自发的善行：加工模式和情境紧急性影响亲社会行为

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01239

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 亲社会行为作为亲社会属性的重要方面, 一直是自然和社会科学研究的焦点。然而, 对于人们是否能够形成亲社会行为的一般直觉倾向, 仍存在争论。研究聚焦于慈善情境下的捐助行为, 采用事件相关电位技术考察加工模式和情境紧急性对捐助行为的影响及其神经机制。行为结果发现, 捐助行为受紧急性和捐助成本的双重影响, 随着成本的增加, 个体更愿意帮助紧急情境下的求助者。脑电结果发现, 直觉加工比反思加工诱发了更大的前部N1波幅, 而反思加工比直觉加工诱发了更大的P2波幅。在非紧急情境下, 反思加工比直觉加工诱发了更大的P3波幅。这一结果表明加工模式不仅影响了个体的早期注意和对刺激的评估, 还调节了晚期阶段对非紧急事件的认知投入。研究揭示了加工模式和事件紧急性对亲社会行为的影响, 通过关注紧急性这一潜在调节因素为不一致结果指出了方向, 扩展了对社会启发式假说的理解。

关键词: 加工模式, 亲社会行为, 紧急性, 社会启发式假说, 事件相关电位

Abstract: Prosocial behavior is suggested to be a central feature of human life and there is an ongoing debate regarding whether individuals have, therefore, developed a general intuitive tendency to act prosocially or not. Although previous studies have found various indicators of intuitive prosociality from different perspectives, evidence on the potential causal relationship between processing mods and prosocial behavior is mixed. The social heuristics hypothesis (SHH), as a theoretical framework to address this conflicting issue, suggests that associations between processing mode and prosocial behavior are complex and multifaceted, influenced by individual variability and the contexts in which it occurs. A previous study has revealed that intuitive prosocial behavior is more likely to emerge in a perceived emergency that require immediate response. We expected that processing mode (intuition vs. deliberation) will impact people's decision-making in different helping situations.
The study focused on charitable giving. Using event-related potentials (ERPs), we examined the neural mechanisms underlying the effects of processing mode and emergency on helping behaviors. We explored whether a neural signature that rapidly encodes the motivational salience of an event, the P3, can be regulated by processing mode × situation interaction or not. Participants were required to allocate varying amounts of money between themselves and charities they initially labelled as emergency or non-emergency situation that promoted intuitive or deliberative decision making. Each participant received 70 CNY. An instruction on the screen explained that the task required participants to “Accept” or “Reject” donation offers affecting their 70 CNY. To manipulate processing mode, each participant completed fast donation sessions where they were instructed to make decisions as fast as possible, and slow donation sessions where they were instructed to stop and reflect for at least 5 seconds before deciding. EEG signals were recorded during decision making.
The behavioral results indicated that both average contributions and average acceptance rates were affected by emergency, with emergency events eliciting more helping behavior compared to non-emergency events. Moreover, participants considered the offer costliness when making decisions. In emergency situations, participants were more likely to accept high-cost offers than in the non-emergency situations. The ERP components analysis revealed that: a) In the early stages, intuitive processing induced a more negative anterior N1 (AN1) compared to deliberative processing; b) Deliberative processing was associated with a more positive P2 compared to intuitive processing; c) In non-emergency situations, deliberative processing induced a more positive P3 compared to intuitive processing, whereas no significant differences were observed between processing mode in emergency situations.
These results suggest that prosocial behavior is affected by both the emergency of event and the costliness of the offer. As costs increase, individuals are more inclined to help in emergency situations than in non-emergency situations. Furthermore, processing mode affects individual's early attention and the evaluation of stimuli. Stimuli in intuition condition can capture more early attention, while stimuli in deliberation condition receive more thorough processing. Notably, deliberative processing of non-emergency events involves greater decision-making conflicts and consumes more psychological resources. Overall, these findings shed light on the connection between processing mode and human prosociality, and extend our understanding of the social heuristics hypothesis.

Key words: processing mode, prosocial behavior, emergency, the social heuristics hypothesis, event-related potential (ERP)

中图分类号:

B849: C91

石荣, 刘昌, 唐慧琳, 郝俊懿, 沈汪兵. (2024). 自发的善行：加工模式和情境紧急性影响亲社会行为. 心理学报, 56(9), 1239-1251.

SHI Rong, LIU Chang, TANG Huilin, HAO Junyi, SHEN Wangbin. (2024). Spontaneous giving: Processing mode and emergency affect prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(9), 1239-1251.

参考文献

[1] Achtziger A., Alós-Ferrer C., & Wagner A. K. (2016). The impact of self-control depletion on social preferences in the ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 53, 1-16.
[2] Bago B., Frey D., Vidal J., Houdé O., Borst G., & De Neys W. (2018). Fast and slow thinking: Electrophysiological evidence for early conflict sensitivity. Neuropsychologia, 117, 483-490.
[3] Batson, C. D., & Adam A. P. (2003). Altruism and Prosocial Behavior. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), I. B. Weiner (Ed.-in-chief). Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology. (Vol. 5, pp. 463-484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
[4] Baumeister R. F., Vohs K. D., & Funder D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396-403.
[5] Bear, A., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 936-941.
[6] Berg M.K., Kitayama S., & Kross E. (2021). How relationships bias moral reasoning: Neural and self-report evidence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, Article 104156.
[7] Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166-193.
[8] Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31-44.
[9] Carlson R. W., Aknin L. B., & Liotti M. (2016). When is giving an impulse? An ERP investigation of intuitive prosocial behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(7), 1121-1129.
[10] Chiu Loke I., Evans A. D., & Lee K. (2011). The neural correlates of reasoning about prosocial-helping decisions: An event-related brain potentials study. Brain Research, 1369, 140-148.
[11] Cornelissen G., Dewitte S., & Warlop L. (2011). Are Social Value Orientations Expressed Automatically? Decision Making in the Dictator Game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1080-1090.
[12] Cuthbert B. N., Schupp H. T., Bradley M. M., Birbaumer N., & Lang P. J. (2000). Brain potentials in affective picture processing: Covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biological Psychology, 52(2), 95-111.
[13] Decety, J., & Cacioppo, S. (2012). The speed of morality: A high-density electrical neuroimaging study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108(11), 3068-3072.
[14] Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70(2), 200-227.
[15] 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.
[16] Dovidio J. F., Piliavin J. A., Schroeder D. A., & Penner L. A. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[17] Eisenberger, N. I. (2015). Social pain and the brain: Controversies, questions, and where to go from here. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 601-629.
[18] Evans, J. S. B. (2018). Dual-process theories. In L. J. Ball, & V. A. Thompson (Eds.). The Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 151-166). New York, NY: Routledge.
[19] Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
[20] Fan W., Zhang Y. X., Wang X., Wang X. Y., Zhang X. Y., & Zhong Y. P. (2011). The temporal features of self-referential processing evoked by national flag. Neuroscience Letters, 505(3), 233-237.
[21] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[22] Ferree T. C., Luu P., Russell G. S., & Tucker D. M. (2001). Scalp electrode impedance, infection risk, and EEG data quality. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112(3), 536-544.
[23] Fields, E. C., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). It's all about you: An ERP study of emotion and self-relevance in discourse. NeuroImage, 62(1), 562-574.
[24] Fischer P., Greitemeyer T., Pollozek F., & Frey D. (2006). The unresponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 267-278.
[25] Gui D. Y., Gan T., & Liu C. (2016). Neural evidence for moral intuition and the temporal dynamics of interactions between emotional processes and moral cognition. Social Neuroscience, 11(4), 380-394.
[26] Harper J., Malone S. M., & Bernat E. M. (2014). Theta and delta band activity explain N2 and P3 ERP component activity in a go/no-go task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 125(1), 124-132.
[27] Hillyard, S. A., & Anllo-Vento, L. (1998). Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(3), 781-787.
[28] Horstmann N., Hausmann D., & Ryf, S. (2010). Methods for inducing intuitive and deliberate processing modes. In A. Glöckner & C. Witteman (Eds.), Foundations for tracing intuition: Challenges and methods (pp. 219-237). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
[29] Hortensius R., Schutter D. J. L. G., & de Gelder B. (2016). Personal distress and the influence of bystanders on responding to an emergency. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(4), 672-688.
[30] Houston, R. J., & Stanford, M. S. (2001). Mid-latency evoked potentials in self-reported impulsive aggression. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40(1), 1-15.
[31] 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.
[32] Isler O., Yilmaz O., & John Maule A. (2021). Religion, parochialism and intuitive cooperation. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(4), 512-521.
[33] Isreal J. B., Chesney G. L., Wickens C. D., & Donchin E. (1980). P300 and tracking difficulty: Evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. Psychophysiology, 17(3), 259-273.
[34] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
[35] Keenan J. P., Wheeler M. A., Gallup Jr G. G., & Pascual-Leone A. (2000). Self-recognition and the right prefrontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(9), 338-344.
[36] Kieslich, P. J., & Hilbig, B. E. (2014). Cognitive conflict in social dilemmas: An analysis of response dynamics. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(6), 510-522.
[37] Kumar S., Soto D., & Humphreys G. W. (2009). Electrophysiological evidence for attentional guidance by the contents of working memory. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(2), 307-317.
[38] Kvarven A., Strømland E., Wollbrant C., Andersson D., Johannesson M., Tinghög G., … Myrseth, K. O. R. (2020). The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: A meta-analytic examination of effect size and between-study heterogeneity. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 6(1), 26-42.
[39] Kwak Y., Chen X. J., McDonald K., & Boutin B. (2020). Money for me and money for friend: An ERP study of social reward processing in adolescents and adults. Social Neuroscience, 15(1), 83-97.
[40] Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 56(2), 183-197.
[41] Li J., Sun Y., Yang Z., & Zhong Y. (2020). Social value orientation modulates the processing of social rewards for self: Evidence from ERPs study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(6), 786-800.
[李琎, 孙宇, 杨子鹿, 钟毅平. (2020). 社会价值取向对自我社会奖赏加工的影响——来自ERPs的证据. 心理学报, 52(6), 786-800.]
[42] Li M., Li J., Li H., Zhang G., Fan W., & Zhong Y. (2022). Interpersonal distance modulates the influence of social observation on prosocial behaviour: An event-related potential (ERP) study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 176, 108-116.
[43] Lieberman M. D.(2007). The X- and C-systems: The Neural Basis of Automatic and Controlled Social Cognition. In E. HarmonJones & P. Winkielman (Eds.), Fundamentals of social neuroscience (pp. 290-315). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
[44] Mischkowski D., Thielmann I., & Glöckner A. (2018). Think it through before making a choice? Processing mode does not influence social mindfulness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 85-97.
[45] Niendam T. A., Laird A. R., Ray K. L., Dean Y. M., Glahn D. C., & Carter C. S. (2012). Meta-analytic evidence for a superordinate cognitive control network subserving diverse executive functions. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(2), 241-268.
[46] Ortigue S., Thompson J. C., Parasuraman R., & Grafton S. T. (2009). Spatio-temporal dynamics of human intention understanding in temporo-parietal cortex: A combined EEG/fMRI repetition suppression paradigm. PloS One, 4(9), Article e6962.
[47] Penner L. A., Dovidio J. F., Piliavin J. A., & Schroeder D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392.
[48] Peysakhovich, A., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Science, 62(3), 631-647.
[49] Protzko J., Zedelius C. M., & Schooler J. W. (2019). Rushing to Appear Virtuous: Time Pressure Increases Socially Desirable Responding. Psychological Science, 30(11), 1584-1591.
[50] 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.
[51] Rand D. G., Brescoll V. L., Everett J. A., Capraro V., & Barcelo H. (2016). Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 389-396.
[52] Rand, D. G., & Epstein, Z. G. (2014). Risking your life without a second thought: Intuitive decision-making and extreme altruism. PLoS One, 9(10), Article e109687.
[53] Rand D. G., Greene J. D., & Nowak M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489(7416), 427-430.
[54] Shi R., Chen Y., Qi W., Shen W., & Liu S. (2023). When do unfair victims become more prosocial? Benefiting from growth beliefs. Current Psychology, 42(17), 14428-14439.
[55] Shi, R., & Liu, C. (2019). Intuition-based prosociality: Thinking based on social heuristics hypothesis. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(8), 1468-1477.
[石荣, 刘昌. (2019). 基于直觉的亲社会性:来自社会启发式假设的思考. 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1468-1477.]
[56] Shi R., Qi W. G., Ding Y., Liu C., & Shen W. (2020). Under what circumstances is helping an impulse? Emergency and prosocial traits affect intuitive prosocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, Article 109828.
[57] Siu, A. M., & Shek, D. T. (2005). Validation of the interpersonal reactivity index in a Chinese context. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(2), 118-126.
[58] Small D. A., Loewenstein G., & Slovic P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153.
[59] Steinbeis N., Bernhardt B. C., & Singer T. (2012). Impulse control and underlying functions of the left DLPFC mediate age-related and age-independent individual differences in strategic social behavior. Neuron, 73(5), 1040-1051.
[60] Stevens, J. R., & Hauser, M. D. (2004). Why be nice? Psychological constraints on the evolution of cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 60-65.
[61] Tan M., Li M., Li J., Li H., You C., Zhang G., & Zhong Y. (2022). Risk decision: The self-charity discrepancies in electrophysiological responses to outcome evaluation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, Article 965677.
[62] Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (2000). The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. Psychophysiology, 37(2), 190-203.
[63] Yan Z., Yan L., Zou X., Fan W., Tian Q., & Qiu X. (2015). A cognitive study of kinship on moral dilemma judgement: Evidence of ERPs. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(1), 54-61.
[颜志雄, 邹霞, 燕良轼, 范伟, 谭千保, 邱小艳. (2015). 道德两难判断中亲属关系的认知研究: 来自ERPs的证据. 心理科学, 38(1), 54-61]
[64] Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2014). Spatiotemporal neural dynamics of moral judgment: A high-density ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 60, 39-45.
[65] Zaki, J., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Intuitive Prosociality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 466-470.
[66] Zaki J. A.,& Mitchell, J. P. (2016). Prosociality as a form of reward-seeking. In J. D. Greene, I. Morrison, & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Positive Neuroscience (pp. 57-72). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[67] Zhan Y., Xiao X., Tan Q., Li J., & Zhong Y. (2022). Influence of reputational concern and social distance on moral decision-making under the harmful dilemma: Evidence from behavioral and ERPs study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(6), 613-627.
[占友龙, 肖啸, 谭千保, 李琎, 钟毅平. (2022). 声誉关注与社会距离对伤害困境中道德决策的影响:来自行为与ERPs的证据. 心理学报, 54(6), 613-627]
[68] Zhang H., Ding H., Lu Y., Wang X., & Cai D. (2021). Neural Responses to Mandatory and Voluntary Donation Impact Charitable Giving Decisions: An Event-Related Potentials Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 783825.
[69] Zhang H., Zhao H., & Xu Y. (2018). The structure of Chinese virtuous personality and questionnaire development. Psychological Exploration, (3), 221-227.
[张和云, 赵欢欢, 许燕. (2018). 中国人善良人格的结构研究. 心理学探新, (3), 221-227.]