Subjects: Other Disciplines >> Synthetic discipline submitted time 2023-10-09 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Fairness plays a critical role in maintaining the social order. To understand fairness development, numerous studies have examined children's upholding fairness behaviors, such as resource allocation. In particular, the emergence of third-party altruism in Chinese children at the age of 8−10 is an important turning point in fairness development. Third-party altruism refers to the behavior of individuals voluntarily paying costs to punish violators, which is a form of prosocial behavior. Most previous studies have confirmed that social value orientation (SVO) affects prosocial behaviors, and some cognitive neuroscience studies have found that SVO and emotion together affect prosocial behaviors. However, we do not know the specific mechanisms by which children's SVO and emotions affect their third-party altruistic behaviors. Additionally, because third-party altruism can adopt punishment and compensation, the mechanisms may be different. Therefore, through two experiments, this study aimed to investigate the mechanisms of children's SVO and emotion on third-party altruism and the difference between children's third-party punishment and compensation behaviors in three offer conditions (i.e., high inequality, moderate inequality, and equality). Experiment 1 was based on the third-party punishment task and aimed to investigate the effect of children’s SVO on their emotion and punitive behaviors and to verify the mediating role of emotion. We recruited 233 children aged 10−12 years. After completing the demographic information, they were instructed to complete three third-party punishment tasks revised from the dictator game. The proposer in the dictator game offered one, three, and five coins from 10 coins to the recipient successively. As the third party, children reported the level of pleasure and decided whether to spend any integer of their endowed five coins to punish the proposer in each task. For every coin spent, two coins were deducted from the proposer’s endowment. The results revealed that prosocial children (vs. the pro-self) were more unpleased and spent more coins to punish the proposer, and emotion played a mediating role in the relationship between SVO and third-party punitive behaviors in the high inequality condition but not in the moderate inequality or equality conditions. To deeply understand children’s third-party altruistic behaviors and compare the two kinds of behaviors, we conducted Experiment 2 based on the third-party compensation task. We recruited 238 children aged 10−12 years. The experimental procedure was similar to that of Experiment 1, except that children in Experiment 2 spent coins to compensate the recipient rather than punish the proposer. The results revealed that prosocial children (vs. the pro-self) spent more coins to compensate the recipient in the high and moderate inequality conditions; emotion played a mediating role in the relationship between SVO and third-party compensation behaviors only in the high inequality condition. As for the difference between the two kinds of third-party altruistic behaviors, children in the third-party compensation (vs. punishment) task had less emotional fluctuation when confronted with three offers and spent more coins to maintain a fair order in the moderate unequal condition. These findings suggest that SVO had a stable effect on third-party punishment and compensation in 10- to 12-year-old children under all three offer conditions, and that emotion mediated the relationship between SVO and each kind of third-party altruistic behavior when children were confronted with an extremely unfair offer. Additionally, the children showed different levels of pleasure and behavior in the two third-party altruistic tasks. Our study contributes to revealing the mechanisms of SVO and emotion on two kinds of third-party altruistic behaviors and suggests that prosocial orientation is a critical factor in fostering children’s third-party altruism.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Recipients often reject unfair offers at the cost of their own interests in ultimatum games (UGs), reflecting their fairness preference. Yet fairness preference is not invariable. It is affected by various factors, among which empathy plays an important role. Individuals might, for example, sacrifice own interests to help others in need. This kind of behavior not only is contrary to the pursuit of self-interest maximization but also violates fairness principles. As individuals are not only concerned about fairness but also care for others, this study focuses on managing the relationship between the two potentially conflicting goals. We explored individuals’ behaviors and time dynamic processes of brain activities when fairness conflicted with empathy. It was hypothesized that empathy could modulate fairness-related decision making behaviors and ERPs. Thirty-seven college students (26 females, 21.00 ± 2.07 years) participated in this study and completed multiple ultimatum games. EEG signals were recorded during play. In the task, the proposers were underprivileged students (empathy condition) and ordinary children (non-empathy condition). Each proposer distributed 10 yuan between themself and one recipient. The participants played as recipients who would choose to accept or reject distribution offers (fair, disadvantageous unfair, advantageous unfair) by the proposers. The proposers and recipients would get the assigned money only if participants accepted the distribution offers. They received nothing if participants rejected the offer. The behavioral results showed that the acceptance rate in the empathy condition was greater than that in the non-empathy condition for the disadvantageous unfair condition, while the opposite result occurred in the advantageous unfair condition. The EEG results showed that in the non-empathy condition, the advantageous unfair offer induced more negative anterior N1 (AN1) than it did in the empathy condition, but there was no difference between the disadvantageous unfair versus fair conditions. In the advantageous unfair condition, the P2 amplitude of the empathy condition was significantly more positive than that for the non-empathy condition, while in the disadvantageous unfair condition, P2 amplitude of the non-empathy condition was slightly positive than that of the empathy condition. The disadvantageous unfair offer induced more negative medial frontal negativity (MFN) in the empathy condition, while no difference was found between fair versus unfair offers in the non-empathy condition. Additionally, the amplitude of P3 was larger in the fair versus the unfair conditions as it was not modulated by empathy. These findings suggest that experimentally-induced state empathy modulates fairness-related decision making behaviors and accompanying neural activity. Behavioral results indicate that state empathy takes priority in guiding people's behavior when it conflicts with the fairness criterion. For EEG results, empathy mainly modulates the early stage of the fairness concern and affects early attention and motivation as well as cognition and emotion. In later stages, the higher cognitive process represented by P3 is modulated only by fairness, not empathy. In conclusion, our study systematically explored and compared behavior patterns of fairness processing with temporal dynamic characteristics of brain activities by modulating empathy. The findings provide further insight into fairness-related decision making behaviors. They indicate the potential to influence individuals’ behaviors and cognition by manipulating empathy.
Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-10
Abstract：
Fairness plays a critical role in maintaining the social order. To understand fairness development, numerous studies have examined children's upholding fairness behaviors, such as resource allocation. In particular, the emergence of third-party altruism in Chinese children at the age of 8−10 is an important turning point in fairness development. Third-party altruism refers to the behavior of individuals voluntarily paying costs to punish violators, which is a form of prosocial behavior. Most previous studies have confirmed that social value orientation (SVO) affects prosocial behaviors, and some cognitive neuroscience studies have found that SVO and emotion together affect prosocial behaviors. However, we do not know the specific mechanisms by which children's SVO and emotions affect their third-party altruistic behaviors. Additionally, because third-party altruism can adopt punishment and compensation, the mechanisms may be different. Therefore, through two experiments, this study aimed to investigate the mechanisms of children's SVO and emotion on third-party altruism and the difference between children's third-party punishment and compensation behaviors in three offer conditions (i.e., high inequality, moderate inequality, and equality).
Experiment 1 was based on the third-party punishment task and aimed to investigate the effect of children’s SVO on their emotion and punitive behaviors and to verify the mediating role of emotion. We recruited 233 children aged 10–12 years. After completing the demographic information, they were instructed to complete three third-party punishment tasks revised from the dictator game. The proposer in the dictator game offered one, three, and five coins from 10 coins to the recipient successively. As the third party, children reported the level of pleasure and decided whether to spend any integer of their endowed five coins to punish the proposer in each task. For every coin spent, two coins were deducted from the proposer’s endowment. The results revealed that prosocial children (vs. the pro-self) were more unpleased and spent more coins to punish the proposer, and emotion played a mediating role in the relationship between SVO and third-party punitive behaviors in the high inequality condition but not in the moderate inequality or equality conditions.
To deeply understand children’s third-party altruistic behaviors and compare the two kinds of behaviors, we conducted Experiment 2 based on the third-party compensation task. We recruited 238 children aged 10–12 years. The experimental procedure was similar to that of Experiment 1, except that children in Experiment 2 spent coins to compensate the recipient rather than punish the proposer. The results revealed that prosocial children (vs. the pro-self) spent more coins to compensate the recipient in the high and moderate inequality conditions; emotion played a mediating role in the relationship between SVO and third-party compensation behaviors only in the high inequality condition. As for the difference between the two kinds of third-party altruistic behaviors, children in the third-party compensation (vs. punishment) task had less emotional fluctuation when confronted with three offers and spent more coins to maintain a fair order in the moderate unequal condition.
These findings suggest that SVO had a stable effect on third-party punishment and compensation in 10- to 12-year-old children under all three offer conditions, and that emotion mediated the relationship between SVO and each kind of third-party altruistic behavior when children were confronted with an extremely unfair offer. Additionally, the children showed different levels of pleasure and behavior in the two third-party altruistic tasks. Our study contributes to revealing the mechanisms of SVO and emotion on two kinds of third-party altruistic behaviors and suggests that prosocial orientation is a critical factor in fostering children’s third-party altruism.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Physiological Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2021-11-19
Abstract： Recipients often reject unfair offers at the cost of their own interests in ultimatum games (UGs), reflecting their fairness preference. Yet fairness preference is not invariable. It is affected by various factors, among which empathy plays an important role. Individuals might, for example, sacrifice own interests to help others in need. This kind of behavior not only is contrary to the pursuit of self-interest maximization but also violates fairness principles. As individuals are not only concerned about fairness but also care for others, this study focuses on managing the relationship between the two potentially conflicting goals. We explored individuals’ behaviors and time dynamic processes of brain activities when fairness conflicted with empathy. It was hypothesized that empathy could modulate fairness-related decision making behaviors and ERPs. Thirty-seven college students (26 females, 21.00 ± 2.07 years) participated in this study and completed multiple ultimatum games. EEG signals were recorded during play. In the task, the proposers were underprivileged students (empathy condition) and ordinary children (non-empathy condition). Each proposer distributed 10 yuan between themself and one recipient. The participants played as recipients who would choose to accept or reject distribution offers (fair, unfair–disadvantageous, unfair–advantageous) by the proposers. The proposers and recipients would get the assigned money only if participants accepted the distribution offers. They received nothing if participants rejected the offer. The behavioral results showed that the acceptance rate in the empathy condition was greater than that in the non-empathy condition for the disadvantageous–unfair condition, while the opposite result occurred in the advantageous–unfair condition. The EEG results showed that in the non-empathy condition, the advantageous–unfair offer induced more negative anterior N1 (AN1) than it did in the empathy condition, but there was no difference between the disadvantageous–unfair versus fair conditions. In the advantageous–unfair condition, the P2 amplitude of the empathy condition was significantly more positive than that for the non-empathy condition, while in the disadvantageous–unfair condition, P2 amplitude of the non-empathy condition was slightly positive than that of the empathy condition. The disadvantage–unfair offer induced more negative medial frontal negativity (MFN) in the empathy condition, while no difference was found between fair versus unfair offers in the non-empathy condition. Additionally, the amplitude of P3 was larger in the fair versus the unfair conditions as it was not modulated by empathy. These findings suggest that experimentally-induced state empathy modulates fairness-related decision making behaviors and accompanying neural activity. Behavioral results indicate that state empathy takes priority in guiding people's behavior when it conflicts with the fairness criterion. For EEG results, empathy mainly modulates the early stage of the fairness concern and affects early attention and motivation as well as cognition and emotion. In later stages, the higher cognitive process represented by P3 is modulated only by fairness, not empathy. In conclusion, our study systematically explored and compared behavior patterns of fairness processing with temporal dynamic characteristics of brain activities by modulating empathy. The findings provide further insight into fairness-related decision making behaviors. They indicate the potential to influence individuals’ behaviors and cognition by manipulating empathy." "
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Hits
YES
Hits
Downloads
Comment