第三方惩罚的神经机制：来自经颅直流电刺激的证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00571

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

第三方惩罚既是社会规范在群体得以维系的基石, 也是个体维护社会规范的体现。当前关注社会规范的神经研究大多基于第二方惩罚的独裁者或最后通牒实验框架, 缺乏对第三方维护社会规范过程中相关脑区活动的探索, 对这一过程的内在神经机制也不清楚。本文基于第三方惩罚的独裁者博弈框架, 对右侧背外侧前额叶区域(DLPFC)进行不同极性的经颅直流电刺激(tDCS), 同时依据第三方是否需要为其惩罚付出成本设计了零成本和有成本两个实验任务。结果发现, 第三方在零成本任务的情绪反应和惩罚显著受到tDCS设置的影响, 且阴极刺激显著提升了第三方的惩罚值, 这表明情绪机制对第三方惩罚有着重要影响。另外, 第三方在零成本和有成本任务中的惩罚差异在不同tDCS设置之间也存在显著差异, 这与第三方惩罚还受到自利机制影响的观点相符。本文率先为右侧DLPFC活动影响第三方惩罚提供了神经层面的证据, 且支持了第三方对社会规范的遵从与其负性情绪反应和自利加工密切相关的机制解释。

关键词: 社会规范, 第三方惩罚, 背外侧前额叶, 经颅直流电刺激, 情绪

Abstract:

The social order of human societies is largely maintained by social norms. However, we still know little about the cognitive and emotional foundations that shape social norms, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to understand how social norms are developed and maintained. Prior neural studies, which mainly perform second-party punishment based on the ultimatum framework, rarely explore the relevant brain areas as well as the neural mechanisms of third-party punishment driven by social norms. In the current study, we provide evidences that support the influences of two types of mechanisms (i.e., negative emotions and self-interest mechanisms) on social norms compliance of third parties at opposite directions. Meanwhile, right dorsolateral prefrontal area (DLPFC) is found to play a crucial role in this process.
In this study, we used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to investigate whether increasing or decreasing right DLPFC excitability influenced third-party punishment in a dictator game. Following an experimental design of “between-subject (tDCS treatments: anodal, cathodal, sham) × within-subject (cost of punishment treatments: without cost, with cost)”, ninety participants were first randomly assigned to receive anodal, cathodal, or sham stimulation in 15 minutes. They then performed two dictator game tasks as third parties. In Task Ⅰ (without cost) participants did not need to carry any costs for their punishment (none-cost task), while in Task Ⅱ (with cost) they were required to pay for their punishment actions.
The results are given as follows. We first performed repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA to examine the effect of tDCS treatment (anodal, cathodal and sham) on emotion response. We found a significant main effect of tDCS on emotion response. Meanwhile, post-hoc analysis (SNK) showed that anodal stimulation decreased negative emotions while cathodal stimulation enhanced negative emotions. Second, the results of repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect of tDCS on punishment in the none-cost Task Ⅰ, and post-hoc analysis (SNK) showed that cathodal stimulation significantly increased punishment while the effect of anodal stimulation was insignificant. Third, we also conducted repeated measured ANOVA and one-way ANOVA to test whether the difference of the punishment between the two tasks was affected by tDCS treatments. We found that the main effect of tDCS was significant. Moreover, post-hoc analysis (SNK) showed that the difference of punishment between the two tasks was significantly higher for cathodal stimulation than for sham stimulation, while the difference of punishment between the two tasks for anodal stimulation was insignificant compared to that of sham stimulation.
The present study provides one of the first neural evidences for the role of right DLPFC in third-parties’ social norms compliance. The results indicate that DLPFC, by affecting the processes of negative emotions and self-interest, is an important brain area of social norms compliance. When third parties face violations of social norms, their brains first release negative emotions that drive third parties to punish violators. Further, if third parties need to pay for their compliance with social norms, their rational goals about self-interest weaken negative emotional impulses. Finally, the compliance with social norms depends on the trade-offs between negative emotions and self-interest mechanisms.

Key words: social norms, third-party punishment, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), emotion

中图分类号:

殷西乐, 李建标, 陈思宇, 刘晓丽, 郝洁. (2019). 第三方惩罚的神经机制：来自经颅直流电刺激的证据. 心理学报, 51(5), 571-583.

YIN Xile, LI Jianbiao, CHEN Siyu, LIU Xiaoli, HAO Jie. (2019). Neural mechanisms of third-party punishment: Evidence from transcranial direct current stimulation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(5), 571-583.

图/表 6

参考文献 50

1	Chen, S. J., & Ma, J. H . ( 2011). Third-party punishment and social norm activation: The influence of social responsibility and emotion. Journal of Psychological Science, 34( 3), 670-675.
	[ 陈思静, 马剑虹 . ( 2011). 第三方惩罚与社会规范激活——社会责任感与情绪的作用. 心理科学, 34( 3), 670-675.]
2	Chen S. J., He Q., & Ma J. H . ( 2015). The influence of third- party punishment on cooperation: An explanation of social norm activation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47( 3), 389-405.
	[ 陈思静, 何铨, 马剑虹 . ( 2015). 第三方惩罚对合作行为的影响: 基于社会规范激活的解释. 心理学报, 47( 3), 389-405.]
3	Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, , M. R . ( 1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology ( pp. 1-17). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.
4	Civai C., Miniussi C., & Rumiati R. I . ( 2015). Medial prefrontal cortex reacts to unfairness if this damages the self: A tDCS study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10( 8), 1054-1060.
5	Cohen, J. ( 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
6	Corradi-Dell'Acqua C., Civai C., Rumiati R. I., & Fink G. R . ( 2012). Disentangling self- and fairness-related neural mechanisms involved in the ultimatum game: An fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8( 4), 424-431.
7	de la Fuente-Fernández R., Ruth T. J., Sossi V., Schulzer M., Calne D. B., & Stoessl A. J . ( 2001). Expectation and dopamine release: Mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease. Science, 293( 5532), 1164-1166.
8	Elster, J. ( 1989). Social norms and economic theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3( 4), 99-117.
9	Fan L. C., Lu L., & Liang J . ( 2013). The demand for the third party punishment: An Experimental Examination. Economic Research Journal, ( 5), 98-111.
	[ 范良聪, 刘璐, 梁捷 . ( 2013). 第三方的惩罚需求: 一个实验研究. 经济研究, ( 5), 98-111.]
10	Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U . ( 2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25( 2), 63-87.
11	Fehr, E., & Gächter, S . ( 2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415( 6868), 137-140.
12	Feinstein J. S., Adolphs R., Damasio A., & Tranel D . ( 2011). The human amygdala and the induction and experience of fear. Current Biology, 21( 1), 34-38.
13	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.
14	Filmer H. L., Dux P. E., & Mattingley J. B . ( 2014). Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function. Trends in Neurosciences, 37( 12), 742-753.
15	Filmer H. L., Mattingley J. B., & Dux P. E . ( 2013). Improved multitasking following prefrontal tDCS. Cortex, 49( 10), 2845-2852.
16	Fischbacher, U. ( 2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10( 2), 171-178.
17	Fischbacher U., Gächter S., & Fehr E . ( 2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71( 3), 397-404.
18	Gan T., Li W. Q., Tang H. H., Lu X. P., Li, X. L, Liu, C., & Luo Y. J . ( 2013). Exciting the right temporo-parietal junction with transcranial direct current stimulation influences moral intention processing. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45( 9), 1004-1014.
	[ 甘甜, 李万清, 唐红红, 陆夏平, 李小俚, 刘超, 罗跃嘉 . ( 2013). 经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图加工的影响. 心理学报, 45( 9), 1004-1014.]
19	Gan T., Shi R., Liu C., & Luo Y. J . ( 2018). Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on the right temporo-parietal junction modulates the helpful intention processing. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50( 1), 36-46.
	[ 甘甜, 石睿, 刘超, 罗跃嘉 . ( 2018). 经颅直流电刺激右侧颞顶联合区对助人意图加工的影响. 心理学报, 50( 1), 36-46.]
20	Gospic K., Mohlin E., Fransson P., Petrovic P., Johannesson M., & Ingvar M . ( 2011). Limbic justice--Amygdala involvement in immediate rejection in the Ultimatum Game. PLoS Biology, 9( 5), e1001054.
21	Harty S., Robertson I. H., Miniussi C., Sheehy O. C., Devine C. A., McCreery S., & O'Connell R. G . ( 2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation over right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex enhances error awareness in older age. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34( 10), 3646-3652.
22	Hummel F., Celnik P., Giraux P., Floel A., Wu W.-H., Gerloff C., & Cohen L. G . ( 2005). Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain, 128( 3), 490-499.
23	Jacobson L., Koslowsky M., & Lavidor M . ( 2012). tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: A meta- analytical review. Experimental Brain Research, 216( 1), 1-10.
24	Jordan J., Mcauliffe K., & Rand D . ( 2016). The effects of endowment size and strategy method on third party punishment. Experimental Economics, 19( 4), 741-763.
25	Knoch D., Nitsche M. A., Fischbacher U., Eisenegger C., Pascual-Leone A., & Fehr E . ( 2008). Studying the neurobiology of social interaction with transcranial direct current stimulation—The example of punishing unfairness. Cerebral Cortex, 18( 9), 1987-1990.
26	Knoch D., Pascual-Leone A., Meyer K., Treyer V., & Fehr E . ( 2006). Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science, 314( 5800), 829-832.
27	Li J., Yin X., Li D., Liu X., Wang G., & Qu L . ( 2017). Controlling the anchoring effect through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1079.
28	Luo J., Ye H., Zheng H. L., Jia Y. M., Chen S., & Huang D. Q . ( 2017). Modulating the activities of right and left temporo-parietal junction influences the capability of moral intention processing: A transcranial direct current stimulation study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 2), 228-240.
	[ 罗俊, 叶航, 郑昊力, 贾拥民, 陈姝, 黄达强 . ( 2017). 左右侧颞顶联合区对道德意图信息加工能力的共同作用——基于经颅直流电刺激技术. 心理学报, 49( 2), 228-240.]
29	Luo Y., Feng C. L., Gu R. L., Wu T. T., & Luo Y. J . ( 2013). The fairness norm in social decision-making: Behavioral and neuroscience studies. Advances in Psychological Science, 21( 2), 300-308.
	[ 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.]
30	Meiron, O., & Lavidor, M . ( 2013). Unilateral prefrontal direct current stimulation effects are modulated by working memory load and gender. Brain Stimulation, 6( 3), 440-447.
31	Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W . ( 2001). Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology, 57( 10), 1899-1901.
32	Ochsner K. N., Ray R. D., Cooper J. C., Robertson E. R., Chopra S., Gabrieli J. D., & Gross J. J . ( 2004). For better or for worse: Neural systems supporting the cognitive down-and up-regulation of negative emotion. Neuroimage, 23( 2), 483-499.
33	Ravizza, S. M., & Carter, C. S . ( 2008). Shifting set about task switching: Behavioral and neural evidence for distinct forms of cognitive flexibility. Neuropsychologia, 46( 12), 2924-2935.
34	Rêgo G. G., Lapenta O. M., Marques L. M., Costa T. L., Leite J., Carvalho S., .. Boggio P. S . ( 2015). Hemispheric dorsolateral prefrontal cortex lateralization in the regulation of empathy for pain. Neuroscience Letters, 594, 12-16.
35	Reno R. R., Cialdini R. B., & Kallgren C. A . ( 1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64( 1), 104-112.
36	Rowe J. B., Sakai K., Lund T. E., Ramsøy T., Christensen M. S., Baare W. F. C., .. Passingham R. E . ( 2007). Is the prefrontal cortex necessary for establishing cognitive sets? Journal of Neuroscience, 27( 48), 13303-13310.
37	Ruff C. C., Ugazio G., & Fehr E . ( 2013). Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation. Science, 342( 6157), 482-484.
38	Sakai, K. ( 2008). Task set and prefrontal cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31( 1), 219-245.
39	Sanfey A. G., Rilling J. K., Aronson J. A., Nystrom L. E., & Cohen J. D . ( 2003). The neural basis of economic decision- making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300( 5626), 1755-1758.
40	Sellaro R., Nitsche M. A., & Colzato L. S . ( 2016). The stimulated social brain: Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on social cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369( 1), 218-239. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13098 URL
41	Spitzer M., Fischbacher U., Herrnberger B., Grön G., & Fehr E . ( 2007). The neural signature of social norm compliance. Neuron, 56( 1), 185-196.
42	Tremblay S., Lepage J.-F., Latulipe-Loiselle A., Fregni F., Pascual-Leone A., & Théoret H . ( 2014). The uncertain outcome of prefrontal tDCS. Brain Stimulation, 7( 6), 773-783.
43	Wang G., Li J., Yin X., Li S., & Wei M . ( 2016). Modulating activity in the orbitofrontal cortex changes trustees' cooperation: A transcranial direct current stimulation study. Behavioural Brain Research, 303( 4), 71-75.
44	Wang Y., Wang Y., Lin C., Chen X., Yuan B., & Shen D . ( 2011). Modulation of conscientiousness on medial frontal negativity in negative emotions: An ERP study on ultimatum Game. Scientia Sinica Vitae, 41( 4), 320-331.
	[ 王益文, 王钰, 林崇德, 陈雪莹, 袁博, 沈德立 . ( 2011). 内侧额叶负波受负性情绪下责任感影响: 最后通牒任务的ERP研究. 中国科学: 生命科学, 41( 4), 320-331.]
45	Wang Y., Zhang Z., Zhang W., Huang L., Guo F., & Yuan S . ( 2014). Group membership modulates the recipient’s fairness consideration in ultimatum game. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46( 12), 1850-1859.
	[ 王益文, 张振, 张蔚, 黄亮, 郭丰波, 原胜 . ( 2014). 群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注. 心理学报, 46( 12), 1850-1859.]
46	Willis M. L., Murphy J. M., Ridley N. J., & Vercammen A . ( 2015). Anodal tDCS targeting the right orbitofrontal cortex enhances facial expression recognition. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10( 12), 1677-1683.
47	Wu, Y., & Zhou, X. L . ( 2012). The context-dependency of fairness processing: Evidence from ERP study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44( 6), 797-806.
	[ 吴燕, 周晓林 . ( 2012). 公平加工的情境依赖性: 来自ERP的证据. 心理学报, 44( 6), 797-806.]
48	Ye H., Chen S., Huang D., Wang S., & Luo J . ( 2015). Modulating activity in the prefrontal cortex changes decision-making for risky gains and losses: A transcranial direct current stimulation study. Behavioural Brain Research, 286, 17-21.
49	Zhou P. Y., Wang K., Li Q., & Liu X . ( 2012). Neural mechanisms of emotional modulation on memory. Chinese Science Bulletin, 57( 35), 3367-3375.
	[ 周平艳, 王凯, 李琦, 刘勋 . ( 2012). 情绪影响记忆的神经机制. 科学通报, 57( 35), 3367-3375.]
50	Zhou Y., Wang Y., Rao L.-L., Yang L.-Q., & Li S . ( 2014). Money talks: Neural substrate of modulation of fairness by monetary incentives. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 150.

方案公平性	tDCS	n	M	SD	ANOVA
不公平	阴极	29	-1.38	0.78	F(2, 86) = 12.07, p < 0.001, η² = 0.219
	虚拟	30	-0.97	0.72
	阳极	30	-0.33	0.96
	总体	89	-0.89	0.92
中等	阴极	29	0.00	0.80	F(2, 86) = 0.83, p = 0.438
	虚拟	30	0.23	0.77
	阳极	30	0.20	0.66
	总体	89	0.15	0.75
公平	阴极	29	1.52	0.57	F(2, 86) = 1.43, p = 0.245
	虚拟	30	1.30	0.70
	阳极	30	1.23	0.73
	总体	89	1.35	0.68

方案公平性	tDCS	n	M	SD	ANOVA
不公平	阴极	29	-1.38	0.78	F(2, 86) = 12.07, p < 0.001, η² = 0.219
	虚拟	30	-0.97	0.72
	阳极	30	-0.33	0.96
	总体	89	-0.89	0.92
中等	阴极	29	0.00	0.80	F(2, 86) = 0.83, p = 0.438
	虚拟	30	0.23	0.77
	阳极	30	0.20	0.66
	总体	89	0.15	0.75
公平	阴极	29	1.52	0.57	F(2, 86) = 1.43, p = 0.245
	虚拟	30	1.30	0.70
	阳极	30	1.23	0.73
	总体	89	1.35	0.68

方案公平性	tDCS	n	M	SD	ANOVA
不公平	阴极	29	29.59	9.88	F(2, 86) = 9.29, p < 0.001, η² = 0.178
	虚拟	30	19.37	13.74
	阳极	30	16.23	13.19
	总体	89	21.64	13.54
中等	阴极	29	9.69	8.61	F(2, 86) = 1.43, p = 0.246
	虚拟	30	6.53	6.75
	阳极	30	6.50	9.35
	总体	89	7.55	8.35
公平	阴极	29	1.76	9.28	F(2, 86) = 0.07, p = 0.935
	虚拟	30	1.83	9.14
	阳极	30	1.17	3.13
	总体	89	1.58	7.63

方案公平性	tDCS	n	M	SD	ANOVA
不公平	阴极	29	29.59	9.88	F(2, 86) = 9.29, p < 0.001, η² = 0.178
	虚拟	30	19.37	13.74
	阳极	30	16.23	13.19
	总体	89	21.64	13.54
中等	阴极	29	9.69	8.61	F(2, 86) = 1.43, p = 0.246
	虚拟	30	6.53	6.75
	阳极	30	6.50	9.35
	总体	89	7.55	8.35
公平	阴极	29	1.76	9.28	F(2, 86) = 0.07, p = 0.935
	虚拟	30	1.83	9.14
	阳极	30	1.17	3.13
	总体	89	1.58	7.63

方案公平性	tDCS	n	M	SD	ANOVA
不公平	阴极	29	21.90	13.10	F(2, 86) = 6.62, p = 0.002, η² = 0.133
	虚拟	30	12.67	12.92
	阳极	30	10.10	13.17
	总体	89	14.81	13.87
中等	阴极	29	7.48	9.48	F(2, 86) = 1.7, p = 0.188
	虚拟	30	4.00	6.68
	阳极	30	3.07	12.07
	总体	89	4.82	9.74
公平	阴极	29	1.76	9.28	F(2, 86) = 0.08, p = 0.925
	虚拟	30	1.33	9.28
	阳极	30	0.97	2.65
	总体	89	1.35	7.63