心理科学进展, 2019, 27(8): 1331-1343 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01331

研究构想

认知控制在第三方惩罚中的作用

苏彦捷,, 谢东杰, 王笑楠

北京大学心理与认知科学学院, 行为与心理健康北京市重点实验室, 北京 100871

The role of cognitive control in third-party punishment

SU Yanjie,, XIE Dongjie, WANG Xiaonan

School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

通讯作者: 苏彦捷, E-mail: yjsu@pku.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2019-02-26   网络出版日期: 2019-07-26

基金资助: * 国家自然科学基金资助.  (批准号:31872782, 31571134)

Received: 2019-02-26   Online: 2019-07-26

摘要

第三方惩罚是一种特殊的利他行为, 在维护社会规范和人类合作中发挥着重要作用。现有研究对遵守社会规范行为及其认知机制进行了大量探讨, 而第三方惩罚这一维护社会规范行为的认知加工过程, 尤其是认知控制在其中发挥的具体作用, 是目前研究的热点之一。通过(1)借助不同技术方法来探究认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用; (2)从发展的视角, 在认知控制发展的关键阶段来考察其作用随年龄的发展变化, 用以解释第三方惩罚这一利他行为的发展轨迹, 完善对第三方惩罚的认知基础的理解, 并构建第三方惩罚决策的心理模型。

关键词: 第三方惩罚 ; 认知控制 ; 共情 ; 正义感 ; 情绪

Abstract

Third-party punishment (TPP) is a substantial and special kind of altruistic behaviors, which could help maintain social norms and human cooperation. A large body of research has studied norm conformity like fair behaviors and its underlying cognitive mechanisms, merely few studies, however, have discussed norm enforcement behaviors like TPP and its cognitive process. One issue of strong interest is the way how cognitive control influences TPP. Thus, through (1) exploring the specific role of cognitive control in TPP by means of employing different technical methods; (2) from the perspective of developmental psychology, examining how the effects of cognitive control vary by stages of development, particularly focusing on preschoolers and adolescents, who are undergoing rapid development of cognitive control, the present project aims to deepen the understanding of the cognitive basis of TPP, explain the developmental trajectory of TPP, and help build a psychological model for the TPP decision making.

Keywords: third-party punishment ; cognitive control ; empathy ; justice sensitivity ; emotion

PDF (739KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

苏彦捷, 谢东杰, 王笑楠. (2019). 认知控制在第三方惩罚中的作用. 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1331-1343

SU Yanjie, XIE Dongjie, WANG Xiaonan. (2019). The role of cognitive control in third-party punishment. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(8), 1331-1343

1 问题提出

孟子曰:“不以规矩, 不能成方圆。”这句话说的是做事要有一定的规矩、规则, 否则无法成功, 即说明了做人做事要遵守社会规范。社会规范(social norm)是指特定情境下某一群体成员都广泛认可的行为标准(Bicchieri, 2006; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004a)。虽然人们有服从社会规范的动机(Fehr & Schurtenberger, 2018), 但是这种动机并不足以维持人们一直遵守社会规范, 违规行为、“搭便车”现象时有发生。在这种情况下, 如果增加第三方惩罚(third-party punishment, TPP)的机会, 则能提高人们遵守规范的可能性(Fehr & Schurtenberger, 2018; Egas & Riedl, 2008)。第三方惩罚指的是个体牺牲自我利益去惩罚与自己无直接相关的违规行为(Bendor & Swistak, 2001; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004b)。它可以理解为我们常说的“路见不平一声吼”, 例如旁观者当街抓小偷, 亦或是路人指责他人的顺手牵羊行径……这一利他行为在不同的文化下(Henrich et al., 2006; Henrich et al., 2010)、不同年龄的群体中(Gummerum & Chu, 2014; McAuliffe, Jordan, & Warneken, 2015; Salali, Juda, & Henrich, 2015; Yang, Choi, Misch, Yang, & Dunham, 2018)均存在, 但是在人类的近亲黑猩猩中却不存在(Riedl, Jensen, Call, & Tomasello, 2012)。因此, 第三方惩罚很有可能是人类社会中具有标志性的特征之一。

面对违规情况, “惩罚违规者”和“帮助受害者”都是具有利他性的第三方干预行为(third-party intervention) (Darley & Pittman, 2003; van Prooijen, 2010)。但是, 第三方惩罚这一利他行为更加特殊(谢东杰, 苏彦捷, 2019)。具体来说, 如果第三方个体只能在“惩罚违规者”和“不作为”之间做出选择, 那么第三方惩罚被视为一种高度的利他行为; 但是, 如果个体还能够选择“帮助受害者”, 那么他们更倾向于选择帮助而非惩罚, 此时惩罚反而可能会被知觉为一种“损人不利己”的行为, 行为的利他性难以体现(谢东杰, 苏彦捷, 2019; Jordan, Hoffman, Bloom, & Rand, 2016; Raihani & Bshary, 2015)。

那么, 相比于帮助等利他行为, 第三方个体做出惩罚决策时的认知过程是否也有其特殊性呢?根据双加工理论(the dual-processing theory) (Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Kahneman, 2011), 个体的行为可以分为直觉式(reflexive and intuitive)反应和反思式(reflective and deliberative)反应, 前者的决策反应时相对较短, 后者的反应时相对较长。以往的研究发现, 帮助、捐赠等利他行为很有可能是一种直觉式反应(Hu, Strang, & Weber, 2015; Rand, Greene, & Nowak, 2012), 而第三方惩罚则是一种反思式反应(Artavia-Mora, Bedi, & Rieger, 2017; Gummerum & Chu, 2014; Hu et al., 2015), 这意味着第三方惩罚涉及的认知加工过程可能比帮助、捐赠等利他行为更加复杂。在进行第三方惩罚决策的过程中, 个体会面临更多的认知冲突。一方面, 违规者的行为并未直接损害第三方的利益, 但是做出惩罚行为却往往需要牺牲个人利益(Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004b; Jordan et al., 2016), 因此第三方个体需要解决自利动机和社会规范之间的冲突(McAuliffe et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2018)。另一方面, 第三方惩罚虽然具有利他性, 但有时会被知觉为一种“损人不利己”的行为(谢东杰, 苏彦捷, 2019; Jordan et al., 2016; Raihani & Bshary, 2015); 而且违规行为本身可能具有较高的复杂性, 第三方个体如果更加关注违规者, 那么就需要从行为结果和意图对违规行为进行多角度的评价, 倘若做出不当惩罚, 反而“出力不讨好”; 因此, 这种风险的存在使得个体需要进行更加仔细地评估和思考才能做出第三方惩罚决策。鉴于这些冲突的存在, 认知控制(cognitive control)作为一种重要的应对冲突能力, 可能在第三方惩罚的决策中发挥了不容忽视的作用(丁毅, 纪婷婷, 陈旭, 2012; 谢东杰, 苏彦捷, 2019; Krueger & Hoffman, 2016)。认知控制一般是指个体控制自己的思想和行为以实现未来目标的能力(Crone & Steinbeis, 2017)。目前并不清楚认知控制究竟在第三方惩罚中发挥了什么作用, 它在惩罚与帮助之间的作用又有何差异。对这些问题的探讨有助于研究者深入理解人类利他行为的心理机制, 同时也能够为公民道德教育体系建设、社会治理等实际问题的解决提供思路。

2 第三方惩罚发生的心理学解释

目前, 多水平选择理论(multilevel selection theory) (Sober & Wilson, 1998; Wilson & Sober, 1994)等演化生物学理论以及高成本信号理论(costly signaling theory) (Camerer, 2003; Spence, 1974)等经济学理论给出了第三方惩罚发生的远因(ultimate causation)解释——它对群体适应性和个人声誉具有积极作用。但是, 惩罚者的行为动机是什么, 第三方惩罚行为究竟受到什么因素的驱动, 个体在决策时经历了怎样的认知加工过程等等, 这些问题仍不清楚。接下来, 本文将从心理学的角度尝试给出第三方惩罚发生的近因(proximate causation)解释。

2.1 情绪和个人特质在第三方惩罚中的作用

第三方惩罚的发生需要情绪作为驱动力(Darley & Pittman, 2003), 其中愤怒(anger)和同情(compassion)尤其受到关注。有研究者认为, 违规行为引发的愤怒(anger)情绪可能是个体做出第三方惩罚的直接原因之一(Fehr & Fishbacher, 2004b; Fehr & Gächter, 2002)。Nelissen和Zeelenberg (2009)通过操纵由真人给出不公平的分配方案还是由电脑随机给出验证了这一点。他们发现, 相比于电脑随机给出不公平分配方案的情况, 被试对真人有意为之的违反公平规范的行为会产生更多的愤怒情绪, 也会做出更多的第三方惩罚。还有研究者认为对受害者的同情(compassion)是引发第三方惩罚的另一种重要的情绪因素(DeScioli & Kurzban, 2009)。然而后续的研究显示, 相比于同情而言, 愤怒更能解释第三方惩罚的发生(陈思静, 2011; 陈思静, 马剑虹, 2011)。

将愤怒和同情这两种情绪进行对比可以发现, 前者是由于惩罚者知觉到社会规范被破坏而产生的(陈思静, 2011), 属于道德愤慨(moral outrage) (Mikula, Scherer, & Aethenstaedt, 1998), 它指向的是违规者(Lotz, Okimoto, Schlösser, & Fetchenhauer, 2011); 而后者则指向的是受害者(Gromet & Darley, 2009)。面对同一种情境, 第三方个体可以产生指向不同对象的情绪, 这可能说明他们在两个对象之间的注意分配存在差异:个体产生的愤怒情绪越强, 则更多地注意违规者; 个体产生的同情情绪越强, 则更多地注意受害者。由此推测, 第三方惩罚的发生可能与个体的愤怒情绪密切相关, 并且愤怒情绪会促使个体对违规者而非受害者分配更多的注意(Gummerum, van Dillen, van Dijk, & López-Pérez, 2016)。

另一方面, 同一违规行为引发的情绪类型和强度存在个体差异, 这提示了个人特质在其中的作用。共情(empathy)是利他行为的主要驱动力之一(综述见de Waal, 2008)。它一般指的是个体感知他人情绪状态、关注他人福祉的倾向性和动机(Decety, Bartal, Uzefovsky, & Knafo-Noam, 2016), 这种个人特质与同情情绪的关系十分密切(颜志强, 苏金龙, 苏彦捷, 2018)。受害者的遭遇能够引发第三方个体对其产生共情反应(Ciaramidaro et al., 2018), 激活前脑岛(anterior insula, AI)等脑区(Feng et al., 2016), 使得第三方个体干预与自身利益无直接相关的违规情况。研究者们采用人际反应指针量表(Interpersonal Reaction Indicator, IRI)来测量共情(Davis, 1980), 但是发现共情与第三方惩罚这一利他行为之间的关系并不一致:有研究发现, 当第三方个体同时拥有“帮助受害者”和“惩罚违规者”的选项时, 共情关注(empathic concern)维度得分与帮助之间呈显著正相关, 与惩罚之间呈显著负相关(Hu et al., 2015; Leliveld, van Dijk, & van beest, 2012)或者不相关(Liu, Li, Zheng, & Guo, 2017); 还有研究却发现, 个体的共情关注维度得分越高, 越倾向于惩罚, 而观点采择(perspective taking)维度得分越高, 则越倾向于帮助(Lu & McKeown, 2018)。这些矛盾的结果提示, 共情虽然与利他行为关系密切, 但并不能稳定地预测第三方惩罚这一特殊的利他行为。

除了共情以外, 正义感(justice sensitivity)也可能是解释第三方惩罚的个体差异的重要特质。它主要指个体对不公正事件的感知程度以及恢复正义的倾向性(Decety & Yoder, 2017; Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005)。在只有“惩罚违规者”和“不作为”两种选项的情境下, 个体的正义感越强, 越倾向于做出第三方惩罚(Lotz, Baumert, Schlosser, Gresser, & Fetchenhauer, 2011)。而且, 正义感越强的个体在面对违规行为时会产生更强的情绪反应(Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995), 尤其是道德愤慨(Lotz, Okimoto et al., 2011)。更重要的是, 道德愤慨在正义感和第三方惩罚之间起到了中介作用(Darley & Pittman, 2003; Lotz, Baumert et al., 2011), 而且这一中介作用在个体有机会选择“帮助受害者”的时候仍然存在(Lotz, Baumert et al., 2011)。这些研究表明, 正义感和第三方惩罚之间可能存在相对稳定的正相关关系。

虽然现有研究揭示了个人特质及其引发的情绪在个体的第三方惩罚中发挥的重要作用, 但是, 也有研究者认为这些因素并不足以解释第三方惩罚的发生(Nelissen & Zeelenberg, 2009)。来自脑电研究的证据显示, 违规行为由于违反了个体对他人的社会预期, 一般会引发与负性情绪评价有关的反馈相关负波(feedback-related negativity, FRN) (Enge, Mothes, Fleischhauer, Reif, & Strobel, 2017)。第三方个体的共情水平越高, FRN的波幅越大(Mothes, Enge, & Strobel, 2016), 表明高共情个体对违规行为更加敏感(Fukushima & Hiraki, 2009)。但是, FRN的波幅与个体后续的惩罚行为之间却不存在相关关系(Mothes et al., 2016; Sun, Tan, Cheng, Chen, & Qu, 2015)。这些证据提示, 在负性情绪和惩罚违规者中间还有其他因素调控第三方惩罚的发生, 而认知控制尤为值得关注(丁毅 等, 2012; 谢东杰, 苏彦捷, 2019; Bellucci et al., 2017; Krueger & Hoffman, 2016)。

2.2 认知控制与第三方惩罚的关系

认知控制是一个“伞”概念。一般来说, 认知控制可以分为基础成分和高级成分, 其中基础成分包括抑制控制(inhibitory control)、工作记忆(working memory)等, 而高级成分包括情绪调节(emotion regulation) 、问题解决(problem solving)等, 高级成分依赖于基础成分(Crone & Steinbeis, 2017; Diamond, 2013)。在进行第三方惩罚决策时, 个体会面临多种冲突。第三方惩罚与其他利他行为一样, 需要牺牲个体的自我利益, 因此, 认知控制, 尤其是其中控制自身优势反应的抑制控制这一基础成分, 可能在解决个体自利冲动与维护规范的冲突中发挥了重要作用(Müller-Leinß, Enzi, Flasbeck, & Brüne, 2018)。认知控制能力越强的个体更能够自上而下地控制自利冲动, 做出遵守社会规范的行为(Blake, Piovesan, Montinari, Warneken, & Gino, 2015), 他们也更有可能将注意分配在违规者身上, 从而做出维护社会规范的行为。有研究者通过问卷的方式考察了第三方惩罚与认知控制之间的关系, 结果发现, 认知控制与第三方惩罚之间存在正相关关系(Friehe & Schildberg-Horisch, 2018; Glass, Moody, Grafman, & Krueger, 2016)。还有研究者使用经颅直流电刺激(transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS)的方法操纵了与认知控制密切相关的背外侧前额叶区域(dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dlPFC) (Vanderhasselt, de Raedt, & Baeken, 2009)的活动, 并对比了个体的第三方惩罚在有代价和无代价条件之间的差异, 验证了认知控制在第三方惩罚中发挥了抑制自利冲动的作用(殷西乐, 李建标, 陈思宇, 刘晓丽, 郝洁, 2019)。

为了更加全面地理解第三方惩罚的发生机制, Krueger和Hoffman (2016)从神经科学的角度, 提出了关于第三方惩罚的神经心理框架:第三方惩罚涉及到的脑网络包括与情绪反应有关的突显网络(salience network, SN), 与自我监控、心理推理有关的默认网络(default mode network, DMN)以及与认知控制有关的中央执行网络(central executive network, CEN)。具体来说, 违规行为会引发个体产生消极的情绪体验, 在进行真正的第三方惩罚决策之前, 个体还会综合违规行为发生的具体情境, 对违规者做出一个责备的评判。在这一过程中, 我们推测, 个体可能面临负性情绪体验和“事出有因”的冲突, 那么认知控制中的高级成分——情绪调节可能在其中起到重要作用(Li, Wu, Zhang, & Zhang, 2017)。而个体产生的“责备信号”要转化为实际的第三方惩罚行为, 还需要认知控制的进一步参与。通过重复性经颅磁刺激(repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, rTMS)的方法, 研究者抑制个体背外侧前额叶的活动, 发现这一操作没有改变第三方个体对于故事情境中犯罪行为的道德评价, 但是却减少了他们的第三方惩罚(Buckholtz et al., 2015)。这可能是因为背外侧前额叶的功能与信息整合和行为选择有关(Miller & Cohen, 2001), 个体可能需要借助工作记忆这一基础的认知控制成分来表征和整合多方面的信息, 而最终是否做出一个具有适应性的维护规范行为可能还需要依赖于抑制控制(Buckholtz et al., 2015)。

2.3 第三方惩罚随年龄的发展变化

以往关于第三方惩罚的研究主要集中于成人群体, 研究者对第三方惩罚这一利他行为的发展根源所知甚少。由于第三方惩罚的发生依赖于个体对社会规范的理解, 因此有研究者认为, 第三方惩罚应该出现在儿童期之后, 因为处于该发展阶段的个体对社会规范有充足的知识储备、与社会群体进行过充分的交互活动并体验过违规行为带来的后果(Rogoff, 2003)。但是, 第三方惩罚也可能是个体学习社会规范过程中的表现(Tomasello & Vaish, 2013), 因此它也可能出现在社会经历相对有限的儿童早期。

McAuliffe等人(2015)采用改编版的最后通牒游戏(Ultimatum Game, UG), 让儿童作为第三方代替接受者决定是否惩罚分配者的行为。结果发现, 6岁儿童已经表现出了第三方惩罚行为, 具体来说, 他们会更多地惩罚他人的不公平分配行为而非公平分配行为, 但是5岁儿童对两种行为的惩罚之间则没有差异。这说明学龄前儿童的第三方惩罚存在明显的发展变化。Yang等人(2018)借助与儿童日常生活更贴近的故事背景, 发现第三方惩罚发生的年龄可以提前到4岁。研究者将公共物品游戏(Public Goods Game, PGG)进行了改编, 并设置了两种“搭便车”的情境:违规者不愿贡献资源或不愿贡献努力。具体来说, 在不愿贡献资源的情境下, 4~5岁和9~10岁儿童观察游戏中其他4个小朋友的行为, 每个小朋友都有一块巧克力, 如果每个人都把自己的巧克力捐出来, 放到神奇的储蓄罐里, 那么所有人最终会得到一个大蛋糕, 可以分着吃; 但是如果有一个小朋友不愿把自己的巧克力捐出来, 那么所有人只能得到一个小蛋糕。不愿意付出努力的情境则是违规者不愿一起种西红柿苗, 从而收获更多的西红柿。研究发现, 4~5岁的儿童作为第三方不仅对“搭便车者”有消极的评价, 还会对“搭便车者”实施惩罚, 并且其惩罚行为与9~10岁组之间没有差异(Yang et al., 2018)。

值得注意的是, 在McAuliffe等人(2015)以及Yang等人(2018)的研究中, 还考察了惩罚代价对儿童第三方惩罚的影响。两个研究均发现, 如果第三方惩罚需要个体牺牲自我利益, 那么学龄前儿童的第三方惩罚会有所减少, 这表明学龄前儿童的自利冲动会阻碍他们做出维护公平规范的行为。随着年龄的增长, 个体遇到的违规情境可能会变得更加复杂。Gummerum和Chu (2014)发现, 无论自我利益是否卷入, 青少年晚期的个体都能较好地整合行为意图和结果, 做出维护公平规范的第三方惩罚行为, 但是青少年早期的个体只能在自我利益卷入的情况下进行有效整合, 做出惩罚行为; 而8岁的学龄儿童做出的惩罚行为则完全依赖于行为结果, 并不考虑行为意图。这种惩罚行为的发展轨迹可能与个体对违规结果引发的负性情绪体验的调节能力不断提升有关。

3 对已有研究的反思

虽然第三方惩罚这一行为在人类社会中广泛存在(Henrich et al., 2006; Henrich et al., 2010), 但并非所有人都会做出第三方惩罚。个人特质可能使个体在面对违规行为时产生不同种类、不同强度的情绪, 但个人特质和情绪如何解释第三方惩罚的个体差异仍然有待进一步研究。除此之外, 虽然以往的研究发现了认知控制与第三方惩罚之间的相关, 但是并不清楚认知控制究竟如何发挥作用。而从发展的视角动态地考察认知控制在第三方惩罚中发挥的具体作用, 能够进一步揭示第三方惩罚的发生发展机制, 也能够帮助指导相关政策的制定和实践项目的开展。

3.1 共情和正义感在第三方干预中的不同作用

面对违规行为, 共情及其引发的同情情绪更多地是指向受害者, 而正义感及其引发的愤怒情绪更多地是指向违规者。情绪指向性的差异可能意味着共情和正义感这两种个人特质驱动第三方个体做出帮助受害者和惩罚违规者的倾向性有所不同。

从第三方干预行为的指向性来看, 帮助是一种对他人需要的关注、关怀以及解决他人需要的利他行为, 指向的是受害者。从行为动机的角度进行分析, 对受害者产生共情反应是帮助这一利他行为的主要驱动力(Patil et al., 2018)。根据共情的定义(Decety et al., 2016)和以往的研究(de Waal, 2008; Hu et al., 2015), 由共情驱动的帮助动机可以超越自私动机, 共情水平越高的个体, 越倾向于帮助他人。而帮助行为在18个月大的婴儿中就已经表现出来了(Warneken & Tomasello, 2006), 是自发做出来的, 并非受到父母在场的压力或者鼓励所驱使(Warneken & Tomasello, 2013), 可能需要较少的认知控制参与。

与帮助这一利他行为不同, 第三方惩罚是一种关注不公正事件、由于社会规范遭到破坏而做出的利他行为, 它指向的是违规者。从行为动机来看, 个体之所以选择第三方惩罚主要有三方面的原因:对公正的偏好, 抱有因果报应(retribution)的信念以及威慑违规者(Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002; Kurzban & DeScioli, 2013; Tan & Xiao, 2018)。考虑到正义感的定义(Decety & Yoder, 2017; Schmitt et al., 2005), 第三方惩罚的动机与正义感的关系十分密切; 并且也确实有实证研究证实了这一点(Lotz, Baumert et al., 2011)。综上, 我们推测, 相比于共情而言, 正义感更能解释第三方惩罚的变异性, 尤其是在同时有“帮助受害者”和“惩罚违规者”选项的情境下。

3.2 认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用

虽然以往也有研究考察认知控制在第三方惩罚中的作用, 但是大多采用问卷法, 这种方法存在两方面的局限性:第一, 问卷法测出的认知控制能力精度不高, 并且可能存在较高的社会赞许性; 第二, 问卷法测量第三方惩罚时并不需要被试真正做出惩罚行为, 也不需要牺牲被试的个人利益, 因此可能测量的只是个体的第三方惩罚倾向, 体现了第三方对违规行为的道德判断以及对违规者的“责备信号” (Krueger & Hoffman, 2016)。除此之外, 已有的研究只考察了认知控制与第三方惩罚之间的相关关系(Friehe & Schildberg- Horisch, 2018; Glass et al., 2016), 但是认知控制究竟在第三方惩罚中具体发挥了怎样的作用仍不清楚, 第三方惩罚决策的认知加工过程有待揭示。因此, 未来的研究需要使用能够衡量个体实际第三方惩罚行为的范式, 例如经济学中的博弈范式, 并结合其他技术和方法, 来进一步探讨认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用。

首先, 由于第三方惩罚一般需要个体牺牲个人利益(Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004b; Jordan et al., 2016), 因此认知控制在第三方惩罚中可能起到抑制自利动机的作用。另外, 基于已有的发现, 它可能还具有另外两个作用:第一, 共情和正义感可以通过引发情绪进一步导致利他行为, 而认知控制可能调节了情绪和利他行为之间的关系(黄翯青, 苏彦捷, 2012; 谢东杰, 苏彦捷, 2019; Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Morris, 2013; Grecucci, Giorgetta, van’t Wout, Bonini, & Sanfey, 2013)。目前, 尚未发现研究直接探讨认知控制在做出第三方惩罚时的情绪调节作用。但是, 根据以往关于共情和帮助行为的研究发现, 人际反应指针量表中的个人悲伤(personal distress)维度得分与帮助行为之间可能存在负相关关系(Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990), 由此推测, 在没有认知控制进行调控的情况下, 由共情引发的情绪唤醒可能无法顺利转化为利他行为。第二, 正如之前提到的, 第三方惩罚指向的是违规者, 而第三方帮助指向的是受害者。做出第三方惩罚可能需要个体对违规者而非受害者分配更多的注意(Gummerum et al., 2016)。认知控制在调控个体的注意分配方面发挥了不可忽视的作用(李政汉, 杨国春, 南威治, 李琦, 刘勋, 2018; Rosen, Stern, Michalka, Devaney, & Somers, 2015)。这提示, 在违规情境下, 认知控制可能还会调控第三方个体在违规者和受害者之间的注意分配, 从而影响第三方个体的决策(Hu et al., 2015)。眼动技术和脑电技术可以帮助检验上述假设。眼动技术可以用来追踪个体眼部活动, 测量情绪(例如瞳孔变化)和认知控制(例如眼跳、注视时间的变异性) (Geeraerts et al., 2019; Lahey & Oxley, 2016)。根据以往的研究, 第三方惩罚者会比不惩罚者表现出更强的愤怒情绪, 可能伴随瞳孔的放大(Kinner et al., 2017; Wang, Spezio, & Camerer, 2010)以及更多地注视违规者而非受害者。此外, 脑电技术可以揭示神经活动的时程变化。关于第三方惩罚的神经机制研究大多采用脑成像技术(Krueger & Hoffman, 2016), 时间精度较低, 不足以探明第三方惩罚决策的认知加工过程。在第三方个体进行决策时收集其脑电信号, 则能弥补以往研究的不足, 加深对第三方惩罚的心理机制的理解。其中, P300是一种与高级认知加工过程有关的事件相关电位(event-related potential, ERP) 晚期成分, 在一定程度上与个体注意力的快速分配呈正相关(Overbye, Huster, Walhovd, Fjell, & Tamnes, 2018)。已有的研究发现, 在他人的分配方案呈现后400~600 ms的P300波幅与个体的第三方惩罚之间呈正相关(Sun et al., 2015), 这一结果提示, 个体最终做出第三方惩罚可能是一个主动的注意选择过程, 与认知控制调控注意的假设相符。目前关于第三方惩罚的脑电研究较少, 不同研究结果之间也存在一定的争议, 因此还需进一步借助眼动和脑电技术来考察认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用, 这是本项目的主要内容之一。

3.3 从发展视角考察认知控制在第三方惩罚中的作用

在认知控制发展的关键时期考察其在第三方惩罚中的作用, 不但可以更加系统、完整地探究第三方惩罚这一利他行为的发生机制, 而且有助于理解这一行为随年龄变化的原因。此外, 基于发展视角的研究对于提供相关的教育指导也具有重要的实践意义。已有的研究表明, 认知控制在学龄前时期(Best & Miller, 2010; Riggs, Jolley, & Simpson, 2013)和青少年时期(Diamond, 2013; Shulman et al., 2016)的发展更为显著, 其中, 抑制控制这一基础的认知控制成分在学龄前时期发展迅速(Crone & Steinbeis, 2017; Diamond, 2013); 与情绪调节有关的高级认知控制成分的迅速发展出现在青少年时期(Crone & Steinbeis, 2017; McRae et al., 2012), 而学龄期的发展则相对平缓。学龄前儿童有较强的自利冲动(McAuliffe et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2018), 那么将学龄前儿童作为研究对象能探察出认知控制在第三方惩罚中可能起到了抑制自私动机的作用。根据Steinberg (2008)以及Casey, Getz和Galvan (2008)提出的模型, 青少年时期的情绪系统和认知控制系统的发展并不同步, 情绪系统的发展快于认知控制系统, 这可能可以解释青少年早期个体与成年期个体在冲动、冒险、利他等一系列行为表现上的差异(Shulman et al., 2016)。伴随着前额叶不断发育成熟, 认知控制系统与情绪系统的脑功能连接不断完善, 青少年时期个体控制情绪的能力也越来越好(Sheppes, 2014), 因此青少年时期认知控制在第三方惩罚中的作用可能主要体现在调节情绪方面。

此外, 从个体对社会规范的理解这一角度来看, 学龄前时期和青少年时期也是重要的发展阶段。学龄前时期儿童的公平分配等行为随年龄的增长表现出较大的提升(e.g., Baumard, Mascaro, & Chevallier, 2012; Blake & McAuliffe, 2011; Grocke, Rossano, & Tomasello, 2015; Xie, Pei, & Su, 2019), 这提示学龄前儿童对社会规范的理解发生了显著的进步。而学龄儿童在大多数时候都能做到公平分配或拒绝不公平分配(Blake & McAuliffe, 2011; Fehr, Bernhard, & Rockenbach, 2008), 表现出了“天花板效应”, 如果将学龄儿童作为研究对象, 可能难以观察到较大的行为变异性, 从而无法获知认知控制与第三方惩罚之间的关系。当违规情境变得更加复杂时, 例如, 违规行为同时涉及到行为意图和结果, 学龄儿童的利他性惩罚行为又存在只考虑行为结果的情况(Gummerum & Chu, 2014), 即, 表现出了“地板效应”; 但是, 不同年龄的青少年在进行利他性惩罚决策时, 他们对违规者的行为意图和结果的整合程度存在较大的变异性(Gummerum & Chu, 2014)。因此, 学龄前时期和青少年时期的个体是较为合适的研究对象。

综上, 我们推测, 在学龄前时期和青少年时期, 认知控制在第三方惩罚中可能起到了不同的作用, 这一差异可能与个体的认知控制能力以及对社会规范理解的发展有关。从发展的视角, 动态地考察不同发展关键期认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用及其变化, 是本项目的另一个主要内容。

4 研究构想

基于对已有研究的梳理和反思, 本项目旨在考察个人特质和情绪对第三方惩罚的影响以及认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用, 深入理解第三方惩罚的认知加工过程, 从而引导第三方惩罚等利他行为的发生。具体而言, 项目共包括2个目标:(1)借助不同技术方法探讨认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用, 包括抑制自利、注意分配、调节情绪三个方面, 以便探究认知控制在第三方惩罚中发挥作用的机制, 从而构建第三方惩罚决策的心理模型。(2)从发展的视角, 在认知控制发展的两个关键阶段考察其在第三方惩罚中的作用以及随年龄的发展变化, 用以解释第三方惩罚这一利他行为的发展轨迹, 完善对第三方惩罚认知基础的理解。研究框架如图1所示。

图1

图1   研究框架图


4.1 研究一:认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用及其机制

本研究关注认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用, 同时采用统一的研究范式, 例如有第三方观察的独裁者游戏(Dictator Game, DG) (Hu et al.,2015; Jordan et al., 2016), 操纵个体拥有的第三方干预选项, 即, 设置只能选择“惩罚违规者”的条件、只能选择“帮助受害者”的条件以及同时可以选择“惩罚违规者”和“帮助受害者”的条件, 将认知控制在第三方惩罚以及帮助中的作用进行直接对比, 从而理解第三方惩罚的特殊性及其与帮助之间的相似性。可以通过停止信号任务(Stop- Signal task)来测量个体的抑制控制能力(Logan, Cowan, & Davis, 1984), 通过Corsi方块点击任务(Corsi Block Tapping test)来测量个体的工作记忆能力(Corsi, 1972)。此外, 为了揭示认知控制发挥作用的机制, 本研究还将采用眼动和脑电技术, 考察第三方惩罚这一利他行为的认知加工过程。研究共包括3个方面:第一, 从行为层面考察个人特质分别与第三方惩罚、帮助之间的关系以及认知控制在这两种利他行为中的不同作用; 第二, 采用眼动技术来考察不同特质的个体在决策时的眼动注意模式, 以便分析认知控制对情绪和注意的调控; 第三, 使用脑电技术更加精确地考察情绪影响第三方惩罚的加工时程问题以及认知控制在其中的注意调控和情绪调节作用。

我们预期, 相比于帮助行为, 认知控制在第三方惩罚中发挥了更强的作用, 正义感比共情更能引起第三方个体产生愤怒情绪, 进而促进他们做出第三方惩罚行为。认知控制与个体用于第三方惩罚而牺牲的个人利益之间呈正相关关系, 说明认知控制起到了抑制自利倾向的作用。从加工过程来看, 认知控制与个体的注意分配紧密相关(李政汉等, 2018; Rosen et al., 2015), 根据已有的研究(Fernández-Martín & Calvo, 2016; Hu et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2015; Yan, Pei, & Su, 2018), 我们推测, 认知控制可能会调控个体的注意分配, 例如在正义感较高的人群中, 看到违规行为后, 个体的认知控制越强, 对违规者的首次注视到达时间(time to first fixation)越早, 对违规者的注视次数(fixation count)更多, 总注视持续时间(total fixation duration)更长, P300的波幅更大; 认知控制还起到了调节情绪的作用, 例如认知控制会分别调节瞳孔大小、FRN的波幅与第三方惩罚之间的关系。

4.2 研究二:关键发展阶段中认知控制的不同作用

研究一探讨了认知控制在第三方惩罚中的具体作用, 包括注意分配、调节情绪以及抑制自利冲动。在不同的发展阶段中, 认知控制在其中发挥的作用可能有所差异。学龄前时期的个体具有较强的自利倾向(Sheskin et al., 2016), 认知控制可能主要帮助他们解决利他与自利之间的冲突, 起到抑制自利冲动的作用。青少年时期的个体情绪调节能力还在快速发展之中(Sheppes, 2014), 因此在这一阶段, 认知控制在第三方惩罚中起到的情绪调节作用可能有较大的发展变化。本研究考察在学龄前和青少年这两个发展关键阶段中认知控制在第三方惩罚中的不同表现形式, 结合研究一得到的眼动和脑电证据, 试图解释第三方惩罚行为随年龄变化的可能原因。其中, 对于青少年被试, 采用与研究一相同的实验任务。对于学龄前儿童, 采用改编后的儿童版独裁者游戏(McAuliffe, Raihani, & Dunham, 2017), 被试作为第三方观察者, 其惩罚和帮助的对象都是卡通人物, 做出第三方干预所需要付出的代价是贴纸或糖果。此外, 考虑到两个发展阶段的个体在智力方面存在较大差异, 为了避免智力作为混淆的解释变量, 研究二还将使用韦氏智力量表儿童版(Wechsler-Intelligence Scale for Children, WISC-IV) (Wechsler, 2003)来测量个体的一般智力。

我们预期, 在控制了智力之后, 认知控制越强的学龄前儿童表现出更多的第三方惩罚行为, 认知控制发挥了抑制自利冲动的作用, 但是学龄前儿童对社会规范的理解难以解释惩罚决策的变异性; 在青少年时期, 随着年龄的发展, 认知控制对情绪和第三方惩罚之间关系的调节作用越来越接近成年期个体的表现形式。

5 研究意义

第三方惩罚作为一种重要的利他行为, 项目从心理学的角度对这一行为的发生发展机制进行深入探讨, 不仅在理论上拓展了以往基于演化和经济学视角的研究, 丰富了研究者对第三方惩罚的认识; 在实践上也能指导人们如何更好地做出第三方惩罚这一利他行为。

5.1 理论构建

利他行为在人类社会生活中占据重要地位, 也是众多研究者关注的主题(Tomasello, 2009)。关于利他行为的演化也一直在争论当中, 有研究者认为人类天生拥有利他倾向, 从而表现出利他行为(de Waal, 2008; Zaki & Mitchell, 2013), 而也有研究者认为人类的利他性可能是由后天的社会文化环境塑造的(Henrich et al., 2006; Henrich et al., 2010)。双加工理论从微观的视角整合了这两种理论, 提出个体的利他行为决策可能既依赖于自下而上的直觉式系统, 也依赖于自上而下的反思式系统(Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Kahneman, 2011), 利他行为可能是先天和后天交互作用的结果。

作为一种特殊的利他行为, 第三方惩罚同样面临这样的争论, 而本项目有助于为解决这一争论提供实证证据。由于认知控制是自上而下加工的重要标志, 因此通过剖析认知控制在第三方惩罚中发挥的具体作用, 项目研究结果不仅能够揭示第三方惩罚的认知加工过程, 丰富并完善双加工理论; 还能够更新双加工理论的适用条件, 即不同情境下各类别的利他行为之间的认知加工模式存在差异。眼动和脑电的研究证据能够帮助研究者深入理解认知控制在第三方惩罚中发挥的早期作用和晚期作用, 而发展的研究证据则能够进一步揭示认知控制对第三方惩罚的影响随年龄的变化模式, 从而帮助研究者理解第三方惩罚行为的个体发生问题, 为社会决策领域的研究提供了一个新的视角。

5.2 应用可能性

从应用的角度来看, 我们常常会在生活中遇到各种违反社会规范的行为:闯红灯、占座、逃票、偷税……《人民日报》也曾多次报道生活中的违规现象, 并提出通过提高违规代价来减少违规行为的解决方案(人民日报评论部, 2018)。遭受惩罚虽然是产生违规代价的重要体现, 但是惩罚也可能带来一些消极影响。例如, 已有的研究发现, 惩罚可能会传递负面信息进而降低人际信任(Fehr & Rockenbach, 2003)。在这种矛盾的情况下, 本项目的研究结果有助于政策制定者深入理解第三方惩罚等利他行为的发生机制, 引导大众在现实生活中做出适当的第三方惩罚等利他行为, 减少违规现象的发生。此外, 由于一般的惩罚必须每次紧跟违规行为并且在多次违规情况发生时保持一致才会奏效(霍夫曼, 2011; Saadeh, Rizzo, & Roberts, 2002), 但是这在现实生活中难以做到。因此, 我们认为, 第三方惩罚还有助于弥补一般惩罚的局限性, 通过引导更多的第三方个体加入到维护社会规范的队伍中, 能够提高违规行为得到惩罚的可能性, 因而更加有效且高效地应对真实世界中的违规行为。

在现实生活中, 如果遇到违规情况, 个体在第三方干预时可能会思考违规行为造成了怎样的后果, 其行为背后的意图是什么, 是否应该惩罚违规者, 惩罚违规者的力度又应该有多大……在司法审判领域中, 人们对这些问题会进行更加深入的探讨, 从而得到一个更加公正合理的裁判。Decety和Yoder (2016)发现, 个体对他人遭遇不公正的敏感性与情绪共情之间并不存在相关性, 但是却与认知共情之间存在正相关。本项目的研究结果也可以进一步提示认知能力的重要性, 在应对不公正事件、引导公正行为以及构建公民道德教育体系时, 需要向决策者强调认知性的心理推理, 包括采择决策的承受者和观察者的心理状态、对事件本身进行道德推理, 使决策者能够运用认知控制协调决策; 而非仅仅通过体验那些受害者的情绪感受来完成决策。在司法、公安等领域中, 也可以考虑将正义感和认知控制作为人才选拔的指标之一。另外, 为了避免心理量表的社会赞许效应, 研究结果中由不公正事件引发的一些眼动和脑电指标也可以作为具体的选拔测量方式。

参考文献

陈思静 . (2011).

社会规范激活:第三方惩罚的心理机制及其对合作行为的影响 (博士学位论文)

浙江大学, 杭州.

[本文引用: 2]

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.

[本文引用: 1]

丁毅, 纪婷婷, 陈旭 . (2012).

利他惩罚的发生机制及其神经基础

心理发展与教育, 28( 6), 658-664.

[本文引用: 2]

黄翯青, 苏彦捷 . (2012).

共情的毕生发展:一个双过程的视角

心理发展与教育, 28( 4), 434-441.

[本文引用: 1]

霍夫曼 , K.(2011). 行动中的心理学 (第八版; 苏彦捷等译). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.

[本文引用: 1]

李政汉, 杨国春, 南威治, 李琦, 刘勋 . (2018).

冲突解决过程中认知控制的注意调节机制

心理科学进展, 26( 6), 966-974.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

人民日报评论部. (2018-11-14).

培育深入人心的规则意识(人民观点)——如何提升我们的社会文明

人民日报, pp. 5.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

谢东杰, 苏彦捷 . (2019).

第三方惩罚的演化与认知机制

心理科学, 42( 1), 216-222.

URL     [本文引用: 7]

颜志强, 苏金龙, 苏彦捷 . (2018).

共情与同情:词源、概念和测量

心理与行为研究, 16( 4), 433-440.

[本文引用: 1]

殷西乐, 李建标, 陈思宇, 刘晓丽, 郝洁 . (2019).

第三方惩罚的神经机制:来自经颅直流电刺激的证据

心理学报, 51( 5), 571-583.

URL    

Artavia-Mora L., Bedi A. S., & Rieger M . (2017).

Intuitive help and punishment in the field

European Economic Review, 92, 133-145.

[本文引用: 1]

Baumard N., Mascaro O., & Chevallier C . (2012).

Preschoolers are able to take merit into account when distributing goods

Developmental Psychology, 48( 2), 492-498.

Magsci     [本文引用: 2]

Classic studies in developmental psychology demonstrate a relatively late development of equity, with children as old as 6 or even 8-10 years failing to follow the logic of merit that is, giving more to those who contributed more. Following Piaget (1932), these studies have been taken to indicate that judgments of justice develop slowly and follow a stagelike progression, starting off with simple rules (e.g., equality: everyone receives the same) and only later on in development evolving into more complex ones (e.g., equity: distributions match contributions). Here, we report 2 experiments with 3- and 4-year-old children (N = 195) that contradict this constructivist account. Our results demonstrate that children as young as 3 years old are able to take merit into account by distributing tokens according to individual contributions but that this ability may be hidden by a preference for equality.

Bellucci G., Chernyak S., Hoffman M., Deshpande G., Dal Monte O., Knutson K. M., .. Krueger F . (2017).

Effective connectivity of brain regions underlying third-party punishment: Functional MRI and granger causality evidence

Social Neuroscience, 12( 2), 124-134.

Bendor J., & Swistak P (2001).

The evolution of norms

American Journal of Sociology, 106( 6), 1493-1545.

[本文引用: 1]

Best J.R., &Miller P.H . (2010).

A developmental perspective on executive function

Child Development, 81( 6), 1641-1660.

[本文引用: 1]

Blake P.., & McAuliffe K , (2011).

“I had so much it didn't seem fair”: Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity

Cognition, 120( 2), 215-224.

Magsci     [本文引用: 2]

Research using economic games has demonstrated that adults are willing to sacrifice rewards in order to prevent inequity both when they receive less than a social partner (disadvantageous inequity) and when they receive more (advantageous inequity). We investigated the development of both forms of inequity aversion in 4- to 8-year-olds using a novel economic game in which children could accept or reject unequal allocations of candy with an unfamiliar peer. The results showed that 4- to 7-year-olds rejected disadvantageous offers, but accepted advantageous offers. By contrast, 8-year-olds rejected both forms of inequity. These results suggest that two distinct mechanisms underlie the development of the two forms of inequity aversion. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Blake P. R., Piovesan M., Montinari N., Warneken F., & Gino F . (2015).

Prosocial norms in the classroom: The role of self-regulation in following norms of giving

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 115, 18-29.

[本文引用: 3]

Bicchieri C., .(2006).The Grammar of society:he nature and dynamics of social norms. New York: TCambridge University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Buckholtz J. W., Martin J. W., Treadway M. T., Jan K., Zald D. H., Jones O., & Marois R . (2015).

From blame to punishment: Disrupting prefrontal cortex activity reveals norm enforcement mechanisms

Neuron, 87( 6), 1369-1380.

Camerer C. F. (2003).Behavioral game theory:Experiments in strategic interaction. New York:Princeton University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Carlsmith K. M., Darley J. M., & Robinson P. H . (2002).

Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83( 2), 284-299.

[本文引用: 1]

Casey B. J., Getz S., & Galvan A . (2008).

The adolescent brain

Developmental Review, 28( 1), 62-77.

Magsci     [本文引用: 2]

Abstract

Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by suboptimal decisions and actions that give rise to an increased incidence of unintentional injuries and violence, alcohol and drug abuse, unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Traditional neurobiological and cognitive explanations for adolescent behavior have failed to account for the nonlinear changes in behavior observed during adolescence, relative to childhood and adulthood. This review provides a biologically plausible conceptualization of the neural mechanisms underlying these nonlinear changes in behavior, as a heightened responsiveness to incentives while impulse control is still relatively immature during this period. Recent human imaging and animal studies provide a biological basis for this view, suggesting differential development of limbic reward systems relative to top-down control systems during adolescence relative to childhood and adulthood. This developmental pattern may be exacerbated in those adolescents with a predisposition toward risk-taking, increasing the risk for poor outcomes.

Chaiken S., &Trope Y. ,(1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

[本文引用: 2]

Ciaramidaro A., Toppi J., Casper C., Freitag C. M., Siniatchkin M., & Astolfi L . (2018).

Multiple-brain connectivity during third party punishment: An EEG hyperscanning study

Scientific Reports, 8, 6822.

Corsi P. . (1972).

Human memory and the medial temporal region of the brain (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University

Montreal.

[本文引用: 1]

Crone E.A., &Steinbeis N , (2017).

Neural perspectives on cognitive control development during childhood and adolescence

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21( 3), 205-215.

[本文引用: 4]

Darley J.M., & Pittman T.S . (2003).

The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7( 4), 324-336.

[本文引用: 5]

Davis M.H . (1980).

A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy

JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

[本文引用: 2]

de Waal F , (2008).

Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy

Annual Review of Psychology, 59( 1), 279-300.

[本文引用: 1]

Decety J., Bartal I. B., Uzefovsky F., & Knafo-Noam A . (2016).

Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 371( 1686), 20150077.

[本文引用: 1]

Decety J., & Yoder K.J . (2016).

Empathy and motivation for justice: Cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others

Social Neuroscience, 11( 1), 1-14.

[本文引用: 1]

Decety J. &Yoder K.J . (2017).

The emerging social neuroscience of justice motivation

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21( 1), 6-14.

[本文引用: 2]

DeScioli P., & Kurzban R , (2009).

Mysteries of morality

Cognition, 112( 2), 281-299.

[本文引用: 1]

Diamond A , (2013).

Executive functions

Annual Review of Psychology, 64( 1), 135-168.

[本文引用: 3]

Egas M, Riedl A , (2008).

The economics of altruistic punishment and the maintenance of cooperation

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275( 1637), 871-878.

[本文引用: 1]

Eisenberg N, & Fabes, R. A . (1990).

Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior

Motivation and Emotion, 14( 2), 131-149.

[本文引用: 1]

Eisenberg N., Spinrad T. L.& Morris A., , (2013). Empathy- related responding in children. In M. Killen, & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Development (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Enge S., Mothes H., Fleischhauer M., Reif A., & Strobel A . (2017).

Genetic variation of dopamine and serotonin function modulates the feedback-related negativity during altruistic punishment

Scientific Reports, 7, 2996.

[本文引用: 1]

Fehr E., Bernhard H., & Rockenbach B . (2008).

Egalitarianism in young children

Nature, 454( 7208), 1079-1083.

[本文引用: 1]

Fehr E., Fischbacher U , (2004a).

Social norms and human cooperation

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8( 4), 185-190.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract

The existence of social norms is one of the big unsolved problems in social cognitive science. Although no other concept is invoked more frequently in the social sciences, we still know little about how social norms are formed, the forces determining their content, and the cognitive and emotional requirements that enable a species to establish and enforce social norms. In recent years, there has been substantial progress, however, on how cooperation norms are enforced. Here we review evidence showing that sanctions are decisive for norm enforcement, and that they are largely driven by non-selfish motives. Moreover, the explicit study of sanctioning behavior provides instruments for measuring social norms and has also led to deeper insights into the proximate and ultimate forces behind human cooperation.

Fehr E., Fischbacher U , (2004b).

Third-party punishment and social norms

Evolution and Human Behavior, 25( 2), 63-87.

Magsci     [本文引用: 4]

We examine the characteristics and relative strength of third-party sanctions in a series of experiments. We hypothesize that egalitarian distribution norms and cooperation norms apply in our experiments, and that third parties, whose economic payoff is unaffected by the norm violation, may be willing to enforce these norms although the enforcement is costly for them. Almost two-thirds of the third parties indeed punished the violation of the distribution norm and their punishment increased the more the norm was violated. Likewise, up to roughly 60% of the third parties punished violations of the cooperation norm. Thus, our results show that the notion of strong reciprocity extends to the sanctioning behavior of “unaffected” third parties. In addition, these experiments suggest that third-party punishment games are powerful tools for studying the characteristics and the content of social norms. Further experiments indicate that second parties, whose economic payoff is reduced by the norm violation, punish the violation much more strongly than do third parties.

Fehr E., & Gächter S ,(2002).

Altruistic punishment in humans

Nature, 415( 6868), 137-140.

[本文引用: 1]

Fehr E. Fehr E., & Rockenbach B , (2003).

Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism

Nature, 422( 6928), 137-140.

[本文引用: 2]

Fehr E., & Schurtenberger I , (2018).

Normative foundations of human cooperation

Nature Human Behaviour, 2( 7), 458-468.

[本文引用: 2]

Feng C., Deshpande G., Liu C., Gu R., Luo Y. J., & Krueger F . (2016).

Diffusion of responsibility attenuates altruistic punishment: A functional magnetic resonance imaging effective connectivity study

Human Brain Mapping, 37( 2), 663-677.

Fernández-Martín A.,& Calvo M.G . (2016).

Selective orienting to pleasant versus unpleasant visual scenes

Cognition, 155, 108-112.

[本文引用: 1]

Friehe T.,& Schildberg-Hörisch H , (2018).

Predicting norm enforcement: The individual and joint predictive power of economic preferences, personality, and self-control

European Journal of Law and Economics, 45( 1), 127-146.

[本文引用: 3]

Fukushima H, & Hiraki K , (2009).

Whose loss is it? Human electrophysiological correlates of non-self reward processing

Social Neuroscience, 4( 3), 261-275.

[本文引用: 2]

Geeraerts S. B., Hessels R. S., van der Stigchel S., Huijding J., Endendijk J. J., van den Boomen C., .. Deković M . (2019).

Individual differences in visual attention and self-regulation: A multimethod longitudinal study from infancy to toddlerhood

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 180, 104-112.

Glass L., Moody L., Grafman J., & Krueger F . (2016).

Neural signatures of third-party punishment: Evidence from penetrating traumatic brain injury

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11( 2), 253-262.

[本文引用: 1]

Grecucci A., Giorgetta C., van’t Wout M., Bonini N., & Sanfey A. G . (2013).

Reappraising the ultimatum: An fMRI study of emotion regulation and decision making

Cerebral Cortex, 23( 2), 399-410.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Emotion regulation strategies provide a means by which to modulate our social behavior. In this study, we investigated the effect of using reappraisal to both up- and downregulate social decision making. After being instructed on how to use reappraisal, participants played the Ultimatum Game while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging and applied the strategies of upregulation (reappraising the proposer's intentions as more negative), down-regulation (reappraising the proposer's intentions as less negative), as well as a baseline "look" condition. As hypothesized, when reappraising, decision acceptance rates were altered, with a greater number of unfair offers accepted while down-regulating and a greater number of unfair offers rejected while upregulating, both relative to the baseline condition. At the neural level, during reappraisal, significant activations were observed in the inferior and middle frontal gyrus (MFG), in addition to the medial prefrontal cortex and cingulate gyrus for unfair offers only. Regulated decisions involved left inferior frontal gyrus for upregulation and MFG for down-regulation strategies, respectively. Importantly, the effects of emotion modulation were evident in posterior insula, with less activation for down-regulation and more activation for upregulation in these areas. Notably, we show for the first time that top-down strategies such as reappraisal strongly affect our socioeconomic decisions.

Grocke P., Rossano F., & Tomasello M . (2015).

Procedural justice in children: Preschoolers accept unequal resource distributions if the procedure provides equal opportunities

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 140, 197-210.

[本文引用: 1]

Gromet D.M., &Darley J.M . (2009).

Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the satisfaction of multiple goals

Law & Society Review, 43( 1), 1-38.

[本文引用: 2]

Gummerum M.,& Chu M.T . (2014).

Outcomes and intentions in children's, adolescents', and adults' second- and third-party punishment behavior

Cognition, 133( 1), 97-103.

Magsci     [本文引用: 8]

Theories of morality maintain that punishment supports the emergence and maintenance of moral behavior. This study investigated developmental differences in the role of outcomes and the violator's intentions in second-party punishment (where punishers are victims of a violation) and third-party punishment (where punishers are unaffected observers of a violation). Four hundred and forty-three adults and 8-, 12-, and 15-year-olds made choices in mini-ultimatum games and newly-developed mini-third-party punishment games, which involved actual incentives rather than hypothetical decisions. Adults integrated outcomes and intentions in their second- and third-party punishment, whereas 8-year-olds consistently based their punishment on the outcome of the violation. Adolescents integrated outcomes and intentions in second- but not third-party punishment. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Gummerum M., van Dillen L. F., van Dijk E., & López-Pérez B . (2016).

Costly third-party interventions: The role of incidental anger and attention focus in punishment of the perpetrator and compensation of the victim

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 94-104.

[本文引用: 4]

Henrich J., Ensminger J., McElreath R., Barr A., Barrett C., Bolyanatz A., .. Ziker J . (2010).

Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment

Science, 327( 5972), 1480-1484.

[本文引用: 6]

Henrich J., McElreath R., Barr A., Ensminger J., Barrett C., Bolyanatz A., .. Ziker J . (2006).

Costly punishment across human societies

Science, 312( 5781), 1767-1770.

[本文引用: 4]

Hu Y., Strang S., & Weber B . (2015).

Helping or punishing strangers: Neural correlates of altruistic decisions as third-party and of its relation to empathic concern

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 24.

[本文引用: 1]

Jordan J. J., Hoffman M., Bloom P., & Rand D. G . (2016).

Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness

Nature, 530( 7591), 473-476.

[本文引用: 2]

Kahneman D (2011).

Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux.

[本文引用: 2]

Kinner V. L., Kuchinke L., Dierolf A. M., Merz C. J., Otto T., & Wolf O. T . (2017).

What our eyes tell us about feelings: Tracking pupillary responses during emotion regulation processes

Psychophysiology, 54( 4), 508-518.

Krueger F., & Hoffman M , (2016).

The emerging neuroscience of third-party punishment

Trends in Neurosciences, 39( 8), 499-501.

[本文引用: 5]

Kurzban R.,& DeScioli P ,(2013).

Adaptationist punishment in humans

Journal of Bioeconomics, 15( 3), 269-279.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract

Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, George Williams, and Stephen J. Gould, among others, have pointed out that observing that a certain behavior causes a certain effect does not itself license the inference that the effect was the result of intent or design to bring about that effect. Compliance with duty might not reflect the action of conscience, gains in trade might not be due to the benevolence of traders, and fox paws might not be designed to make tracks in snow. Similarly, when person A inflicts costs on person B and, in so doing, generates benefits to C, D, and E (or the group to which A through E belong, in aggregate), the inference that A’s imposition of costs on B is by virtue of intent or design to bring about these welfare gains is not logically licensed. In short, labeling punishment “altruistic” because it has the effect of benefitting some individuals is inconsistent with key ideas in philosophy, economics, and biology. Understanding the ultimate cause and proximate design of the mechanisms that cause people to punish is likely to be important for understanding how punishment can help solve collective action problems.


Lahey J.N., & Oxley D , (2016).

The power of eye tracking in economics experiments

American Economic Review, 106( 5), 309-313.

[本文引用: 1]

Leliveld M. C., van Dijk E., & van beest I . (2012).

Punishing and compensating others at your own expense: The role of empathic concern on reactions to distributive injustice

European Journal of Social Psychology, 42( 2), 135-140.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

When confronted with violations of justice, people may be motivated not only to punish the violator, but also to compensate the victim. Whereas prior research has primarily concentrated on the question of when people are willing to punish, we provide a more comprehensive picture by also studying the willingness to compensate and by assessing the moderating role of empathic concern. Study 1 introduces the altruistic compensation game and shows that especially high empathic (compared to low empathic) people are willing to give up parts of their own resources to financially compensate the victims of distributive injustice. Study 2 completes the picture by directly comparing altruistic compensation with altruistic punishment. The study showed that high empathic people decided to compensate the victim, but low empathic people decided to punish the offender. Copyright (c) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Li Z. Q., Wu X. Y., Zhang L. S., & Zhang Z. Y . (2017).

Habitual cognitive reappraisal was negatively related to perceived immorality in the harm and fairness domains

Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1805.

[本文引用: 1]

Liu Y. J., Li L., Zheng L., & Guo X. Y . (2017).

Punish the perpetrator or compensate the victim? Gain vs. loss context modulate third-party altruistic behaviors

Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2066.

[本文引用: 1]

Logan G. D., Cowan W. B., & Davis K. A . (1984).

On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: A model and a method

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10( 2), 276-291.

[本文引用: 1]

Lotz S., Baumert A., Schlösser T., Gresser F., & Fetchenhauer D . (2011).

Individual differences in third-party interventions: How justice sensitivity shapes altruistic punishment

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4( 4), 297-313.

[本文引用: 5]

Lotz S., Okimoto T. G., Schlösser T., & Fetchenhauer D . (2011).

Punitive versus compensatory reactions to injustice: Emotional antecedents to third-party interventions

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47( 2), 477-480.

Magsci     [本文引用: 3]

The almost exclusive focus on punishment and inattention to compensatory alternatives in studies involving experimental games may yield patterns that do not accurately reflect how and when people respond to injustice, particularly if punishment and compensation are not psychologically equivalent approaches to justice restoration. In the current study, we examined participants' preference for punitive and compensatory actions, while also exploring emotional determinants and boundary conditions. Our results indicated that participants actually compensated victims more than they punished offenders and that the majority of participants assigned both. Furthermore, although both interventions were associated with emotional experiences of moral outrage toward the offender, self-focused emotions reflecting feelings of threat only predicted compensation and only when victims were aware that they had been victimized. These findings augment our understanding of third-party interventions, emphasizing the importance of considering response alternatives when studying the psychology of justice. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Lu T.Z., & McKeown S , (2018).

The effects of empathy, perceived injustice and group identity on altruistic preferences: Towards compensation or punishment

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48( 12), 683-691.

[本文引用: 1]

McAuliffe K., Jordan J. J., & Warneken F . (2015).

Costly third-party punishment in young children

Cognition, 134, 1-10.

[本文引用: 4]

McAuliffe K., Raihani N. J., & Dunham Y . (2017).

Children are sensitive to norms of giving

Cognition, 167, 151-159.

[本文引用: 1]

McRae K., Gross J. J., Weber J., Robertson E. R., Sokol-Hessner P., Ray R. D., .. Ochsner K. N . (2012).

The development of emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal in children, adolescents and young adults

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7( 1), 11-22.

Mikula G., Scherer K. R., & Athenstaedt U . (1998).

The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24( 7), 769-783.

[本文引用: 2]

Miller E.., &Cohen J.D . (2001).

An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function

Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24( 1), 167-202.

[本文引用: 1]

Mothes H., Enge S., & Strobel A . (2016).

The interplay between feedback-related negativity and individual differences in altruistic punishment: An EEG study

Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16( 2), 276-288.

[本文引用: 1]

Müller-Leinß J-M., Enzi B., Flasbeck V., & Brüne M . (2018).

Retaliation or selfishness? An rTMS investigation of the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in prosocial motives

Social Neuroscience, 13( 6), 701-709.

[本文引用: 1]

Nelissen R. M.A., &Zeelenberg M ,(2009).

Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger and guilt and the functions of altruistic sanctions

Judgment and Decision Making, 4( 7), 543-553.

[本文引用: 2]

Overbye K., Huster R. J., Walhovd K. B., Fjell A. M., & Tamnes C. K . (2018).

Development of the P300 from childhood to adulthood: A multimodal EEG and MRI study

Brain Structure and Function, 223( 9), 4337-4349.

[本文引用: 1]

Patil I., Zanon M., Novembre G., Zangrando N., Chittaro L., & Silani G . (2018).

Neuroanatomical basis of concern- based altruism in virtual environment

Neuropsychologia, 116, 34-43.

Raihani N.J., &Bshary R , (2015).

The reputation of punishers

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30( 2), 98-103.

[本文引用: 2]

Rand D. G., Greene J. D., & Nowak M. A . (2012).

Spontaneous giving and calculated greed

Nature, 489( 7416), 427-430.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Cooperation is central to human social behaviour(1-9). However, choosing to cooperate requires individuals to incur a personal cost to benefit others. Here we explore the cognitive basis of cooperative decision-making in humans using a dual-process framework(10-18). We ask whether people are predisposed towards selfishness, behaving cooperatively only through active self-control; or whether they are intuitively cooperative, with reflection and prospective reasoning favouring 'rational' self-interest. To investigate this issue, we perform ten studies using economic games. We find that across a range of experimental designs, subjects who reach their decisions more quickly are more cooperative. Furthermore, forcing subjects to decide quickly increases contributions, whereas instructing them to reflect and forcing them to decide slowly decreases contributions. Finally, an induction that primes subjects to trust their intuitions increases contributions compared with an induction that promotes greater reflection. To explain these results, we propose that cooperation is intuitive because cooperative heuristics are developed in daily life where cooperation is typically advantageous. We then validate predictions generated by this proposed mechanism. Our results provide convergent evidence that intuition supports cooperation in social dilemmas, and that reflection can undermine these cooperative impulses.

Riedl K., Jensen K., Call J., & Tomasello M . (2012).

No third-party punishment in chimpanzees

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109( 37), 14824-14829.

[本文引用: 2]

Riggs K. J., Jolley R. P., & Simpson A . (2013).

The role of inhibitory control in the development of human figure drawing in young children

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114( 4), 537-542.

[本文引用: 1]

Rogoff B., (2003).The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Rosen M. L., Stern C. E., Michalka S. W., Devaney K. J., & Somers D. C . (2015).

Cognitive control network contributions to memory-guided visual attention

Cerebral Cortex, 26( 5), 2059-2073.

[本文引用: 2]

Saadeh W., Rizzo C. P., & Roberts D. G . (2002).

Spanking

Clinical Pediatrics, 41( 2), 87-91.

[本文引用: 1]

Salali G. D., Juda M., & Henrich J . (2015).

Transmission and development of costly punishment in children

Evolution and Human Behavior, 36( 2), 86-94.

[本文引用: 2]

Schmitt M., Gollwitzer M., Maes J., & Arbach D . (2005).

Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202-211.

[本文引用: 3]

Schmitt M. J., Neumann R., & Montada L . (1995).

Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice

Social Justice Research, 8( 4), 385-407.

[本文引用: 1]

Sheppes G.., . (2014). Emotion regulation choice:heory and findings. In Gross, J. J. (Ed.). Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 126-139). New York: Guilford Press.

[本文引用: 3]

Sheskin M., Nadal A., Croom A., Mayer T., Nissel J., & Bloom P . (2016).

Some equalities are more equal than others: Quality equality emerges later than numerical equality

Child Development, 87( 5), 1520-1528.

[本文引用: 2]

Shulman E. P., Smith A. R., Silva K., Icenogle G., Duell N., Chein J., & Steinberg L . (2016).

The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation

Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 103-117.

Sober E., &Wilson D. S. .(1998) .Unto others:The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior . Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Spence M.., (1974). Market Signaling:Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes (Harvard Economic Studies) . Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Steinberg L.., (2008).

A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking

Developmental Review, 28( 1), 78-106.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Abstract

This article proposes a framework for theory and research on risk-taking that is informed by developmental neuroscience. Two fundamental questions motivate this review. First, why does risk-taking increase between childhood and adolescence? Second, why does risk-taking decline between adolescence and adulthood? Risk-taking increases between childhood and adolescence as a result of changes around the time of puberty in the brain’s socio-emotional system leading to increased reward-seeking, especially in the presence of peers, fueled mainly by a dramatic remodeling of the brain’s dopaminergic system. Risk-taking declines between adolescence and adulthood because of changes in the brain’s cognitive control system—changes which improve individuals’ capacity for self-regulation. These changes occur across adolescence and young adulthood and are seen in structural and functional changes within the prefrontal cortex and its connections to other brain regions. The differing timetables of these changes make mid-adolescence a time of heightened vulnerability to risky and reckless behavior.

Sun L., Tan P. S., Cheng Y., Chen J. W., & Qu C . (2015).

The effect of altruistic tendency on fairness in third-party punishment

Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 820.

[本文引用: 1]

Tan F.F., & Xiao E. , (2018).

Third-party punishment: Retribution or deterrence?

Journal of Economic Psychology, 67, 34-46.

[本文引用: 1]

Tomasello M., (2009). Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Vaish A..,& Tomasello M. , (2013).

Origins of human cooperation and morality

Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231-255.

[本文引用: 1]

vanProoijen J.W . (2010).

Retributive versus compensatory justice: Observers’ preference for punishing in response to criminal offenses

European Journal of Social Psychology, 40( 1), 72-85.

Vanderhasselt M., de Raedt R., & Baeken C . (2009).

Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and stroop performance: Tackling the lateralization

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16( 3), 609-612.

[本文引用: 1]

Wang J. T., Spezio M., & Camerer C. F . (2010).

Pinocchio's pupil: Using eye tracking and pupil dilation to understand truth telling and deception in sender-receiver games

The American Economic Review, 100( 3), 984-1007.

[本文引用: 1]

Warneken F., &Tomasello M . (2006).

Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees

Science, 311( 5765), 1301-1303.

[本文引用: 4]

Warneken F,. &Tomasello M . (2013).

Parental presence and encouragement do not influence helping in young children

Infancy, 18( 3), 345-368.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Young children begin helping others with simple instrumental problems from soon after their first birthdays. In previous observations of this phenomenon, both naturalistic and experimental, children's parents were in the room and could potentially have influenced their behavior. In the two current studies, we gave 24-month-old children the opportunity to help an unfamiliar adult obtain an out-of-reach object when the parent (or a friendly female adult) (i) was present but passive, (ii) was present and highlighted the problem for the child, (iii) was present and actively encouraged the child to help, (iv) was present and ordered the child to help, or (v) was absent from the room. The children helped at relatively high levels and equally under all these treatment conditions. There was also no differential effect of treatment condition on children's helping in a subsequent test phase in which no parent was present, and children had to disengage from a fun activity to help. Young children's helping behavior is not potentiated or facilitated by parental behavior in the immediate situation, suggesting that it is spontaneous and intrinsically motivated.

Wechsler D. (2003).

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children-WISCIV. San Antonio:

Psychological Corporation.

[本文引用: 1]

Wilson D.S., &Sober E. , (1994).

Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17( 4), 585-608.

[本文引用: 1]

Xie D., Pei M., & Su Y . (2019).

“Favoring my playmate seems fair”: Inhibitory control and theory of mind in preschoolers’ self-disadvantaging behaviors

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 158-173.

[本文引用: 1]

Yan Z. Q., Pei M., & Su Y. J . (2018).

Physical cue influences children's empathy for pain: The role of attention allocation

Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2378. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02378

[本文引用: 1]

Yang F., Choi Y. J., Misch A., Yang X., & Dunham Y . (2018).

In defense of the commons: Young children negatively evaluate and sanction free riders

Psychological Science, 29( 10), 1598-1611.

[本文引用: 3]

Zaki J., &Mitchell J.P . (2013).

Intuitive prosociality

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22( 6), 466-470.

Magsci     [本文引用: 1]

Prosocial behavior is a central feature of human life and a major focus of research across the natural and social sciences. Most theoretical models of prosociality share a common assumption: Humans are instinctively selfish, and prosocial behavior requires exerting reflective control over these basic instincts. However, findings from several scientific disciplines have recently contradicted this view. Rather than requiring control over instinctive selfishness, prosocial behavior appears to stem from processes that are intuitive, reflexive, and even automatic. These observations suggest that our understanding of prosociality should be revised to include the possibility that, in many cases, prosocial behavior-instead of requiring active control over our impulsesre-presents an impulse of its own.

版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn

/