The impact of feedback on self-deception: Evidence from ERP

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00481

Abstract

Abstract:

This study mainly discusses the influence of feedback type and feedback valence on self-deception. Experiment 1 uses prospective paradigm to explore the influence of different valence of fuzzy feedback on self-deception. The results show that compared with the group without answer prompt, the participant in the group with answer prompt significantly improve the prediction scores in the second stage of test 2 under the condition of positive fuzzy feedback (the degree of self-deception is aggravated). Experiment 2 explored the influence of accurate feedback with different valence on self-deception. The results showed that compared with the group without answer prompt, the participants in the group with answer prompt significantly reduced the prediction scores in the second stage of test 2 under negative accurate feedback conditions. Experiment 3 uses ERP technology to explore the internal mechanism of feedback type and feedback valence affecting self-deception. The results show that self-deception under fuzzy feedback conditions induces larger P2 components and smaller N1 and N400 components. The research found that self-deception has a greater effect in the frontal area. These results show that positive feedback may promote the generation of the self-deception, while negative feedback weakens the generation of the self-deception. Positive fuzzy feedback can further promote the generation of individual self-deception. These findings also indicate that the mechanism behind self-deception may be self-expansion.

Key words: self-deception, feedback type, feedback valence, prospective paradigm, event-related potential

FAN Wei, REN Mengmeng, ZHANG Wenjie, ZHONG Yiping. (2022). The impact of feedback on self-deception: Evidence from ERP. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 481-496.

Figures/Tables 15

Figure 1. Flow diagram of Experiment 1. A. Experimental flow chart of test 1; B. Experimental flow chart of test 2; C. Three Feedback Conditions

Table 1 The scores of the first stage of test 2 in the no answer prompt group and the answer prompt group (M ± SD)

Score	M ± SD	t	p
Predicted Scores for test 2
No Answer Prompt Group	48.36 ± 13.34	-4.83^***	0.00
Answer Prompt group	65.36 ± 13.88	-4.83^***	0.00
Actual score for test 2
No Answer Prompt Group	53.82 ± 6.95	-0.22	0.83
Answer Prompt group	54.26 ± 8.91	-0.22	0.83
The difference between the predicted score and the actual score of test 2
No Answer Prompt Group	-4.95 ± 14.85	2.11^*	0.04
Answer Prompt group	9.80 ± 16.95	2.11^*	0.04

Figure 2. Predicted scores of fuzzy feedback with different valence in the second stage of test 2; The error bar represents the standard error, *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001, the same below.

Figure 3. The experimental flow figure of Experiment 2. A. Experimental flow chart of test 1; B. Experimental flow chart of test 2; C. Three Feedback Conditions

Table 2 The scores of the first stage of test 2 in the no answer prompt group and the answer prompt group (M ± SD)

Score	M ± SD	t	p
Predicted scores for test 2
No answer prompt group	52.93 ± 16.59	-2.89^*	0.006
Answer prompt group	64.57 ± 13.66	-2.89^*	0.006
Actual score for test 2
No answer prompt group	53.72 ± 7.53	-0.52	0.610
Answer prompt group	54.82 ± 8.50	-0.52	0.610
The difference between the predicted score and the actual score of test 2
No answer prompt group	0.79 ± 19.57	-2.12^*	0.038
Answer prompt group	9.75 ± 147.91	-2.12^*	0.038

Figure 4. Predicted scores of two groups of participants under the condition of accurate feedback of different valence in the second stage of test 2.

Figure 5. A. Flow chart of test 1 of Experiment 3; B. test 2 flow chart of Experiment 3; C. Four Feedback Conditions

Table 3 The scores of the three experiments (the answer prompt group) on the self-deception scale (M ± SD)

Group	N	M ± SD	F	p
The answer prompt group in Experiment 1	35	83.20 ± 12.10	0.23	0.80
The answer prompt group in Experiment 2	33	81.77 ± 11.72
The answer prompt group in Experiment 3	35	81.40 ± 11.45

Table 4 Comparison of the results of the first stage of test 2 in the three experiments

Group	N	M ± SD	F	p
No answer prompt group in Experiment 1	35	48.36 ± 13.34	12.50^***	0.00
No answer prompt group in Experiment 2	33	52.93 ± 16.59
The answer prompt group in Experiment 3	35	81.40 ± 11.45

Figure 6. Frequency of self-deception under four feedback conditions.

Figure 7. Response time for four different feedback conditions.

Figure 8. Total ERP average graph, brain topographic map and histogram of N1 component average at all analysis points for four conditions at Fz and Fcz electrode points (time window: 0~50 ms), *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Figure 9. Total mean ERP graph, brain topographic map and histogram of mean P2 component of all analysis points at Fz and Fcz electrodes (100~250 ms) for four conditions, *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Figure 10. Total ERP mean graph, brain topographic map and histogram of N400 component mean at all analysis points for four conditions at Fz and Fcz electrode points (300~500 ms), *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Figure 11. Correlation analysis of predicted scores and N400 components in the first stage of test 2.

References 61

[1]	Bandura A. (2011). Self-deception: A paradox revisited. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 34(1), 16-17. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10002499 URL
[2]	Bayne T., & Fernández J. (2009). Delusion and self-deception:Mapping the terrain. In T. Bayne & J. Fernandez (Eds.), Delusion and self-deception: Affective and motivational influences on belief formation (pp.1-21). Psychology Press.
[3]	Chance Z., Gino F., Norton M. I., & Ariely D. (2015). The slow decay and quick revival of self-deception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1075. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01075 pmid: 26347666
[4]	Chance Z., & Norton M. I. (2015). The what and why of self-deception. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 104-107. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.008 URL
[5]	Chance Z., Norton M. I., Gino F., & Ariely D. (2011). Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(Suppl. 3), 15655-15659. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010658108 URL
[6]	Chen T. B., & Chai L. T. (2010). Attitude towards the environment and green products: Consumers’ perspective. Management Science and Engineering, 4(2), 27-39.
[7]	Dana J., Cain D. M., & Dawes R. M. (2006). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 193-201. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.10.001 URL
[8]	Delorme A., & Makeig S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009 pmid: 15102499
[9]	Dijkstra P. D., Schaafsma S. M., Hofmann H. A., & Groothuis T. G. (2012). ‘Winner effect’ without winning: Unresolved social conflicts increase the probability of winning a subsequent contest in a cichlid fish. Physiology & Behavior, 105(2), 489-492. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.08.029 URL
[10]	Duran K. A., O’Halloran H., Soder H., Yasin S., Kramer R., Rosen S., Brenya J., Chavarria K., Savitska L., & Keenan J. P. (2020). The medial prefrontal cortex: A potential link between self-deception and affect. International Journal of Neuroscience, 131(7), 701-707. doi: 10.1080/00207454.2020.1753729 URL
[11]	Egerton A., Rees E., Bose S. K., Lappin J. M., Stokes P., & Turkheimer F. E., Reeves S. J. (2010). Truth, lies or self-deception? striatal d (2/3) receptor availability predicts individual differences in social conformity. NeuroImage, 53(2), 777-781. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.031 pmid: 20558302
[12]	Fan W., Yang B., Liu J., & Fu X. (2017). Self-deception: For adjusting individual psychological states. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(8), 1349-1359. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01349 URL
[13]	Farrow T. F. D., Burgess J., Wilkinson I. D., & Hunter M. D. (2015). Neural correlates of self-deception and impression-management. Neuropsychologia, 67, 159-174. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.016 pmid: 25527112
[14]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods*, 41(4), 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL
[15]	Federmeier K. D., & Kutas M. (2001). Meaning and modality: Influences of context, semantic memory organization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 202-224. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.202 URL
[16]	Foster G., & Frijters P. (2014). The formation of expectations: Competing theories and new evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 53, 66-81. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2014.08.001 URL
[17]	Galeotti A. E. (2016). Straight and twisted self-deception. Phenomenology and Mind, 11, 90-99.
[18]	Gao J. (2021). Self-deception and pragmatic encroachment: A dilemma for epistemic rationality. Ratio, 34(1), 20-32. doi: 10.1111/rati.12288 URL
[19]	Gneezy U., Saccardo S., & van Veldhuizen R. (2019). Bribery: Behavioral drivers of distorted decisions. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(3), 917-946. doi: 10.1093/jeea/jvy043
[20]	Grossman Z., & van der Weele J. J. (2017). Self-image and willful ignorance in social decisions. Journal of the European Economic Association, 15(1), 173-217. doi: 10.1093/jeea/jvw001 URL
[21]	Gur R. C., & Sackeim H. A. (1979). Self-deception: A concept in search of a phenomenon. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37(2), 147-169.
[22]	Haisley E. C., & Weber R. A. (2010). Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior. Games & Economic Behavior, 68(2), 614-625.
[23]	Holroyd C. B., Hajcak G., & Larsen J. T. (2006). The good, the bad and the neutral: Electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli. Brain Research, 1105(1), 93-101. pmid: 16427615
[24]	Jian Z., Zhang W., Tian L., Fan W., & Zhong Y. (2019). Self-deception reduces cognitive load: The role of involuntary conscious memory impairment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
[25]	Ju S. E., Zhao Y., & Fu X. (2003). Cognitive mechanism of self- deception. Journal of Sun Yat-sen University (Social Science Edition), 43(5), 19-26.
[26]	Kunda Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. pmid: 2270237
[27]	Kutas M., & Federmeier K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123 URL
[28]	Kutas M., & Hillyard S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427): 203-205. pmid: 7350657
[29]	Lai V. T., & Huettig F. (2016). When prediction is fulfilled: Insight from emotion processing. Neuropsychologia, 85, 110-117. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.014 URL
[30]	Lauria F., & Preissmann D. (2018). What does emotion teach us about self-deception? Affective neuroscience in support of non-intentionalism. In Les ateliers de l'éthique/The Ethics Forum (Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 70-94). Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de Montréal.
[31]	Liu J., Zhang W., Zhan Y., Song L., Guan P., Kang D. Jian J., Cai R., & Li M. (2019). The effect of negative feedback on positive beliefs in self-deception. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 702. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00702 URL
[32]	Liu Y., & Shu H. (2003). ERP and language studies. Advances in Psychological Science, 11(3), 296-302.
[33]	Lopez J. K., & Fuxjager M. J. (2012). Self-deception’s adaptive value: Effects of positive thinking and the winner effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 315-324. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.10.008 URL
[34]	Mele A. R. (1997a). Real self-deception. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 20, 91-136.
[35]	Mele A. R. (1997b). Understanding and explaining real self-deception. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 20(1), 127-134.
[36]	Näätänen R., Paavilainen P., Rinne T., & Alho K. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(12), 2544-2590. pmid: 17931964
[37]	Neuber S. (2016). Self-awareness and self-deception: A Sartrean perspective. Continental Philosophy Review, 49(4), 485-507. doi: 10.1007/s11007-016-9368-2 URL
[38]	Nieuwenhuis S., Aston-Jones G., & Cohen J. D. (2005). Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 510-532. pmid: 16060800
[39]	Paulmann S., & Kotz S. A. (2008). Early emotional prosody perception based on different speaker voices. Neuroreport, 19(2), 209-213. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f454db pmid: 18185110
[40]	Plöchl M., Ossandón J. P., & König P. (2012). Combining EEG and eye tracking: Identification, characterization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 278.
[41]	Quattrone G. A., & Tversky A. (1984). Causal versus diagnostic contingencies: On self-deception and on the voter's illusion. Journal of personality social psychology, 46(2), 237-248. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.237 URL
[42]	Ren M., Zhong B., Fan W., Dai H., Yang B., Zhang W., Yin Z., Liu J., Li J., & Zhan Y. (2018). The influence of self-control and social status on self-deception. Frontier in Psychology, 9, 1256.
[43]	Rottenburger J. R., Carter C. R., & Kaufmann L. (2019). It’s alright, it’s just a bluff: Why do corporate codes reduce lying, but not bluffing?. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(1), 30-39. doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2018.02.004
[44]	Schapkin S. A., Gusev A. N., & Kuhl J. (2000). Categorization of unilaterally presented emotional words: An ERP analysis. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 60(1), 17-28. pmid: 10769926
[45]	Schwardmann P., & van der Weele J. (2019). Deception and self-deception. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1055-1061. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7 pmid: 31358973
[46]	Sharma M., Modi S., Khushu S., & Mandal M. K. (2010). Neural activation pattern in self-deceivers. Psychological Studies, 55(1), 71-76. doi: 10.1007/s12646-010-0008-3 URL
[47]	Sheridan Z., Boman P., Mergler A., & Furlong M. J. (2015). Examining well-being, anxiety, and self-deception in university students. Cogent Psychology, 2(1), 993850.
[48]	Sloman S. A., Fernbach P. M., & Hagmayer Y. (2010). Self-deception requires vagueness. Cognition, 115(2), 268-281. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.017 URL
[49]	Smith M. K., Trivers R., & von Hippel W. (2017). Self-deception facilitates interpersonal persuasion. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 93-101. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2017.02.012 URL
[50]	Stahl J., Wiese H., & Schweinberger S. R. (2010). Learning task affects ERP-correlates of the own-race bias, but not recognition memory performance. Neuropsychologia, 48(7), 2027-2040. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.03.024 URL
[51]	Surbey M. K. (2011). Adaptive significance of low levels of self-deception and cooperation in depression. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(1), 29-40. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.08.009 URL
[52]	Tan C., Zhu C., & Song H. (2020). The effect of emotional valency and emotional arousal on self-deception. Journal of Neijiang Normal University, 35(10), 1-6.
[53]	Taylor S. E., & Brown J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210. pmid: 3283814
[54]	Uziel L., & Cohen B. (2020). Self-deception and discrepancies in self-evaluation. Journal of Research in Personality, 88, 1-5.
[55]	von Hippel W., & Trivers R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral & Brain Science, 34(1), 1-16; discussion 16-56.
[56]	Wang Y., Kuhlman D. M., Roberts K., Yuan B., Zhang Z., Zhang W., & Simons R. F. (2017). Social value orientation modulates the FRN and P300 in the Chicken Game. Biological Psychology, 127, 89-98. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.04.012 URL
[57]	Zhong L., & Mo L. (2019). A commentary on empirical study of self-deception. Journal Psychological Science, 42(3), 709-714.
[58]	Zhong L., & Ru T. (2021). A Cognitive processing model of self-deception. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), (3), 81-89.
[59]	Zhong L., Ru T., Fan M., & Mo L. (2019). The effect of cognitive vagueness and motivation on conscious and unconscious self-deception. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(12), 1330-1340. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01330 URL
[60]	Zhu J., & Jiang J. (2014). Self-deception: A new topic in contemporary psychology. Science of Social Psychology, 2, 53-58.
[61]	Zhu Y., Xi S., & Wu Y. (2016). Self-deception in autobiographical narrative: Individuals’ self-identity strategy. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(12), 1917-1925. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.01917 URL