Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
社会比较对合作任务结果评价的影响:来自ERP的证据
窦炜;曲璐璐;曲琛
(1华南师范大学心理应用研究中心/心理学院, 广州 520631) (2潍坊滨海三中, 潍坊 261000)
Social Comparison Affects Outcome Evaluation in The Cooperative Task: An ERP Study
DOU Wei;QU Lulu;QU Chen
(1 Center for Studies of Psychological Application; School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China) (2 No.3 Middle School of Binhai Weifang, Weifang 261000, China)
全文: PDF(499 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

现实生活中人们通过社会比较获得对自身的认识。前人研究探讨了金钱收入的比较对个体结果评价的影响, 而非金钱的社会比较效应的神经加工机制尚不清楚。本研究分离比较和金钱收入, 使用双人合作的投骰子任务, 先呈现“>”或“<”代表两人点数大小的比较结果, 再呈现合作任务的输赢结果, 考察非金钱的社会比较对合作任务结果加工的影响, 记录任务表现的比较结果和最终合作任务结果的ERP数据。发现在任务表现比较结果阶段, FRN和P300对代表行为表现好坏的社会比较信息敏感, 呈现无金钱输赢提示的点数大小的比较结果时, 点数小于他人比大于他人诱发更大的FRN和更小的P300; 任务表现的比较结果对合作任务最终的金钱输赢结果的影响并没有反应在FRN上。这些表明, 对非金钱的社会比较信息的加工始于结果快速评价的早期阶段。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
窦炜
曲璐璐
曲琛
关键词 社会比较结果评价FRNP300ERP    
Abstract

Social comparison is a mental process through which people come to know themselves by evaluating their own abilities, attitudes, outcomes and believes in comparison with others. Previous studies found that social comparison influenced the evaluative process of the outcome in the brain. However, in all those studies, social comparison was manipulated as the comparison between the rewards of two participants, so it remains unclear whether the monetary value or the comparison affects the outcome evaluation. By dissociating the monetary value from comparison, the current study aimed to investigate how non-monetary social comparison affects the process of outcome evaluation in a cooperative task. Eighteen healthy undergraduates (10 males, 8 females) took part in the EPR experiment. Participants cooperated with a confederate to complete a gambling game on two connected computers. Each of them chucked one dice sequentially and randomly. If the numbers on the two dices totaled greater than 6 in the trail, they would win 1 yuan in the trial; if not, they would lose 1 yuan. The final reward would be portioned out equally between them. After they chucked the two dices, a “>” or “<” between their name cueing comparison feedback indicates which one get a larger number. Then a feedback screen informed about whether they win or loss. However, unknown to the participants, the feedback was independent of their performance. Trails of each conditions were equal. Both social comparison feedback and monetary feedback were included in the final statistical analyses. For FRN analysis, we measured the average amplitude in the 250-350 ms time window for the social comparison feedback and the monetary feedback. P300 amplitude was quantified as the positive peak in the time window of 300-600 ms after feedback onset. ERP results revealed that FRN and P300 were both sensitive to non-monetary social comparison. When compared with those who had a better performance, participants who got a smaller number showed a larger FRN and a smaller P300. FRN amplitude of gain was more negative than that of loss. P300 showed an opposite pattern relative to FRN. Social comparison did not affect the process of outcome evaluation of the cooperative task. These findings suggest that the encoding of social comparison occurs at the early stage of the outcome evaluation. And FRN could code not only the prediction errors for monetary reward but also the information in the social context. Our results also indicate that FRN responds to the most notable information in the current context.

Key wordssocial comparison    outcome evaluation    FRN    P300    ERP
收稿日期: 2013-04-09      出版日期: 2014-03-25
基金资助:

国家自然科学基金项目(31000504)和认知神经科学与学习国家重点实验室开放课题基金资助。

通讯作者: 曲琛   
引用本文:   
窦炜;曲璐璐;曲琛. 社会比较对合作任务结果评价的影响:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00405.
DOU Wei;QU Lulu;QU Chen. Social Comparison Affects Outcome Evaluation in The Cooperative Task: An ERP Study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(3): 405-414.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00405      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2014/V46/I3/405
[1] 赵思敏;吴岩;李天虹;郭庆童. 词汇识别中歧义词素语义加工:ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 296-306.
[2] 刘庆奇;牛更枫;范翠英;周宗奎. 被动性社交网站使用与自尊和自我概念清晰性:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(1): 60-71.
[3] 黄婷婷; 刘莉倩;王大华;张文海. 经济地位和计量地位:社会地位比较对主观幸福感的影响及其年龄差异[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1163-1174.
[4] 范伟;钟毅平;杨子鹿;李琎;欧阳益; 蔡荣华; 李慧云 ;傅小兰 . 外倾个体的自我参照加工程度效应[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(8): 1002-1012.
[5] 刘芳; 丁锦红; 张钦. 高、低趋近积极情绪对不同注意加工阶段的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(7): 794-803.
[6] 吴岩;莫德圆;王海英; 于溢洋;陈烜之;张明. 语义分类任务中部件位置在汉字识别中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 599-606.
[7] 王协顺;吴岩;赵思敏;倪超;张明. 形旁和声旁在形声字识别中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(2): 130-140.
[8] 李婧; 陈安涛;陈杰;龙长权. 词语型类别属性归纳中分类与属性推理过程的时间特征[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(11): 1410-1422.
[9] 牛更枫;孙晓军;周宗奎;孔繁昌;田媛. 基于QQ空间的社交网站使用对青少年抑郁的影响:上行社会比较和自尊的序列中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(10): 1282-1291.
[10] 毛新瑞;徐慧芳;郭春彦. 双加工再认提取中的情绪记忆增强效应[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1111-1123.
[11] 岳鹏飞;杜婉婉;白学军;许远理. 情绪标注对情绪的抑制发生在何时:一项ERPs研究[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1124-1132.
[12] 闫志英;卢家楣. 情境真实性对悲伤移情调节的ERP证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 971-980.
[13] 王益文;张振;原胜;郭丰波;何少颖;敬一鸣. 重复信任博弈的决策过程与结果评价[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 1028-1038.
[14] 王路明. 优势语序还是优势解读?利用ERP考察汉语双论元歧义句的解歧过程[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(7): 869-877.
[15] 高雪梅;翁蕾;周群;赵偲;李芳. 暴力犯的疼痛共情更低:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 478-487.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》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