心理学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (12): 1997-2012.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01997
收稿日期:
2022-09-25
发布日期:
2023-10-16
出版日期:
2023-12-25
通讯作者:
龙长权, E-mail: lcq@swu.edu.cn
基金资助:
YOU Tingting, ZHANG Liping, QI Guomei, LONG Changquan()
Received:
2022-09-25
Online:
2023-10-16
Published:
2023-12-25
摘要:
以往的研究表明, 机会公平会影响个体实际结果的评价, 但尚不清楚这种影响是仅发生在早期阶段还是同时发生在早期和晚期阶段。本研究采用事件相关电位技术, 控制主观预期与实际预期的差异以及个体机会数的变化, 并进行主成分分析以控制脑电成分的重叠, 探讨了在竞争情境中, 机会公平影响个体实际结果评价的认知加工进程。实验采用3 (机会条件:有利机会不公平(AI)、机会公平(OE)、不利机会不公平(DI)) × 3 (实际结果:赢、平局、输)被试内实验设计。行为结果表明, 机会公平和个人实际结果在愉悦感评分上存在显著交互作用, 表明机会公平会影响个体对实际结果的评价。ERP结果表明, 当被试赢时, 三种机会条件诱发的原始FRN和PCA-FRN波幅无显著差异; 当被试输时, AI和DI比OE诱发了更负的原始FRN和PCA-FRN波幅, 表明机会公平在认知加工的早期阶段影响个体实际结果的评价, 当处境不利时, 个体对机会公平更加敏感。同时, 机会条件不影响原始P300和PCA-P300波幅, 平局比输和赢诱发了更大的PCA-P300波幅, 这表明在个体实际结果评价的晚期加工阶段, 更重视结果公平, 对公平的结果投入了更多的注意资源。这些结果表明机会公平对个体实际结果评价的影响主要发生在早期阶段, 支持了“人们对结果公平的关注强于机会公平”这一假说。
中图分类号:
尤婷婷, 张利平, 祁国梅, 龙长权. (2023). 机会公平在早期加工阶段影响个体实际结果的评价. 心理学报, 55(12), 1997-2012.
YOU Tingting, ZHANG Liping, QI Guomei, LONG Changquan. (2023). Opportunity (in)equity affects outcome evaluation at an early cognitive stage. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(12), 1997-2012.
PCA因子 | 成分 | 时程峰值点(ms) | 空间峰值点 | 变异解释量(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
TF2/SF1 | FRN | 268 | FCz | 12.49 |
TF3/SF1 | P300 | 466 | FCz | 9.57 |
表1 提取选定的PCA因子
PCA因子 | 成分 | 时程峰值点(ms) | 空间峰值点 | 变异解释量(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
TF2/SF1 | FRN | 268 | FCz | 12.49 |
TF3/SF1 | P300 | 466 | FCz | 9.57 |
变量 | 公平感 | 愉悦感 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | ηp2 | F | p | ηp2 | |
反馈阶段 | F(1, 30) = 2.01 | 0.17 | 0.06 | F(1, 30) = 0.91 | 0.35 | 0.03 |
机会条件 | F(2, 60) = 46.39 | < 0.001 | 0.61 | F(2, 60) = 23.65 | < 0.001 | 0.44 |
实际结果 | F(2, 60) = 3.01 | 0.059 | 0.09 | F(2, 60) = 41.58 | < 0.001 | 0.58 |
反馈阶段 × 机会条件 | F(2, 60) = 2.32 | 0.11 | 0.07 | F(2, 60) = 13.08 | < 0.001 | 0.30 |
反馈阶段 × 实际结果 | F(2, 60) = 4.20 | 0.021 | 0.12 | F(2, 60) = 45.24 | < 0.001 | 0.60 |
机会条件 × 实际结果 | F(4, 120) = 0.88 | 0.47 | 0.03 | F(4, 120) = 2.27 | 0.079 | 0.07 |
反馈阶段 × 机会条件 × 实际结果 | F(4, 120) = 1.97 | 0.11 | 0.06 | F(4, 120) = 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.02 |
表2 公平感和愉悦感评分结果
变量 | 公平感 | 愉悦感 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | ηp2 | F | p | ηp2 | |
反馈阶段 | F(1, 30) = 2.01 | 0.17 | 0.06 | F(1, 30) = 0.91 | 0.35 | 0.03 |
机会条件 | F(2, 60) = 46.39 | < 0.001 | 0.61 | F(2, 60) = 23.65 | < 0.001 | 0.44 |
实际结果 | F(2, 60) = 3.01 | 0.059 | 0.09 | F(2, 60) = 41.58 | < 0.001 | 0.58 |
反馈阶段 × 机会条件 | F(2, 60) = 2.32 | 0.11 | 0.07 | F(2, 60) = 13.08 | < 0.001 | 0.30 |
反馈阶段 × 实际结果 | F(2, 60) = 4.20 | 0.021 | 0.12 | F(2, 60) = 45.24 | < 0.001 | 0.60 |
机会条件 × 实际结果 | F(4, 120) = 0.88 | 0.47 | 0.03 | F(4, 120) = 2.27 | 0.079 | 0.07 |
反馈阶段 × 机会条件 × 实际结果 | F(4, 120) = 1.97 | 0.11 | 0.06 | F(4, 120) = 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.02 |
变量 | AI-W | OE-W | DI-W | AI-D | OE-D | DI-D | AI-L | OE-L | DI-L |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
公平感评分 | |||||||||
反馈前 | 3.45(0.23) | 5.03(0.25) | 2.84(0.25) | 3.45(0.28) | 5.03(0.26) | 2.77(0.27) | 3.32(0.21) | 5.00(0.26) | 3.03(0.23) |
反馈后 | 3.48(0.28) | 5.39(0.22) | 3.65(0.28) | 3.65(0.25) | 5.13(0.27) | 3.35(0.25) | 3.45(0.23) | 4.45(0.29) | 2.65(0.26) |
愉悦感评分 | |||||||||
反馈前 | 4.03(0.24) | 4.77(0.20) | 2.65(0.22) | 3.68(0.25) | 4.71(0.23) | 2.58(0.19) | 3.90(0.22) | 4.52(0.25) | 3.10(0.20) |
反馈后 | 4.84(0.21) | 5.39(0.16) | 4.39(0.28) | 3.48(0.22) | 3.97(0.26) | 3.26(0.22) | 2.71(0.24) | 2.74(0.29) | 2.29(0.19) |
表3 九种条件反馈前后的公平感和愉悦感评分[M (SE)]
变量 | AI-W | OE-W | DI-W | AI-D | OE-D | DI-D | AI-L | OE-L | DI-L |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
公平感评分 | |||||||||
反馈前 | 3.45(0.23) | 5.03(0.25) | 2.84(0.25) | 3.45(0.28) | 5.03(0.26) | 2.77(0.27) | 3.32(0.21) | 5.00(0.26) | 3.03(0.23) |
反馈后 | 3.48(0.28) | 5.39(0.22) | 3.65(0.28) | 3.65(0.25) | 5.13(0.27) | 3.35(0.25) | 3.45(0.23) | 4.45(0.29) | 2.65(0.26) |
愉悦感评分 | |||||||||
反馈前 | 4.03(0.24) | 4.77(0.20) | 2.65(0.22) | 3.68(0.25) | 4.71(0.23) | 2.58(0.19) | 3.90(0.22) | 4.52(0.25) | 3.10(0.20) |
反馈后 | 4.84(0.21) | 5.39(0.16) | 4.39(0.28) | 3.48(0.22) | 3.97(0.26) | 3.26(0.22) | 2.71(0.24) | 2.74(0.29) | 2.29(0.19) |
ERP成分 | 机会条件 | 实际结果 | 机会条件 × 实际结果 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F (2, 60) | p | ηp2 | F (2, 60) | p | ηp2 | F (4, 120) | p | ηp2 | |
FRN | 2.06 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 22.61 | < 0.001 | 0.43 | 3.99 | 0.007 | 0.12 |
P300 | 2.79 | 0.071 | 0.09 | 3.80 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 1.55 | 0.21 | 0.05 |
PCA-FRN | 1.39 | 0.26 | 0.04 | 16.42 | < 0.001 | 0.35 | 3.64 | 0.012 | 0.11 |
PCA-P300 | 1.31 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 5.37 | 0.009 | 0.15 | 0.37 | 0.81 | 0.01 |
表4 FRN、P300、PCA-FRN、PCA-P300统计结果
ERP成分 | 机会条件 | 实际结果 | 机会条件 × 实际结果 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F (2, 60) | p | ηp2 | F (2, 60) | p | ηp2 | F (4, 120) | p | ηp2 | |
FRN | 2.06 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 22.61 | < 0.001 | 0.43 | 3.99 | 0.007 | 0.12 |
P300 | 2.79 | 0.071 | 0.09 | 3.80 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 1.55 | 0.21 | 0.05 |
PCA-FRN | 1.39 | 0.26 | 0.04 | 16.42 | < 0.001 | 0.35 | 3.64 | 0.012 | 0.11 |
PCA-P300 | 1.31 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 5.37 | 0.009 | 0.15 | 0.37 | 0.81 | 0.01 |
图3 PCA-FRN和PCA-P300在9种条件下的波形图、地形图、波幅的平均值及标准差。(A) 9种条件在9个电极点合并为一个电极点后的FRN和P300的波形图; (B) 9种条件在240~340 ms时间窗内的PCA-FRN地形图和在300~600 ms时间窗内的PCA-P300地形图; (C)在240~340 ms时间窗内, 9种条件在9个电极点合并为一个电极点后的PCA-FRN波幅的平均值及标准误和在300~600 ms时间窗内, 9种条件在9个电极点合并为一个电极点后的PCA-P300波幅的平均值及标准误。*p < 0.08; **p < 0.01。彩色图见电子版。
[1] |
Aoki, R., Matsumoto, M., Yomogida, Y., Izuma, K., Murayama, K., Sugiura, A. et al. (2014). Social equality in the number of choice options is represented in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(18), 6413-6421.
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4427-13.2014 pmid: 24790211 |
[2] |
Aoki, R., Yomogida, Y., & Matsumoto, K. (2015). The neural bases for valuing social equality. Neuroscience Research, 90, 33-40.
doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2014.10.020 pmid: 25452125 |
[3] |
Bown, N. J., Read, D., & Summers, B. (2003). The lure of choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 297-308.
doi: 10.1002/bdm.v16:4 URL |
[4] |
Chen, T., Tang, R., Yang, X., Peng, M., & Cai, M. (2023). Moral transgression modulates fairness considerations in the ultimatum game: Evidence from ERP and EEG data. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 188, 1-11.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2023.03.001 pmid: 36889599 |
[5] | Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. |
[6] |
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 |
[7] |
Dien, J. (2010). Evaluating two-step PCA of ERP data with Geomin, Infomax, Oblimin, Promax, and Varimax rotations. Psychophysiology, 47(1), 170-183.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00885.x pmid: 19761521 |
[8] |
Dien, J., Beal, D. J., & Berg, P. (2005). Optimizing principal components analysis of event-related potentials: Matrix type, factor loading weighting, extraction, and rotations. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116(8), 1808-1825.
pmid: 15996897 |
[9] |
Dyson, B. J., Steward, B. A., Meneghetti, T., & Forder, L. (2020). Behavioural and neural limits in competitive decision making: The roles of outcome, opponency and observation. Biological Psychology, 149, 107778.
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107778 URL |
[10] |
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.
doi: 10.1002/hbm.22649 pmid: 25327760 |
[11] |
Funkhouser, C. J., Auerbach, R. P., Kujawa, A., Morelli, S. A., Phan, K. L., & Shankman, S. A. (2020). Social feedback valence differentially modulates the reward positivity, P300, and late positive potential. Journal of Psychophysiology, 34, 255-267.
doi: 10.1027/0269-8803/a000253 pmid: 33814668 |
[12] |
Gheza, D., Paul, K., & Pourtois, G. (2018). Dissociable effects of reward and expectancy during evaluative feedback processing revealed by topographic ERP mapping analysis. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 132, 213-225.
doi: S0167-8760(17)30364-1 pmid: 29179993 |
[13] |
Gheza, D., Raedt, R.D, Baeken, C., & Pourtois, G. (2018). Integration of reward with cost anticipation during performance monitoring revealed by ERPs and EEG spectral perturbations. NeuroImage, 173, 153-164.
doi: S1053-8119(18)30156-3 pmid: 29496610 |
[14] | Hajcak, G., & Foti, D. (2020). Significance?...significance! empirical, methodological, and theoretical connections between the late positive potential and P300 as neural responses to stimulus significance: An integrative review. Psychophysiology, 57(7), e13570. |
[15] |
Hajcak, G., MacNamara, A., & Olvet, D. M. (2010). Event- related potentials, emotion, and emotion regulation: An integrative review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(2), 129-155.
doi: 10.1080/87565640903526504 pmid: 20390599 |
[16] |
Hajcak, G., Moser, J. S., Holroyd, C. B., & Simons, R. F. (2006). The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biological Psychology, 71(2), 148-154.
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.04.001 pmid: 16005561 |
[17] |
Hallsson, B. G., Siebner, H. R., & Hulme, O. J. (2018). Fairness, fast and slow: A review of dual process models of fairness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 89, 49-60.
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.02.016 URL |
[18] |
Hansson, K., Persson, E., Davidai, S., & Tinghög, G. (2021). Losing sense of fairness: How information about a level playing field reduces selfish behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 190, 66-75.
doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2021.07.014 URL |
[19] |
Hauser, T. U., Iannaccone, R., Stampfli, P., Drechsler, R., Brandeis, D., Walitza, S., & Brem, S. (2014). The feedback- related negativity (FRN) revisited: New insights into the localization, meaning and network organization. NeuroImage, 84, 159-168.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.028 URL |
[20] |
Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 109(4), 679-709.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.679 pmid: 12374324 |
[21] |
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 |
[22] |
Hu, X., & Mai, X. (2021). Social value orientation modulates fairness processing during social decision-making: Evidence from behavior and brain potentials. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(7), 670-682.
doi: 10.1093/scan/nsab032 URL |
[23] |
Huang, Y., & Yu, R. (2014). The feedback-related negativity reflects "more or less" prediction error in appetitive and aversive conditions. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 108.
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00108 pmid: 24904254 |
[24] |
Janssen, D. J. C., Poljac, E., & Bekkering, H. (2016). Binary sensitivity of theta activity for gain and loss when monitoring parametric prediction errors. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(8), 1280-1289.
doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw033 pmid: 26969862 |
[25] |
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 601-625.
doi: 10.1146/psych.2017.68.issue-1 URL |
[26] |
Kaltwasser, L., Hildebrandt, A., Wilhelm, O., & Sommer, W. (2016). Behavioral and neuronal determinants of negative reciprocity in the ultimatum game. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(10), 1608-1617.
doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw069 pmid: 27261490 |
[27] |
Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38(3), 557-577.
doi: 10.1017/s0048577201990559 pmid: 11352145 |
[28] |
Krigolson, O. E. (2018). Event-related brain potentials and the study of reward processing: Methodological considerations. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 132, 175-183.
doi: S0167-8760(17)30431-2 pmid: 29154804 |
[29] |
Kujawa, A., Smith, E., Luhmann, C., & Hajcak, G. (2013). The feedback negativity reflects favorable compared to nonfavorable outcomes based on global, not local, alternatives. Psychophysiology, 50(2), 134-138.
doi: 10.1111/psyp.12002 pmid: 23241216 |
[30] |
Leng, Y., & Zhou, X. (2010). Modulation of the brain activity in outcome evaluation by interpersonal relationship: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 48(2), 448-455.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.002 pmid: 19822163 |
[31] |
Li, P., Baker, T. E., Warren, C., & Li, H. (2016). Oscillatory profiles of positive, negative and neutral feedback stimuli during adaptive decision making. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 107, 37-43.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.06.018 pmid: 27378537 |
[32] |
Li, P., Jia, S., Feng, T., Liu, Q., Suo, T., & Li, H. (2010). The influence of the diffusion of responsibility effect on outcome evaluations: Electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study. NeuroImage, 52(4), 1727-1733.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.275 pmid: 20452440 |
[33] |
Liu, M., Zhou, J., Liu, Y., & Liu, S. (2022). The impact of social comparison and (un)fairness on upstream indirect reciprocity: Evidence from ERP. Neuropsychologia, 177, 108398.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108398 URL |
[34] |
Long, C., Hu, X., Qi, G., & Zhang, L. (2022). Self-interest is intuitive during opportunity (in)equity: Evidence from multivariate pattern analysis of electroencephalography data. Neuropsychologia, 174, 108343.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108343 URL |
[35] |
Long, C., Sun, Q., Jia, S., Li, P., & Chen, A. (2018). Give me a chance! Sense of opportunity inequality affects brain responses to outcome evaluation in a social competitive context: An event-related potential study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 135.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00135 pmid: 29681808 |
[36] |
Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213 pmid: 24782741 |
[37] | Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique, second edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. |
[38] |
Luck, S. J., & Gaspelin, N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn't). Psychophysiology, 54(1), 146-157.
doi: 10.1111/psyp.12639 pmid: 28000253 |
[39] |
Luo, Y., Feng, C., Gu, R., Wu, T., Luo, Y. (2013). The fairness norm in social decision-making: Behavioral and neuroscience studies. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(2), 300-308.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00300 |
[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.]
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00300 |
|
[40] |
Massi, B., & Luhmann, C. C. (2015). Fairness influences early signatures of reward-related neural processing. Cognitive Affective Behavioral Neuroscience. 15(4), 768-775.
doi: 10.3758/s13415-015-0362-7 URL |
[41] |
Müller, S. V., Möller, J., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Münte, T. F. (2005). Brain potentials related to self-generated and external information used for performance monitoring. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116(1), 63-74.
pmid: 15589185 |
[42] |
Mushtaq, F., Wilkie, R. M., Mon-williams, M., & Schaefer, A. (2016). Randomised prior feedback modulates neural signals of outcome monitoring. NeuroImage, 125, 868-879.
doi: S1053-8119(15)00957-X pmid: 26497268 |
[43] |
Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128-2148.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 pmid: 17573239 |
[44] |
Qi, Y., Nan, W., Cai, H., Wu, H., & Liu, X. (2020). Empathy or schadenfreude? Social value orientation and affective responses to gambling results. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109619.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109619 URL |
[45] |
Rand, D. G. (2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science, 27(9), 1192-1206.
doi: 10.1177/0956797616654455 pmid: 27422875 |
[46] | Rodrigues, J., Weiss, M., Mussel, P., & Hewig, J. (2022). On second thought horizontal ellipsis the influence of a second stage in the ultimatum game on decision behavior, electro-cortical correlates and their trait interrelation. Psychophysiology, 59(7), e14023. |
[47] |
Sambrook, T. D., & Goslin, J. (2015). A neural reward prediction error revealed by a meta-analysis of ERPs using great grand averages. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 213-235.
doi: 10.1037/bul0000006 pmid: 25495239 |
[48] | Stewardson, H. J., & Sambrook, T. D. (2023). Valence precedes value in neural encoding of prediction error. Psychophysiology, 60 (7), e14266. |
[49] | Stolz, D. S., Muller-Pinzler, L., Krach, S., & Paulus, F. M. (2020). Internal control beliefs shape positive affect and associated neural dynamics during outcome valuation. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1230. |
[50] |
Trautmann, S. T., & van de Kuilen, G. (2016). Process fairness, outcome fairness, and dynamic consistency: Experimental evidence for risk and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(2), 75-88.
doi: 10.1007/s11166-016-9249-4 URL |
[51] |
Vicente, I., Pastor, J. M., & Soler, Á. (2021). Improving educational resilience in the OECD countries: Two convergent paths. Journal of Policy Modeling, 43(6), 1149-1166.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.09.007 URL |
[52] |
Wang, A., Zhu, L., Lyu, D., Cai, D., Ma, Q., & Jin, J. (2022). You are excusable! Neural correlates of economic neediness on empathic concern and fairness perception. Cognitive Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 22(1), 99-111.
doi: 10.3758/s13415-021-00934-5 |
[53] |
Westfall, J., Judd, C. M. & Kenny, D. A. (2015). Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 390-399.
doi: 10.1177/1745691614564879 pmid: 25987517 |
[54] |
Wu, Y., & Zhou, X. (2009). The P300 and reward valence, magnitude, and expectancy in outcome evaluation. Brain Research, 1286, 114-122.
doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.06.032 pmid: 19539614 |
[55] |
Xie, E., Liu, M., Liu, J., Gao, X., & Li, X. (2022). Neural mechanisms of the mood effects on third-party responses to injustice after unfair experiences. Human Brain Mapping, 43(12), 3646-3661.
doi: 10.1002/hbm.v43.12 URL |
[56] |
Yang, Z., Zheng, Y., Wang, C., Lai, X., Hu, K., Li, Q., & Liu, X. (2022). Fairness decision-making of opportunity equity in gain and loss contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104243.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104243 URL |
[57] |
Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2020). Me first: Neural representations of fairness during three-party interactions. Neuropsychologia, 147, 107576.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107576 URL |
[58] |
Zhang, L., Qi, G., & Long, C. (2021). The choice levels modulate outcome processing during outcome independent of behavior selection: Evidence from event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 169, 44-54.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.08.007 pmid: 34499962 |
[1] | 刘德鹏, 李珏兴, 梁品, 庞旭宏. 组织政治环境如何影响领导者公正准则遵从?[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(3): 496-509. |
[2] | 李建花, 解佳佳, 庄锦英. 生理周期对情景记忆的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(5): 466-480. |
[3] | 杨莎莎, 陈思静. 第三方惩罚中的规范错觉:基于公正世界信念的解释[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(3): 281-299. |
[4] | 陈思静, 杨莎莎, 汪昊, 万丰华. 主观社会阶层正向预测利他性惩罚[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(12): 1548-1561. |
[5] | 冯霞, 冯成志. 认知灵活性对概率类别学习的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(11): 1340-1353. |
[6] | 岳童, 黄希庭, 岳彩镇, 薛黎明, 傅安国. 自身得失对朋友博弈结果评价的影响:来自ERPs的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(6): 651-666. |
[7] | 邓晓红, 李婷, 薛超, J.PeterRosenfeld, 卢洋, 王莹, 展小飞, 鄢阁俊, 欧阳丹. 基于自我参照编码的复合反应范式:有效鉴别有罪者和无罪知情者[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(10): 1105-1119. |
[8] | 朱树青, 翟昱, 贾世伟. 反馈评估的局部背景依赖效应:ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(11): 1198-1207. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | 杨林川, 马红宇, 姜海, 梁娟, 齐玲. 社会公正对权威合法性的影响: 社会阶层的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 980-994. |
[11] | 王端旭, 曾恺, 郑显伟. 员工非伦理行为如何招致同事攻击:道义公正视角[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 829-840. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | 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. |
[14] | 杨帅;黄希庭;陈有国;傅于玲;刘孟超. 人际距离调节自我-他人的神经表征:来自oFRN的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(5): 666-676. |
[15] | 钟毅平;范伟;蔡荣华;谭千保;肖丽辉;占友龙;罗西;秦敏辉. 正性情绪诱导下的自我参照加工:来自ERPs的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(3): 341-352 . |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||