承诺水平与社会距离对信任投资的影响：来自行为与ERPs的证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01859

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为考察承诺水平和社会距离对信任行为的影响及其神经机制, 本研究在承诺者(朋友和陌生人)做出高水平(vs.低水平)的承诺后, 要求被试选择是否信任对方, 同时记录决策时的行为及神经反应。行为结果发现, 相较于陌生人, 当承诺者为朋友时被试会表现出较高的信任行为, 且其信任行为不受承诺水平的影响。然而, 当承诺者是陌生人时, 被试在低水平承诺条件下比高水平承诺条件下表现出更高的信任行为。脑电结果发现, 高水平承诺比低水平承诺诱发了更大的P2波幅。此外, 当承诺者是朋友时, 信任行为所诱发的N2和P3波幅不受承诺水平的影响; 然而, 当承诺者是陌生人时, 被试在低水平承诺条件下的信任行为比高水平承诺条件下的信任行为所诱发的N2波幅更负, 但高水平承诺条件下的信任行为所诱发的P3大于低水平承诺条件。这些结果说明,当承诺者是陌生人时, 人们的信任行为是出于自我利益的考虑; 然而, 当承诺者是朋友时, 个体的信任行为是出于自我和朋友的共同利益的考量。

关键词: 承诺水平, 社会距离, 信任决策, 合理信号理论, 事件相关电位(ERPs)

Abstract:

Previous research has revealed that trust plays an important role in promoting functioning, economic growth, and individual well-being in human society. Trust refers to individuals’ willingness to take risks to hand over their resources to others in the context of social uncertainty. Based on rational signal theory, individuals tend to make social decisions (e.g. trust) according to perceived social information of others, such as social identity, gestures, language, and behaviors. Among these, trustees’ social identity and their promises are important social information that convey whether an individual is trustworthy and reliable. Previous research has only examined the effect of promise levels on trust decisions, or the effect social distance on trust decisions. However, little is known about how promise levels and social distance interact to affect trust behaviors and its neural mechanisms.
We adapted a Trust Game (TG) and the event-related potentials (ERPs) to examine the neurocognitive mechanisms of the effect of promise levels and social distance on trust behaviors. In particular, participates were asked to choose whether to trust their friends and strangers when they made high and low-level promises while electroencephalograms (EEGs) were recorded. Within each round, participants were informed of the promiser and their promise. We adopted two promise levels from previous studies: high-level promises would return 28 yuan (70%), and low-level 12 yuan (30%). The social distance includes both friend and stranger levels. The experiment consisted of 600 trials, including 150 trials for each condition.
The behavioral results indicated that when the promiser was a friend, participants were more likely to invest and this was not affected by promise levels. However, when the promiser was a stranger, participants were more likely to invest when they were informed of low-level promises than high-level promises. The ERP results showed that the P2 was larger for the high-level promises than for the low-level promises. More importantly, when the promiser was a stranger, the N2 was more negative when they were informed of low-level promises than high-level promises. Conversely, the P3 was larger when they were informed of high-level promises than low-level promises. However, when the promiser was a friend, the N2 and P3 amplitudes had no difference.
These results suggest that motivations of trusting behaviors toward friends and strangers are driven by different psychological mechanisms. Individuals trust friends more, and when the promiser is a friend, individuals can be motivated by the mutual interests of self and friends when making trust choices. However, when the promiser is a stranger, individuals are only driven by self-interest, and they do not care about strangers’ benefits when making trust choices. The present study provides insight into how the brain processes the interplay of social distance and promise levels on trust decisions, which broadens the previous insight into understanding trust behaviors.

Key words: promise levels, social distance, trust behavior, rational signal theory, event-related potentials (ERPs)

中图分类号:

B842
B845

李梅, 李琎, 张冠斐, 钟毅平, 李红. (2023). 承诺水平与社会距离对信任投资的影响：来自行为与ERPs的证据. 心理学报, 55(11), 1859-1871.

LI Mei, LI Jin, ZHANG Guanfei, ZHONG Yiping, LI Hong. (2023). Influence of social distance and promise levels on trust decisions: An ERPs study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(11), 1859-1871.

图/表 5

表1 38名被试在每种条件下信任次数的范围及平均数

条件	信任次数的范围	信任次数的平均数(M ± SD)
朋友低水平承诺	44~149	118.74 ± 29.45
朋友高水平承诺	42~150	117.08 ± 28.55
陌生人低水平承诺	8~150	97.55 ± 38.53
陌生人高水平承诺	4~133	70.24 ± 35.96

图1 信任博弈任务单个试次的实验流程图

图2 各实验条件下信任行为的比例及信任认知的主观评分注：*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, 下同

图3 各实验条件下信任行为在Fz与FCz点诱发的脑波形图(A)以及脑地形图(B)以及各个实验条件下的平均波幅(C)

图4 各实验条件下的信任行为在CPz与Pz点诱发的脑波形图(A)以及脑地形图(B)以及各个实验条件下的平均波幅(C)

参考文献 72

[1]	Aimone J. A., & Houser D. J. E. E. (2012). What you don’t know won’t hurt you: A laboratory analysis of betrayal aversion. Experimental Economics, 15(4), 571−588.
[2]	Aron A., Aron E. N., & Smollan D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596−612.
[3]	Bacharach M., & Gambetta D. (2001). Trust in signs. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 148−184). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[4]	Bar-Haim Y., Lamy D., & Glickman S. (2005). Attentional bias in anxiety: A behavioral and ERP study. Brain and Cognition, 59(1), 11−22.
[5]	Baumgartner T., Fischbacher U., Feierabend A., Lutz K., & Fehr E. (2009). The neural circuitry of a broken promise. Neuron, 64(5), 756−770.
[6]	Baumgartner T., Heinrichs M., Vonlanthen A., Fischbacher U., & Fehr E. J. N. (2008). Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans. Neuron, 58(4), 639−650.
[7]	Berg J., Dickhaut J., & McCabe K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122−142.
[8]	Binzel C., & Fehr D. (2013). Social distance and trust: Experimental evidence from a slum in Cairo. Journal of Development Economics, 103(1), 99−106.
[9]	Blue P. R., Hu J., & Zhou X. (2018). Higher status honesty is worth more: The effect of social status on honesty evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 350. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00350 pmid: 29615948
[10]	Bohnet I., & Frey B. S. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review, 89(1), 335−339.
[11]	Boudreau C., McCubbins M. D., & Coulson S. (2009). Knowing when to trust others: An ERP study of decision making after receiving information from unknown people. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(1), 23−34.
[12]	Brewer M. B. (2008). Depersonalized trust and ingroup cooperation. In J. I. Krueger (Ed.), Rationality and social responsibility: Essays in honor of Robyn Mason Dawes (pp. 215−232). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
[13]	Campanhã C., Minati L., Fregni F., & Boggio P. S. (2011). Responding to unfair offers made by a friend: Neuroelectrical activity changes in the anterior medial prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(43), 15569−15574.
[14]	Carlson R. W., Aknin L. B., & Liotti M. (2015). When is giving an impulse? An ERP investigation of intuitive prosocial behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(7), 1121−1129.
[15]	Carretié L., Mercado F., Tapia M., & Hinojosa J. A. (2001). Emotion, attention, and the ‘negativity bias’, studied through event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 41(1), 75−85.
[16]	Charness G., & Dufwenberg M. (2006). Promises and partnership. Econometrica, 74(6), 1579−1601.
[17]	Chen J., & Houser D. (2017). Promises and lies: Can observers detect deception in written messages. Experimental Economics, 20(2), 396−419.
[18]	Chen J., Yuan J., Feng T., Chen A., Gu B., & Li H. J. B. p. (2011). Temporal features of the degree effect in self-relevance: Neural correlates. Biological Psychology, 87(2), 290−295.
[19]	Connelly B. L., Certo S. T., Ireland R. D., & Reutzel C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39−67.
[20]	Cuddy A. J., Fiske S. T., & Glick P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631−648.
[21]	Cui F., Wu S., Wu H., Wang C., Jiao C., & Luo Y. (2018). Altruistic and self-serving goals modulate behavioral and neural responses in deception. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13(1), 63−71.
[22]	Daniel W., Münte T. F., & Jascha R. (2009). Negative affect induced by derogatory verbal feedback modulates the neural signature of error detection. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(3), 227−237.
[23]	Defoe I. N., Dubas J. S., Figner B., & Van Aken M. A. G. (2015). A meta-analysis on age differences in risky decision making: Adolescents versus children and adults. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 48−84.
[24]	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.
[25]	Etang A., Fielding D., & Knowles S. (2011). Does trust extend beyond the village? Experimental trust and social distance in Cameroon. Experimental Economics, 14(1), 15−35.
[26]	Evans A. M., & Krueger J. I. (2009). The psychology (and economics) of trust. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 1003−1017.
[27]	Evans A. M., & Krueger J. I. (2011). Elements of trust: Risk and perspective-taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 171−177.
[28]	Evans A. M., & Krueger J. I. (2016). Bounded prospection in dilemmas of trust and reciprocity. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 17−28.
[29]	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.
[30]	Folstein J. R., & Van P. C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 152−170.
[31]	Foster J. D., Shenesey J. W., & Goff J. S. (2009). Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 885−889.
[32]	Fu C., Zhang Z., He J. Z., Huang S. L., Qiu J. Y., Wang Y. W. (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.
	[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.]
[33]	He G., & Jiang D. (2013). The effect of task frames and altruism on social discounting. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(10), 1131−1146.
	[何贵兵, 蒋多. (2013). 任务框架及利他人格对社会折扣的影响. 心理学报, 45(10), 1131−1146.]
[34]	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.
[35]	Ismayilov H., & Potters J. (2016). Why do promises affect trustworthiness, or do they? Experimental Economics, 19(2), 382−393.
[36]	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.
[37]	Lambert B., Declerck C. H., Emonds G., & Boone C. (2017). Trust as commodity: Social value orientation affects the neural substrates of learning to cooperate. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(4), 609−617.
[38]	Li D., Meng L., & Ma Q. (2017). Who deserves my trust? Cue-elicited feedback negativity tracks reputation learning in repeated social interactions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 307. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00307 pmid: 28663727
[39]	Li J., Sun Y., Li M., Li H. e., Fan W., & Zhong Y. (2020). Social distance modulates prosocial behaviors in the gain and loss contexts: An event-related potential (ERP) study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 150, 83−91.
[40]	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.
[41]	Li M., Li J., Tan M., & Zhong Y. J. N. L. (2021). Exposure to money modulates the processing of charitable donation: An event-related potentials study. Neuroscience Letters, 765, 136277. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2021.136277 URL
[42]	Ma Q., Meng L., & Shen Q. (2015). You have my word: Reciprocity expectation modulates feedback-related negativity in the trust game. Plos One, 10(2), e0119129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119129 URL
[43]	Maner J. K., & Gailliot M. T. (2007). Altruism and egoism: Prosocial motivations for helping depend on relationship context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 347−358.
[44]	Mayer R. C., Davis J. H., & Schoorman F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709−734.
[45]	Montes S. D., & Zweig D. (2009). Do promises matter? An exploration of the role of promises in psychological contract breach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1243−1260.
[46]	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.
[47]	Nowak M. A., & Sigmund K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437, 1291−1298.
[48]	Platow M. J., Foddy M., Yamagishi T., Lim L., & Chow A. (2012). Two experimental tests of trust in in-group strangers: The moderating role of common knowledge of group membership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 30−35.
[49]	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(5), 278.
[50]	Sapienza P., Toldra-Simats A., & Zingales L. (2013). Understanding trust. The Economic Journal, 123(573), 1313−1332.
[51]	Shen X., & Ferguson M. J. (2021). How resistant are implicit impressions of facial trustworthiness? When new evidence leads to durable updating. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104219. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104219 URL
[52]	Shu Y. (2011). Decision-making, outcome evaluation and the sequential effect in the trust game: An ERP Study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
	[舒尹卓. (2011). 信任博弈中决策、结果反馈及序列效应的ERP研究 (硕士学位论文). 东南大学, 南京.]
[53]	Silk J. B. (2003). Cooperation without counting:The puzzle of friendship. In P. Hammerstein (Ed.), Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 37−54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[54]	Tanis M., & Postmes T. (2005). Short communication: A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 413−424.
[55]	Thielmann I., & Hilbig B. E. (2015). Trust: An integrative review from a person−situation perspective. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 249−277.
[56]	van den Bos W., van Dijk E., Westenberg M., Rombouts S. A., & Crone E. A. (2009). What motivates repayment? Neural correlates of reciprocity in the trust Game. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(3), 294−304.
[57]	Veen V. v., & Carter C. S. (2002). The timing of action- monitoring processes in the anterior cingulate cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(4), 593−602.
[58]	Vekaria K. M., Brethel-Haurwitz K. M., Cardinale E. M., Stoycos S. A., & Marsh A. A. (2017). Social discounting and distance perceptions in costly altruism. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(5), 0100. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0100 URL
[59]	Wang P., & Chen L. (2011). The effects of sanction and social value orientation on trust and cooperation in public goods dilemmas. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(1), 52−64.
	[王沛, 陈莉. (2011). 惩罚和社会价值取向对公共物品两难中人际信任与合作行为的影响. 心理学报, 43(1), 52−64.]
[60]	Wang Y., Jing Y., Zhang Z., Lin C., & Valadez E. A. (2017). How dispositional social risk-seeking promotes trusting strangers: Evidence based on brain potentials and neural oscillations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(8), 1150−1163.
[61]	Wang Y., Zhang Z., Jing Y., Valadez E. A., & Simons R. F. (2016). How do we trust strangers? The neural correlates of decision making and outcome evaluation of generalized trust. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(10), 1666−1676.
[62]	Wang Y. W., Fu C., Ren X. F., Lin Y. Z., Zhang Z.... Zheng Y. W. (2017). Narcissistic personality modulates outcome evaluation in the trust game. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(8), 1080−1088.
	[王益文, 付超, 任相峰, 林羽中, 郭丰波, 张振, ... 郑玉玮. (2017). 自恋人格调节信任博弈的结果评价. 心理学报, 49(8), 1080−1088.]
[63]	Wheeless L. R., & Grotz J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3(3), 250−257.
[64]	Wu Y., Leliveld M. C., & Zhou X. (2011). Social distance modulates recipient's fairness consideration in the dictator game: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 88(2), 253−262.
[65]	Xin Z. Q., & Xin S. F. (2014). The influence of trustees’ social identity complexity on their trustworthiness. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(3), 415−426.
	[辛自强, 辛素飞. (2014). 被信任者社会身份复杂性对其可信性的影响. 心理学报, 46(3), 415−426.]
[66]	Xu Q., Yang S., Huang Q., Chen S., & Li P. (2020). A sense of unfairness reduces charitable giving to a third-party: Evidence from behavioral and electrophysiological data. Neuropsychologia, 142, 107443. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107443 URL
[67]	Yang X., Zheng L., Hu X. X., & Wang Y. W. (2021). The impact of the promise levels on trust decisions − The mediation effect of cheating notion. Journal of Psychological Science, 44(2), 355−361
	[杨雪, 郑磊, 胡小玄, 王益文. (2021). 承诺水平对信任与否的影响——被骗预期的中介作用. 心理科学, 44(2), 355−361.]
[68]	Yuan B., Zhang Z., Shen Y. L., Huang L., Li Y., & Wang Y. W. (2014). Value orientation and social distance influenced cooperation and aggression in decision-making: Evidences from chicken game. Journal of Psychological Science, 37(4), 962−967.
	[袁博, 张振, 沈英伦, 黄亮, 李颖, 王益文. (2014). 价值取向与社会距离影响博弈决策的合作与冲突行为: ChickenGame的证据. 心理科学, 37(4), 962−967.]
[69]	Yuki M., Maddux W. W., Brewer M. B., & Takemura K. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in relationship-and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 48−62.
[70]	Zhan Y., Xiao X., Tan Q., Li J., & Zhong Y. (2020). Neural correlations of the influence of self-relevance on moral decision-making involving a trade-off between harm and reward. Psychophysiology, 57(9), e13590. doi: 10.1111/psyp.v57.9 URL
[71]	Zhang X., Huang D. S., & Dong Z. K. (2019). An experiment study on the effect of information asymmetry on trust behavior in the social network. Journal of Systems Management, 28(2), 269−276.
	[张希, 黄登仕, 董占奎. (2019). 社会关系网络中信息不对称对信任行为影响的实验研究. 系统管理学报, 28(2), 269−276.]
[72]	Zhu Y., Zhang L., Fan J., & Han S. (2007). Neural basis of cultural influence on self-representation. NeuroImage, 34(3), 1310−1316.