互动反馈促进说服的作用机制：双人近红外研究

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0805

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 现有说服领域研究大多仍停留在对信息内容的机械理解, 忽视了说服的互动性。本研究通过创设高生态效度的双人说服范式, 结合近红外功能成像技术, 探究互动反馈对说服行为的影响及其认知和神经基础。结果表明, 相较于无互动反馈条件, 互动反馈提高了说服结果和感知说服力, 并增强了说服者和被说服者在右侧额中、左侧颞顶的脑−脑同步, 且该脑−脑同步正向预测了说服结果。在说服策略使用上, 相较于支持性说服策略, 互动反馈中说服者更频繁地使用反驳性策略, 且脑−脑同步有效识别和追踪了两种不同策略。综上, 本研究为理解互动反馈如何促进人际说服提供了新视角, 有助于深入解析人际神经科学背后复杂且真实的说服过程。

关键词: 说服, 互动反馈, 说服策略, 近红外功能成像技术, 脑-脑同步

Abstract:

Persuasion is a fundamental social skill in humans, serving as a crucial foundation for information propagation and social influence. Existing research has predominantly focused on a mechanical understanding of persuasive content, overlooking the interactive nature of persuasion. The current study investigates the effects of interactive feedback on interpersonal persuasion and its underlying neurocognitive mechanisms, utilizing a dyadic persuasion paradigm with high ecological validity in combination with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).
Participants visited the laboratory on two occasion to complete all tasks: the item selection task (first visit) and the fNIRS hyperscanning dyadic persuasion task (second visit). In the item selection task, participants attended the laboratory individually, where they were instructed to read the Arctic survival scenario, select the three most critical items from a list of 15 items, and rank them according to their significance for survival. The fNIRS hyperscanning task consisted of two phases: a no-discussion phase (no feedback) and a discussion phase (feedback). Additionally, to eliminate the confounding effects of interactive feedback on persuasion that might arise from repeated information processing (e.g., repeated exposure to persuasive content enhancing persuasion) or interpersonal factors (e.g., intimacy, interpersonal distance), two control conditions were included. In control condition 1, both task parts were identical. In control condition 2, phase two involved independent thinking phase, where participants were asked to reflect independently on the other person’s opinions and complete the item selection task. This study primarily focuses on the prefrontal cortex and the left temporoparietal regions.
The behavioral results indicate that, compared to the no interactive feedback condition, interactive feedback enhanced both persuasion outcomes and perceived persuasiveness. In neural activity, our results showed that interactive feedback strengthened brain-to-brain synchrony between the persuader and the persuadee in the right frontal cortex and left temporoparietal regions, with this synchrony positively predicting persuasion outcomes. Granger causality results further revealed the directional characteristics of the brain-to-brain synchrony, shedding light on the interaction patterns between the persuader and the persuadee during persuasive interaction. Regarding the use of persuasion strategies, compared to supportive strategy, persuaders in the interactive feedback phase more frequently employed refutational strategies. Furthermore, brain-to-brain synchrony under the refutational strategy was significantly higher than under the supportive strategy. Moreover, brain-to-brain synchrony gradually increased after, rather than before, the refutational strategy was employed. This finding confirms that refutational strategies are crucial for promoting persuasion, with the brain-to-brain synchrony between the persuader's left superior temporal gyrus and the persuadee's right frontal gyrus effectively tracking and identifying the use of this strategy.
In summary, brain-to-brain synchrony serves as a critical neural mechanisms that drives the persuader and persuadee to reach cognitive consensus, thereby facilitating subsequent changes in the persuadee's attitudes and behaviors. The current study provides a novel perspective on how interactive feedback enhances interpersonal persuasion and contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex and authentic persuasion processes through interpersonal neuroscience.

Key words: persuasion, interactive feedback, persuasion strategy, fNIRS hyperscanning, brain-to-brain synchronization

中图分类号:

B845
C91

李杨卓, 张如倩, 宋森森, 李先春, 罗俊龙. (2025). 互动反馈促进说服的作用机制：双人近红外研究. 心理学报, 57(5), 805-819.

LI Yangzhuo, ZHANG Ruqian, SONG Sensen, LI Xianchun, LUO Junlong. (2025). Interactive feedback in persuader-persuadee interaction enhances persuasion: An fNIRS hyperscanning study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(5), 805-819.

图/表 5

图1 实验流程、任务和光极点位置示意图。(A)实验流程示意图。虚线方框标记部分为实验组和两个控制组不一致的地方。(B)实验材料(北极求生任务)示意图。(C)fNIRS探测位置。发射光极(橙色)和接受光极(蓝色)分别位于前额叶和左侧颞顶区域(探测器之间距离为30 mm), 红色空心圆代表光极片放置参考点。彩图见电子版, 下同。

图2 行为学和视音频解码结果。(A)说服结果。(B)感知说服力评分结果。(C)两种说服策略类型(反驳性策略和支持性策略)比较结果。(D)根据说服结果增强(阶段2-阶段1)将被试对划分为高/低两组示意。(E)两种说服策略在高低分组中的比较结果。* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

图3 脑−脑同步结果。(A) 2116个通道对交互效应F值。经FDR校正后显著的3个通道对被白色圈突出显示。(B) 3个显著通道对的空间位置示意。基于通道对所在脑区的空间分布, 将 CH39_CH1和CH39_CH5这两个空间分布相邻的通道对合并命名为Cluster 1; 将 CH39_CH26命名为Cluster 2。(C) 合并后的Cluster 1和Cluster 2脑−脑同步交互效应结果。(D-F) 脑−脑同步有效性验证。D.被试对不打乱, 内部阶段打乱方法对脑−脑同步的有效性检验; E.真实数据集交互效应的脑−脑同步显著高于随机打乱下的脑−脑同步虚无分布。红色虚线为95%置信区间, 蓝色实线为脑−脑同步相干值的真实值位置; F. 原始配对下的交互效应(F值)显著大于随机配对条件F值的虚无分布, 红色实线为交互效应真实值。** p < 0.01

表1 脑−脑同步对说服结果的预测

分组模型	模型参数	标准化回归系数 (β)	显著性 (corrected-p)
实验组(n = 33)
阶段1	R² = 0.085	Cluster 1 = −0.04	0.644
	F = 0.89	Cluster 2 = −0.08	0.596
	p = 0.943
阶段2	R² = 0.386	Cluster 1 = 0.49	0.026
	F = 4.56	Cluster 2 = 0.24	0.092
	p = 0.024
阶段2-阶段1	R² = 0.401	Cluster 1 = 0.41	0.033
	F = 4.12	Cluster 2 = 0.21	0.108
	p = 0.032
控制组1 (n = 28)
阶段1	R² = 0.082	Cluster 1 = −0.18	0.241
	F = 0.04	Cluster 2 = 0.03	0.633
	p = 0.943
阶段2	R² = 0.105	Cluster 1 = −0.16	0.279
	F = 1.46	Cluster 2 = −0.07	0.543
	p = 0.694
阶段2-阶段1	R² = 0.104	Cluster 1 = −0.03	0.714
	F = 0.56	Cluster 2 = 0.10	0.369
	p = 0.889
控制组2 (n = 30)
阶段1	R² = 0.188	Cluster 1 = 0.13	0.269
	F = 1.16	Cluster 2 = 0.05	0.643
	p = 0.623
阶段2	R² = 0.063	Cluster 1 = 0.05	0.677
	F = 0.69	Cluster 2 = −0.05	0.609
	p = 0.842
阶段2-阶段1	R² = 0.113	Cluster 1 = −0.19	0.247
	F = 1.07	Cluster 2 = 0.17	0.288
	p = 0.746

图4 脑−脑同步联合视音频解码结果。(A)手动逐帧编码示意。彩色阴影区域代表该阶段说服者/被说服者正在发言, 正上方不同颜色的长条代表两种不同说服策略。(B)支持性和反驳性说服策略示意。(C)两种说服策略在任务过程中的动态示意。(D)两种策略脑−脑同步差异性比较。(E)说服策略出现前/后8秒脑−脑同步动态变化示意。* p < 0.05

参考文献 59

[1]	Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2017). Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[2]	Ayrolles, A., Brun, F., Chen, P., Djalovski, A., Beauxis, Y., Delorme, R., ... Dumas, G. (2021). HyPyP: A Hyperscanning python pipeline for inter-brain connectivity analysis. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(1-2), 72-83. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa141 pmid: 33031496
[3]	Baek, E. C., & Falk, E. B. (2018). Persuasion and influence: What makes a successful persuader? Current Opinion in Psychology, 24, 53-57. doi: S2352-250X(17)30287-7 pmid: 29803961
[4]	Barasch, A., & Berger, J. (2014). Broadcasting and narrowcasting: How audience size affects what people share. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 286-299.
[5]	Barnett, L., & Seth, A. K. (2014). The MVGC multivariate granger causality toolbox: A new approach to granger causal inference. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 223, 50-68. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.018 pmid: 24200508
[6]	Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586-607.
[7]	Binder, A., Naderer, B., & Matthes, J. (2021). Shaping healthy eating habits in children with persuasive strategies: Toward a typology. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 676127.
[8]	Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., & Petty, R. E. (2018). The neuroscience of persuasion: A review with an emphasis on issues and opportunities. Social Neuroscience, 13(2), 129-172. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1273851 pmid: 28005461
[9]	Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 pmid: 16367530
[10]	Cascio, C. N., Scholz, C., & Falk, E. B. (2015). Social influence and the brain: Persuasion, susceptibility to influence and retransmission. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 51-57.
[11]	Cope, M., & Delpy, D. T. (1988). System for long-term measurement of cerebral blood and tissue oxygenation on newborn infants by near infrared transillumination. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 26(3), 289-294.
[12]	Cooper, J., Blackman, S., & Keller, K. (2015). The science of attitudes. New York, NY: Routledge.
[13]	Couzin, I. D. (2018). Synchronization: The key to effective communication in animal collectives. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(10), 844-846. doi: S1364-6613(18)30179-7 pmid: 30266143
[14]	Dai, B., Chen, C., Long, Y., Zheng, L., Zhao, H., Bai, X., ... Lu, C. (2018). Neural mechanisms for selectively tuning in to the target speaker in a naturalistic noisy situation. Nature Communications, 9(1), 2405.
[15]	Di Plinio, S., Aquino, A., Haddock, G., Alparone, F. R., & Ebisch, S. J. (2023). Brain and behavioral contributions to individual choices in response to affective-cognitive persuasion. Cerebral Cortex, 33(5), 2361-2374.
[16]	Dietvorst, R. C., Verbeke, W. J. M, Bagozzi, R. P., Yoon, C., Smits, M., & van der Lugt, A. (2009). A sales force-specific theory-of-mind scale: Tests of its validity by classical methods and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 653-668.
[17]	Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., Kaggen, L., Oostrik, M., McClintock, J., ... Poeppel, D. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world dynamic group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology, 27(9), 1375-1380. doi: S0960-9822(17)30411-6 pmid: 28457867
[18]	Dmochowski, J. P., Bezdek, M. A., Abelson, B. P., Johnson, J. S., Schumacher, E. H., & Parra, L. C. (2014). Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing. Nature Communications, 5(1), 4567.
[19]	Duan, L., Zhao, Z., Lin, Y., Wu, X., Luo, Y., & Xu, P. (2018). Wavelet-based method for removing global physiological noise in functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Biomedical Optics Express, 9(8), 3805-3820. doi: 10.1364/BOE.9.003805 pmid: 30338157
[20]	Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644-658. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644 pmid: 19899859
[21]	Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187-198.
[22]	Eisend, M. (2010). Explaining the joint effect of source credibility and negativity of information in two-sided messages. Psychology & Marketing, 27(11), 1032-1049.
[23]	Falk, E. B., Berkman, E. T., Whalen, D., & Lieberman, M. D. (2011). Neural activity during health messaging predicts reductions in smoking above and beyond self-report. Health Psychology, 30(2), 177-185. doi: 10.1037/a0022259 pmid: 21261410
[24]	Falk, E. B., Cascio, C. N., & Coronel, J. C. (2015). Neural prediction of communication relevant outcomes. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(1-2), 30-54.
[25]	Falk, E. B., & Scholz, C. (2018). Persuasion, influence, and value: Perspectives from communication and social neuroscience. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 329-356.
[26]	Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, Jr W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528.
[27]	Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., & Jevrejeva, S. (2004). Application of the cross wavelet transform and wavelet coherence to geophysical time series. Nonlinear Process Geophys, 11(5/6), 561-566.
[28]	Imhof, M. A., Schmälzle, R., Renner, B., & Schupp, H. T. (2020). Strong health messages increase audience brain coupling. NeuroImage, 216, 16527. doi: S1053-8119(20)30014-8 pmid: 31954843
[29]	Jensen, B. (1973). Human reciprocity: An arctic exemplification. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43(3), 447-458. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1973.tb00816.x pmid: 4711088
[30]	Kingsbury, L., Huang, S., Wang, J., Gu, K., Golshani, P., Wu, Y. E., & Hong, W. (2019). Correlated neural activity and encoding of behavior across brains of socially interacting animals. Cell, 178(2), 429-446. doi: S0092-8674(19)30550-1 pmid: 31230711
[31]	Koriat, A., & Adiv, S. (2011). The construction of attitudinal judgments: Evidence from attitude certainty and response latency. Social Cognition, 29(5), 577-611.
[32]	Jiang, J., Chen, C., Dai, B., Shi, G., Ding, G., Liu, L., & Lu, C. (2015). Leader emergence through interpersonal neural synchronization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(14), 4274-4279. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422930112 pmid: 25831535
[33]	Li, R., & Sundar, S. S. (2022). Can interactive media attenuate psychological reactance to health messages? A study of the role played by user commenting and audience metrics in persuasion. Health Communication, 37(11), 1355-1367.
[34]	Li, Y., Luo, X., Wang, K., & Li, X. (2023). Persuader-receiver neural coupling underlies persuasive messaging and predicts persuasion outcome. Cerebral Cortex, 33(11), 6818-6833.
[35]	Limbu, Y. B., Jayachandran, C., Babin, B. J., & Peterson, R. T. (2016). Empathy, nonverbal immediacy, and salesperson performance: The mediating role of adaptive selling behavior. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(5), 654-667.
[36]	Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 53-68.
[37]	Lloyd-Fox, S., Blasi, A., & Elwell, C. E. (2010). Illuminating the developing brain: The past, present and future of functional near infrared spectroscopy. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(3), 269-284. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.07.008 pmid: 19632270
[38]	Modic, D., Anderson, R., & Palomäki, J. (2018). We will make you like our research: The development of a susceptibility-to-persuasion scale. PloS One, 13(3), e0194119.
[39]	Molavi, B., & Dumont, G. A. (2012). Wavelet-based motion artifact removal for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Physiological Measurement, 33(2), 259-270. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/33/2/259 pmid: 22273765
[40]	O'Keefe, D. J. (Ed). (2016). Persuasion and social influence. The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy(pp. 1-19). Northwestern University Press.
[41]	Pan, Y., Cheng, X., & Hu, Y. (2023). Three heads are better than one: Cooperative learning brains wire together when a consensus is reached. Cerebral Cortex, 33(4), 1155-1169.
[42]	Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2015). Emotion and persuasion: Cognitive and meta-cognitive processes impact attitudes. Cognition and Emotion, 29(1), 1-26.
[43]	Pinti, P., Merla, A., Aichelburg, C., Lind, F., Power, S., Swingler, E., ... Tachtsidis, I. (2017). A novel GLM-based method for the Automatic IDentification of functional Events (AIDE) in fNIRS data recorded in naturalistic environments. Neuroimage, 155, 291-304. doi: S1053-8119(17)30391-9 pmid: 28476662
[44]	Reinero, D. A., Dikker, S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2021). Inter- brain synchrony in teams predicts collective performance. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(1-2), 43-57. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsaa135 pmid: 32991728
[45]	Reiss, A. L., Bryant, D. M., Glover, G. H., Liu, N., & Cui, X. (2015). Inferring deep-brain activity from cortical activity using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Biomedical Optics Express, 6(3), 1074-1089. doi: 10.1364/BOE.6.001074 pmid: 25798327
[46]	Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Chiavarino, C., & Humphreys, G. W. (2004). Left temporoparietal junction is necessary for representing someone else's belief. Nature Neuroscience, 7(5), 499-500. doi: 10.1038/nn1223 pmid: 15077111
[47]	Sasai, S., Homae, F., Watanabe, H., & Taga, G. (2011). Frequency-specific functional connectivity in the brain during resting state revealed by NIRS. NeuroImage, 56(1), 252-257. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.075 pmid: 21211570
[48]	Schmälzle, R., Häcker, F. E., Honey, C. J., & Hasson, U. (2015). Engaged listeners: Shared neural processing of powerful political speeches. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(8), 1137-1143. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu168 pmid: 25653012
[49]	Scholz, C., Baek, E. C., O’Donnell, M. B., Kim, H. S., Cappella, J. N., & Falk, E. B. (2017). A neural model of valuation and information virality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(11), 2881-2886. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1615259114 pmid: 28242678
[50]	Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., & Mendelsohn, A. (2019). Real-life neuroscience: An ecological approach to brain and behavior research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 841-859. doi: 10.1177/1745691619856350 pmid: 31408614
[51]	Singh, A. K., Okamoto, M., Dan, H., Jurcak, V., & Dan, I. (2005). Spatial registration of multichannel multi-subject fNIRS data to MNI space without MRI. NeuroImage, 27(4), 842-851. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.019 pmid: 15979346
[52]	Tsuzuki, D., Jurcak, V., Singh, A. K., Okamoto, M., Watanabe, E., & Dan, I. (2007). Virtual spatial registration of stand- alone fNIRS data to MNI space. NeuroImage, 34(4), 1506-1518.
[53]	Van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., Peters, S., Braams, B. R., & Crone, E. A. (2016). What motivates adolescents? Neural responses to rewards and their influence on adolescents’ risk taking, learning, and cognitive control. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 135-147.
[54]	Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1978). Depolarization of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(8), 872-885.
[55]	Wallace, L. E., Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (2020). When Sources honestly provide their biased opinion: Bias as a distinct source perception with independent effects on credibility and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(3), 439-453. doi: 10.1177/0146167219858654 pmid: 31282841
[56]	Xie, H., Karipidis, I. I., Howell, A., Schreier, M., Sheau, K. E., Manchanda, M. K., ... Saggar, M. (2020). Finding the neural correlates of collaboration using a three-person fMRI hyperscanning paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(37), 23066-23072.
[57]	Xu, M., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Two-sided messages promote openness for morally based attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 1151-1166.
[58]	Zhao, H., Cheng, T., Zhai, Y., Long, Y., Wang, Z., & Lu, C. (2021). How mother-child interactions are associated with a child’s compliance. Cerebral Cortex, 31(9), 4398-4410.
[59]	Zhu, Y., & Hu, Y. (2024). Chunking feedback in instructor- learner interaction facilities long-term learning transfer: Behavioral and fNIRS hyperscanning studies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(5), 555-576.
	[朱怡, 胡谊. (2024). 师生互动中组块化反馈促进长时学习迁移: 行为和近红外超扫描研究. 心理学报, 56(5), 555-576.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00555