激和讲解实验说明。另外,该类实验之所以采用虚拟刺激设计而非让被试参加无脑电刺激的纯行为实验,是为了控制安慰剂效应(placebo effect),该效应指被试认为自己接受的刺激或治疗对自己产生了效果或影响,但事实上该类刺激或治疗无效或并未执行(de la Fuente-Fernández et al.,2001;Li et al.,2017)。
(4)如果本文没有重复设计,被试将观察到三组独裁者的分配方案恰好不同(分别为0、30和50),这可能引起被试对实验真实性的怀疑,因此我们将其中两种分配方案重复一次。与已有研究类似(Ruff et al.,2013;王益文等,2014),本文采用伪随机方式控制随机设计对被试行为的影响。具体而言,任务1和任务2中五组分配方案的出现次序进行伪随机排列,规则是确保(0,30,50)三种分配方案至少出现一次且至多出现两次,且两个任务的呈现顺序在被试间ABBA平衡。具体方式为,第一场(session)实验中被试先进行零成本任务1,进行零成本任务1时计算机按照上述规则生成5组分配方案的呈现顺序A,随后在有成本任务2时按照上述规则随机生成5组分配方案的呈现顺序B。在接来下的第二场实验中被试先进行有成本任务2,且其5组分配方案的呈现顺序为A,随后进行零成本任务1,且5组分配方案的呈现顺序为B。也就是说,计算机只在奇数场次实验(1,3,5,…,29)的任务1和任务2生成5组分配方案的伪随机顺序,而接来下的偶数场实验(2,4,6,…,30)将任务呈现顺序颠倒,但两个任务的5组分配方案的呈现顺序按照前一场实验的顺序(AB)进行。这一设计既控制了任务呈现的顺序效应,又确保了零成本设置和有成本设置的5组分配方案的呈现顺序在总体样本上是一致的。进一步,为了避免上述随机设计干扰tDCS效应,我们每一场实验(session)招募三名被试,且三名被试分别接受阴极、阳极和虚拟刺激。这样,上述设计既减少了人为操作痕迹,又确保了分配方案及其呈现顺序在不同tDCS组中完全相同。另外,对于重复呈现的分配方案,被试无需再次进行决策,计算机将按照分配方案第一次呈现时他所做出的决策处理。
(5)任务2无需汇报情绪反应的实验设计基于如下权衡:一方面,要求被试在任务1和任务2均汇报情绪反应可以确保两个任务的行为差别不受汇报与否的影响;另一方面,被试在有成本设置的任务2中汇报的情绪反应容易遭受“污染”,即其可能受到自利因素的干扰。就本文研究目的而言,我们希望相对“干净”地比较不同tDCS组被试的情绪反应是否存在差异进而考察第三方惩罚的情绪机制,因此更倾向于规避后者的影响。进一步,由于不同刺激组的被试面临的实验场景和流程完全相同,即便被试行为在任务1中受到情绪汇报的影响,这一偏差也会在对不同刺激组的结果比较中很大程度上得以消除。基于以上考虑,我们让被试只在零成本设置的任务1汇报情绪反应。
(6)如果独裁者知晓有第三方存在,那么独裁者可能出于策略性的自利考量(即为了规避第三方的惩罚)而选择公平的选项,且独裁者的这一考量还受到第三方的惩罚是否存在成本的影响,这反过来可能会影响第三方在不同任务设置(任务1和任务2)下的情绪和惩罚反应,从而对本文实验结果产生干扰。
(7)按照Cohen(1988)给出的基准值参考,η2=0.01、0.06和0.14所对应的效果分别为小、中和大。
Chen,S.J.,He,Q.,&Ma,J.H.(2015).The influence of thirdparty punishment on cooperation:An explanation of social norm activation.Acta Psychologica Sinica,47(3),389-405.[陈思静,何铨,马剑虹.(2015).第三方惩罚对合作行为的影响:基于社会规范激活的解释.心理学报,47(3),389-405.]
Cialdini,R.B.,&Trost,M.R.(1998).Social influence:Social norms,conformity and compliance.In D.T.Gilbert,S.T.Fiske,&G.Lindzey(Eds.),The handbook of social psychology(pp.1-17).New York,NY,US:McGraw-Hill.
Civai,C.,Miniussi,C.,&Rumiati,R.I.(2015).Medial prefrontal cortex reacts to unfairness if this damages the self:A tDCS study.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,10(8),1054-1060.
Cohen,J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.).Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Corradi-Dell'Acqua,C.,Civai,C.,Rumiati,R.I.,&Fink,G.R.(2012).Disentangling self-and fairness-related neural mechanisms involved in the ultimatum game:An fMRIstudy.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,8(4),424-431.
de la Fuente-Fernández,R.,Ruth,T.J.,Sossi,V.,Schulzer,M.,Calne,D.B.,&Stoessl,A.J.(2001).Expectation and dopamine release:Mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease.Science,293(5532),1164-1166.
Elster,J.(1989).Social norms and economic theory.Journal of Economic Perspectives,3(4),99-117.
Fan,L.C.,Lu,L.,&Liang,J.(2013).The demand for the third party punishment:An Experimental Examination.Economic Research Journal,(5),98-111.[范良聪,刘璐,梁捷.(2013).第三方的惩罚需求:一个实验研究.经济研究,(5),98-111.]
Fehr,E.,&Fischbacher,U.(2004).Third-party punishment and social norms.Evolution and Human Behavior,25(2),63-87.
Fehr,E.,&G?chter,S.(2002).Altruistic punishment in humans.Nature,415(6868),137-140.
Feinstein,J.S.,Adolphs,R.,Damasio,A.,&Tranel,D.(2011).The human amygdala and the induction and experience of fear.Current Biology,21(1),34-38.
Feng,C.,Luo,Y-J.,&Krueger,F.(2015).Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game:A coordinate-based meta-analysis.Human Brain Mapping,36(2),591-602.
Filmer,H.L.,Dux,P.E.,&Mattingley,J.B.(2014).Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function.Trends in Neurosciences,37(12),742-753.
Filmer,H.L.,Mattingley,J.B.,&Dux,P.E.(2013).Improved multitasking following prefrontal tDCS.Cortex,49(10),2845-2852.
Fischbacher,U.(2007).z-Tree:Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments.Experimental Economics,10(2),171-178.
Fischbacher,U.,G?chter,S.,&Fehr,E.(2001).Are people conditionally cooperative?Evidence from a public goods experiment.Economics Letters,71(3),397-404.
Gan,T.,Li,W.Q.,Tang,H.H.,Lu,X.P.,Li,X.L,Liu,C.,&Luo,Y.J.(2013).Exciting the right temporo-parietal junction with transcranial direct current stimulation influences moral intention processing.Acta Psychologica Sinica,45(9),1004-1014.[甘甜,李万清,唐红红,陆夏平,李小俚,刘超,罗跃嘉.(2013).经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图加工的影响.心理学报,45(9),1004-1014.]
Gan,T.,Shi,R.,Liu,C.,&Luo,Y.J.(2018).Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on the right temporo-parietal junction modulates the helpful intention processing.Acta Psychologica Sinica,50(1),36-46.[甘甜,石睿,刘超,罗跃嘉.(2018).经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对助人意图加工的影响.心理学报,50(1),36-46.]
Gospic,K.,Mohlin,E.,Fransson,P.,Petrovic,P.,Johannesson,M.,&Ingvar,M.(2011).Limbic justice--Amygdala involvement in immediate rejection in the Ultimatum Game.PLoS Biology,9(5),e1001054.
Harty,S.,Robertson,I.H.,Miniussi,C.,Sheehy,O.C.,Devine,C.A.,McCreery,S.,&O'Connell,R.G.(2014).Transcranial direct current stimulation over right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex enhances error awareness in older age.The Journal of Neuroscience,34(10),3646-3652.
Hummel,F.,Celnik,P.,Giraux,P.,Floel,A.,Wu,W.-H.,Gerloff,C.,&Cohen,L.G.(2005).Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke.Brain,128(3),490-499.
Jacobson,L.,Koslowsky,M.,&Lavidor,M.(2012).tDCSpolarity effects in motor and cognitive domains:A metaanalytical review.Experimental Brain Research,216(1),1-10.
Jordan,J.,Mcauliffe,K.,&Rand,D.(2016).The effects of endowment size and strategy method on third party punishment.Experimental Economics,19(4),741-763.
Knoch,D.,Nitsche,M.A.,Fischbacher,U.,Eisenegger,C.,Pascual-Leone,A.,&Fehr,E.(2008).Studying the neurobiology of social interaction with transcranial direct current stimulation-The example of punishing unfairness.Cerebral Cortex,18(9),1987-1990.
Knoch,D.,Pascual-Leone,A.,Meyer,K.,Treyer,V.,&Fehr,E.(2006).Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex.Science,314(5800),829-832.
Li,J.,Yin,X.,Li,D.,Liu,X.,Wang,G.,&Qu,L.(2017).Controlling the anchoring effect through transcranial direct current stimulation(tDCS)to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.Frontiers in Psychology,8,1079.
Luo,J.,Ye,H.,Zheng,H.L.,Jia,Y.M.,Chen,S.,&Huang,D.Q.(2017).Modulating the activities of right and left temporo-parietal junction influences the capability of moral intention processing:A transcranial direct current stimulation study.Acta Psychologica Sinica,49(2),228-240.[罗俊,叶航,郑昊力,贾拥民,陈姝,黄达强.(2017).左右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图信息加工能力的共同作用--基于经颅直流电刺激技术.心理学报,49(2),228-240.]
Luo,Y.,Feng,C.L.,Gu,R.L.,Wu,T.T.,&Luo,Y.J.(2013).The fairness norm in social decision-making:Behavioral and neuroscience studies.Advances in Psychological Science,21(2),300-308.[罗艺,封春亮,古若雷,吴婷婷,罗跃嘉.(2013).社会决策中的公平准则及其神经机制.心理科学进展,21(2),300-308.]
Meiron,O.,&Lavidor,M.(2013).Unilateral prefrontal direct current stimulation effects are modulated by working memory load and gender.Brain Stimulation,6(3),440-447.
Nitsche,M.A.,&Paulus,W.(2001).Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans.Neurology,57(10),1899-1901.
Ochsner,K.N.,Ray,R.D.,Cooper,J.C.,Robertson,E.R.,Chopra,S.,Gabrieli,J.D.,&Gross,J.J.(2004).For better or for worse:Neural systems supporting the cognitive down-and up-regulation of negative emotion.Neuroimage,23(2),483-499.
Ravizza,S.M.,&Carter,C.S.(2008).Shifting set about task switching:Behavioral and neural evidence for distinct forms of cognitive flexibility.Neuropsychologia,46(12),2924-2935.
Rêgo,G.G.,Lapenta,O.M.,Marques,L.M.,Costa,T.L.,Leite,J.,Carvalho,S.,...Boggio,P.S.(2015).Hemispheric dorsolateral prefrontal cortex lateralization in the regulation of empathy for pain.Neuroscience Letters,594,12-16.
Reno,R.R.,Cialdini,R.B.,&Kallgren,C.A.(1993).The transsituational influence of social norms.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64(1),104-112.
Rowe,J.B.,Sakai,K.,Lund,T.E.,Rams?y,T.,Christensen,M.S.,Baare,W.F.C.,...Passingham,R.E.(2007).Is the prefrontal cortex necessary for establishing cognitive sets?Journal of Neuroscience,27(48),13303-13310.
Ruff,C.C.,Ugazio,G.,&Fehr,E.(2013).Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation.Science,342(6157),482-484.
Sakai,K.(2008).Task set and prefrontal cortex.Annual Review of Neuroscience,31(1),219-245.
Sanfey,A.G.,Rilling,J.K.,Aronson,J.A.,Nystrom,L.E.,&Cohen,J.D.(2003).The neural basis of economic decisionmaking in the ultimatum game.Science,300(5626),1755-1758.
Sellaro,R.,Nitsche,M.A.,&Colzato,L.S.(2016).The stimulated social brain:Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on social cognition.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1369(1),218-239.
Spitzer,M.,Fischbacher,U.,Herrnberger,B.,Gr?n,G.,&Fehr,E.(2007).The neural signature of social norm compliance.Neuron,56(1),185-196.
Tremblay,S.,Lepage,J.-F.,Latulipe-Loiselle,A.,Fregni,F.,Pascual-Leone,A.,&Théoret,H.(2014).The uncertain outcome of prefrontal tDCS.Brain Stimulation,7(6),773-783.
Wang,G.,Li,J.,Yin,X.,Li,S.,&Wei,M.(2016).Modulating activity in the orbitofrontal cortex changes trustees'cooperation:A transcranial direct current stimulation study.Behavioural Brain Research,303(4),71-75.
Wang,Y.,Wang Y.,Lin C.,Chen X.,Yuan B.,&Shen D.(2011).Modulation of conscientiousness on medial frontal negativity in negative emotions:An ERP study on ultimatum Game.Scientia Sinica Vitae,41(4),320-331.[王益文,王钰,林崇德,陈雪莹,袁博,沈德立.(2011).内侧额叶负波受负性情绪下责任感影响:最后通牒任务的ERP研究.中国科学:生命科学,41(4),320-331.]
Wang Y.,Zhang Z.,Zhang W.,Huang L.,Guo F.,&Yuan S.(2014).Group membership modulates the recipient’s fairness consideration in ultimatum game.Acta Psychologica Sinica,46(12),1850-1859.[王益文,张振,张蔚,黄亮,郭丰波,原胜.(2014).群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注.心理学报,46(12),1850-1859.]
Willis,M.L.,Murphy,J.M.,Ridley,N.J.,&Vercammen,A.(2015).Anodal tDCS targeting the right orbitofrontal cortex enhances facial expression recognition.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,10(12),1677-1683.
Wu,Y.,&Zhou,X.L.(2012).The context-dependency of fairness processing:Evidence from ERP study.Acta Psychologica Sinica,44(6),797-806.[吴燕,周晓林.(2012).公平加工的情境依赖性:来自ERP的证据.心理学报,44(6),797-806.]
Ye,H.,Chen,S.,Huang,D.,Wang,S.,&Luo,J.(2015).Modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex changes decision-making for risky gains and losses:A transcranial direct current stimulation study.Behavioural Brain Research,286,17-21.
Zhou,P.Y.,Wang,K.,Li,Q.,&Liu,X.(2012).Neural mechanisms of emotional modulation on memory.Chinese Science Bulletin,57(35),3367-3375.[周平艳,王凯,李琦,刘勋.(2012).情绪影响记忆的神经机制.科学通报,57(35),3367-3375.]
Zhou,Y.,Wang,Y.,Rao,L.-L.,Yang,L.-Q.,&Li,S.(2014).Money talks:Neural substrate of modulation of fairness by monetary incentives.Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience,8,150.
(1)该实验思路是,被试首先被分为独裁者、接受者或第三方三种类型之一,其中独裁者获得100点实验币并在自己和接受者之间任意分配,接受者只能被动接受独裁者的分配方案,不能影响任何人的收益。这一过程中第三方可以选择付出一定的成本去惩罚提出不公平提议的独裁者,规则是第三方自身每付出1点成本,独裁者的收益将被扣除3点。
(2)对于以右侧DLPFC为目标脑区的tDCS研究,选取Cz作为参考电极位置是比较常见的选择(Ruff et al.,2013;Harty et al.,2014;Li et al.,2017)。头皮位置Cz对应于右侧和左侧中央沟的汇合,相比其他位置(如眼眶),该区域及其附近的脑区对认知活动的影响通常较小。特别是,Spitzer,Fischbacher,Herrnberger,Gr?n和Fehr(2007)的fMRI研究发现Cz附近的脑区没有在独裁者博弈中激活,Ruff等(2013)也指出该区域作为tDCS参考电极不会干扰社会规范相关的神经活动。因此本文选取Cz作为参考电极位置。
(3)本文tDCS实验采用双盲设计,包括被试和讲解实验说明的主持人在内均不知晓被试接受的是阳极刺激、阴极刺激还是虚拟刺激等信息。为实现这一目的,有两个主持人分别负责tDCS刺激和讲解实验说明。另外,该类实验之所以采用虚拟刺激设计而非让被试参加无脑电刺激的纯行为实验,是为了控制安慰剂效应(placebo effect),该效应指被试认为自己接受的刺激或治疗对自己产生了效果或影响,但事实上该类刺激或治疗无效或并未执行(de la Fuente-Fernández et al.,2001;Li et al.,2017)。
(4)如果本文没有重复设计,被试将观察到三组独裁者的分配方案恰好不同(分别为0、30和50),这可能引起被试对实验真实性的怀疑,因此我们将其中两种分配方案重复一次。与已有研究类似(Ruff et al.,2013;王益文等,2014),本文采用伪随机方式控制随机设计对被试行为的影响。具体而言,任务1和任务2中五组分配方案的出现次序进行伪随机排列,规则是确保(0,30,50)三种分配方案至少出现一次且至多出现两次,且两个任务的呈现顺序在被试间ABBA平衡。具体方式为,第一场(session)实验中被试先进行零成本任务1,进行零成本任务1时计算机按照上述规则生成5组分配方案的呈现顺序A,随后在有成本任务2时按照上述规则随机生成5组分配方案的呈现顺序B。在接来下的第二场实验中被试先进行有成本任务2,且其5组分配方案的呈现顺序为A,随后进行零成本任务1,且5组分配方案的呈现顺序为B。也就是说,计算机只在奇数场次实验(1,3,5,…,29)的任务1和任务2生成5组分配方案的伪随机顺序,而接来下的偶数场实验(2,4,6,…,30)将任务呈现顺序颠倒,但两个任务的5组分配方案的呈现顺序按照前一场实验的顺序(AB)进行。这一设计既控制了任务呈现的顺序效应,又确保了零成本设置和有成本设置的5组分配方案的呈现顺序在总体样本上是一致的。进一步,为了避免上述随机设计干扰tDCS效应,我们每一场实验(session)招募三名被试,且三名被试分别接受阴极、阳极和虚拟刺激。这样,上述设计既减少了人为操作痕迹,又确保了分配方案及其呈现顺序在不同tDCS组中完全相同。另外,对于重复呈现的分配方案,被试无需再次进行决策,计算机将按照分配方案第一次呈现时他所做出的决策处理。
(5)任务2无需汇报情绪反应的实验设计基于如下权衡:一方面,要求被试在任务1和任务2均汇报情绪反应可以确保两个任务的行为差别不受汇报与否的影响;另一方面,被试在有成本设置的任务2中汇报的情绪反应容易遭受“污染”,即其可能受到自利因素的干扰。就本文研究目的而言,我们希望相对“干净”地比较不同tDCS组被试的情绪反应是否存在差异进而考察第三方惩罚的情绪机制,因此更倾向于规避后者的影响。进一步,由于不同刺激组的被试面临的实验场景和流程完全相同,即便被试行为在任务1中受到情绪汇报的影响,这一偏差也会在对不同刺激组的结果比较中很大程度上得以消除。基于以上考虑,我们让被试只在零成本设置的任务1汇报情绪反应。
(6)如果独裁者知晓有第三方存在,那么独裁者可能出于策略性的自利考量(即为了规避第三方的惩罚)而选择公平的选项,且独裁者的这一考量还受到第三方的惩罚是否存在成本的影响,这反过来可能会影响第三方在不同任务设置(任务1和任务2)下的情绪和惩罚反应,从而对本文实验结果产生干扰。
(7)按照Cohen(1988)给出的基准值参考,η2=0.01、0.06和0.14所对应的效果分别为小、中和大。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |