Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2018, Vol. 50 Issue (3): 317-326    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00317
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 普遍信任博弈决策的动态过程 ——来自脑电时频分析的证据
 付 超1,2; 张 振1; 何金洲3; 黄四林4;仇剑崟5; 王益文1,2
 (1福州大学心理与认知科学研究所, 福州 350116) (2福州大学经济与管理学院, 福州 350116) (3中原大学心理系, 桃园 32023) (4北京师范大学发展心理研究院, 北京 100875) (5上海交通大学医学院附属精神卫生中心, 上海 200030)
 Brain dynamics of decision-making in the generalized trust game: Evidence from ERPs and EEG time-frequency analysis
 FU Chao1,2; ZHANG Zhen1; HE Jinzhou3; HUANG Silin4; QIU Jianyin5; WANG Yiwen1,2
 (1 Institute of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China) (2 School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China) (3 Department of Psychology, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 32023, China) (4 Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China) (5 Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200030, China)
全文: PDF(1170 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要  人类社会的特殊性在于普遍信任贯穿于所有的人际互动, 人们为什么以及何时选择信任的问题对社会发展和经济交易具有重要意义。然而, 现有研究结果尚无法清楚地阐述信任决策的认知与神经机制。为探究信任互动情境下大脑活动变化的时间动态特征及神经震荡过程, 采用事件相关电位技术记录了21名健康被试作为信任者完成单次性信任博弈(Trust Game, TG)时的脑电数据, 并对EEG数据进行时域和频域分析。行为结果发现个体选择信任的比例显著高于几率水平。时域分析结果表明决策阶段中不信任决策比信任决策诱发了更负的N2成分(250~330 ms), 更小的P3波幅(330~430 ms)。频域分析结果则发现不信任决策比信任决策引发了更大的β频段(18~28 Hz, 250~350 ms)能量活动; 相比于获益反馈后信任决策, 损失反馈后信任决策诱发了更大的β频段(15~20 Hz, 150~300 ms)能量活动, 而损失反馈后不信任决策和获益反馈后不信任决策诱发的β频段能量无显著差异。时域N2成分和频域β频段能量的动态分离表明信任选择是人们的默认优势选项, 而不信任选择则涉及更多的认知控制加工。本研究为理解人类信任决策过程的动态加工时程及其神经震荡特征提供了初步的电生理学证据。
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
付超
张振
何金洲
黄四林
仇剑崟
王益文
关键词 普遍信任 决策 N2 P3 时频分析    
Abstract: Human societies are unique in terms of large-scale social cooperation and trust between unrelated people (generalized trust). As an important social signaling mechanism, generalized trust reduces transaction costs, facilitates cooperative behavior, and promotes human society’s prosperity. The question of why and when people trust each other has important implications for human social interaction and economic decision-making. Previous fMRI research utilizing the Trust Game has revealed brain regions involved in the decision to trust, including medial prefrontal cortex, caudate nucleus, amygdala, insula and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. However, the extant research has failed to clearly reveal neurophysiological mechanisms of the investor’s decision-making in the Trust Game. To investigate the time course and neural oscillation courses of trust decision-making, we recorded the electroencephalographic (EEG) data of 21 healthy human participants while they played the role of trustor in the one-shot Trust Game; in this game, participants made decisions to trust or distrust the counterpart. In addition to behavioral data analysis and event-related potential (ERP) analysis, we also conducted spectral analysis to examine the neural oscillations underlying the trust game responses. Behavioral results indicated that participants made trusting decisions more than chance. Electrophysiological results suggested that distrusting choices induced a more negative N2 and a less positive P3 than did trusting choices. Spectral analysis results showed that the beta-band (18~28 Hz, 250~350 ms) power for distrusting choices was significantly larger than trusting choices; this may suggest greater inhibitory control exerted to distrust. Moreover, trusting choice after a negative outcome elicited a significant higher beta-band (15~20 Hz, 150~300 ms) power than did trusting choice after a positive outcome, while the beta-band power for distrusting choice after a negative outcome was similar compared to distrusting choice after a positive outcome. Our study provided some new insights into the psychophysiological processes underlying human’s decisions to trust strangers. Specifically, when making a decision to trust or distrust the counterpart, the distrusting choice induced a larger N2 than did the trusting choice, which may reflect greater cognitive control to inhibit trusting behavior. On the other hand, a more positive going P3 for the trusting choice than the distrusting choice may suggest that increased attention and motivation are associated with the trusting behavior. Moreover, the increased beta power across frontal areas for distrusting choices might reflect frontal inhibitory processes. These findings highlight the ingrained norm of cooperation and trust in modern societies, and provide preliminary spatio-temporal and spectral results understanding human’s decision-making in the one-shot Trust Game.
Key wordsgeneralized trust    decision-making    N2    P3    Time-frequency analysis
收稿日期: 2016-10-23      出版日期: 2018-02-01
中图分类号:     
  B849:C91  
基金资助:  国家自然科学基金项目(31771238, 31371045)、福建省闽江学者支持计划、福建省社会科学规划项目(FJ2017C049)资助。
通讯作者: 王益文, E-mail: wangeven@126.com; 仇剑崟, E-mail: jianyin_qiu@163.com     E-mail: E-mail: wangeven@126.com; E-mail: jianyin_qiu@163.com
引用本文:   
付超, 张振, 何金洲, 黄四林, 仇剑崟, 王益文. (2018).  普遍信任博弈决策的动态过程 ——来自脑电时频分析的证据. 心理学报, 50(3): 317-326.
FU Chao, ZHANG Zhen, HE Jinzhou, HUANG Silin, QIU Jianyin, WANG Yiwen. (2018).  Brain dynamics of decision-making in the generalized trust game: Evidence from ERPs and EEG time-frequency analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(3), 317-326.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00317      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2018/V50/I3/317
[1] 何贵兵,李纾,梁竹苑. 以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 803-813.
[2] 李爱梅, 王海侠, 孙海龙, 熊冠星, 杨韶丽. “长计远虑”的助推效应:怀孕与环境跨期决策[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 858-867.
[3] Nicolao Bonini,Constantinos Hadjichristidis,Michele Graffeo. 绿色助推[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 814-826.
[4] 路西,HSEE. 联合评估和单独评估:富有潜力的助推手段[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 827-839.
[5] 王益文, 付超, 任相峰, 林羽中, 郭丰波, 张 振, 黄亮, 袁博, 郑玉玮.  自恋人格调节信任博弈的结果评价[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1080-1088.
[6] 付艺蕾, 罗跃嘉, 崔芳.  选择一致性影响结果评价的ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1089-1099.
[7] 程家萍;罗跃嘉;崔芳. 认知负荷对疼痛共情的影响:来自ERP研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 622-630.
[8] 陈嘉欣;何贵兵. “金钱−环境”复合收益的风险决策:价值取向的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(4): 500-512.
[9] 陈庆;何泉;陈广耀;郭悦智;张荷婧;何先友. 复杂情境下不同角度及思维方式的决策表现差异:决策视角−心理距离的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 383-392.
[10] 杨昭宁;顾子贝;王杜娟;谭旭运;王晓明. 愤怒和悲伤情绪对助人决策的影响:人际责任归因的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 393-403.
[11] 李小平. 艾勒悖论再探——三结果决策的齐当别式表征: “好−坏”抑或“最好−最坏”?[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(2): 262-272.
[12] 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.
[13] 余柳涛; 鲍建樟;陈清华;王大辉. 个体自信度对双人决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(8): 1013-1025.
[14] 刘扬;孙彦. 时间分解效应及其对跨期决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(4): 362-370.
[15] 汪文义; 宋丽红;丁树良. 复杂决策规则下MIRT的分类准确性和分类一致性[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(12): 1612-1624.
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