تنبیه نوع‌دوستانه خالص: مطالعه‌ای بر اساس پتانسل وابسته به رویداد

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه روانشناسی بالینی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 رئیس پژوهشکده علوم شناختی و استاد دانشکده روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

3 دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

4 پژوهشکده علوم شناختی و مغز، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

10.52547/apsy.2021.221019.1051

چکیده

هدف: سطوح بالای همیاری در جوامعی شکل می­ گیرد که در آن افرادی که از هنجارهای خاصی تخطی می­ کنند، با رفتار تنبیهی دیگران مواجه شوند. هدف مطالعه حاضر تفکیک انواع واکنش افراد به پیشهادهای ناعادلانه و بررسی مولفه­ های الکتروفیزیولوژیک آنان بود. روش: 40  نفر با جنسیت مذکر از دانشجویان دانشگاه شهید بهشتی از طریق نمونه گیری در دسترس در این مطالعه شرکت کردند و واکنش آنها در شکل اصلاح­ شده بازی ­های دیکتاتور و اولتیماتوم مورد سنجش و ارزیابی قرار گرفت. یافته ­ها: یافته­ها نشان داد که به طور کلی بیشتر شرکت­کنندگان پیشنهادهای ناعادلانه را نپذیرفتند و به همین میزان در DG ناعادلانه رفتار کردند. تحلیل خوشه ­بندی سلسله مراتبی نشان داد که افراد بر اساس پیوستار عادلانه-ناعادلانه در هر دو بازی، به چهار گروه تقسیم می ­شوند که رفتار گروه اول (10 نفر) در چهارچوب تنبیه­ نوع ­دوستانه خالص قرار گرفت و رفتار سایر گروه­ ها در بردارنده یک نوع خودخواهی و تناقض رفتاری بود. داده­ های الکتروفیزیولوژیک نشان داد که در گروه اول دامنه FRN و P300 پایین­تری در مقایسه با سایر گروه ­ها وجود داشت.  نتیجه­ گیری: این مطالعه فهم ما از زیربنای ادراک عدالت توسط پاسخ دهندگان را عمیق­تر می ­کند و به ما امکان می دهند تا فرآیندهایی را که به طور خاص برای ارزیابی پیشنهادات منصفانه و ناعادلانه وجود دارند را ارزیابی کنیم. بر طبق اطلاعات ما این مطالعه اولین بررسی است که تفاوت داده­ های عصبی مبتنی بر پتانسیل فراخوانده رویداد، برخواسته از تنبیه نوع ­دوستانه با سایر شکل­ های تنبیه را نشان می­دهد و تلویحات کاربردی مهمی در مورد تکامل همیاری فراهم می ­کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Pure Altruistic Punishment: An Event-related Potential Study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Mohammad Miraghaie 1
  • Hamid Reza Pouretemad 2
  • Mohammad Ali Mazaheri 3
  • Reza Khosroabadi 4
1 Shahid Beheshti University, Faculty of Psychology
2 professor, Department of psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Dept. of Clinical & Health Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University
4 Institute for Cognitive and Brain Science, Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]

Abstract:
Aim: High levels of cooperation are formed in societies where people who violate certain norms are punished by the punitive behavior of others. The aim of the present study was to discriminate the types of reactions of individuals to unfair offers and to study their electrophysiological components. method: 40 male students of Shahid Beheshti University participated in this study through available sampling and their reaction in the modified form of dictator and ultimatum games was measured and evaluated. Findings: Behavioral findings showed most participants did not accept unfair offers and behaved equally unfairly in DG. The results of the hierarchical clustering analysis showed that groups are divided into four groups based on fair-unfair continuity in both games. The behavior of the first group was in the form of pure altruistic punishment and the other groups included a kind of selfishness and behavioral inconsistency. Electrophysiological data showed that in the first group, the FRN and P300 amplitude were lower than in the other groups. Conclusion: This study deepens our understanding of the foundation of justice as a moral construct by respondents and allows us to assess the processes that exist specifically to evaluate fair and unfair proposals. as far as we know, this study is the first to show the difference between neural data based on event related potential, arising from altruistic punishment, and other forms of punishment, and provide important practical implications for the evolution of collaboration.

Key words: Altruistic Punishment,, Event-related Potential

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Altruistic Punishment
  • Event-related Potential
Alexopoulos, J., Pfabigan, D. M., Lamm, C., Herbert, B., & Fischmeister, F. P. S. (2012). Do we care about the powerless third? An ERP study of the three-person ultimatum game. Frontiers in human neuroscience6, 59.[link]
Boksem, M. A., & De Cremer, D. (2010). Fairness concerns predict medial frontal negativity amplitude in ultimatum bargaining. Social neuroscience5(1), 118-128.[link]
Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature402(6758), 179-181.[link]
Brañas-Garza, P., Espín, A. M., Exadaktylos, F., & Herrmann, B. (2014). Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game. Scientific reports4(1), 1-4.[link]
Camerer, C. F. (2003). Strategizing in the brain. Science300(5626), 1673-1675.[link]
Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. (1998). Context updating and the P300. Behavioral and brain sciences21(1), 152-154.[link]
Falco, A., Albinet, C., Rattat, A. C., Paul, I., & Fabre, E. (2019). Being the chosen one: social inclusion modulates decisions in the ultimatum game. An ERP study. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience14(2), 141-149.[link]
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature415(6868), 137-140.[link]
Gächter, S., & Herrmann, B. (2009). Reciprocity, culture and human cooperation: previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences364(1518), 791-806.[link]
Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science295(5563), 2279-2282.[link]
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and human Behavior24(3), 153-172.[link]
Güth, W., & Tietz, R. (1990). Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology11(3), 417-449.[link]
Herrmann, B., Thöni, C., & Gächter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science319(5868), 1362-1367.[link]
Hewig, J., Coles, M. G., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., & Miltner, W. H. (2011). Dissociation of Pe and ERN/Ne in the conscious recognition of an error. Psychophysiology48(10), 1390-1396.[link]
Hewig, J., Trippe, R. H., Hecht, H., Coles, M. G., Holroyd, C. B., & Miltner, W. H. (2008). An electrophysiological analysis of coaching in Blackjack. cortex44(9), 1197-1205.[link]
Hoeft, L., & Mill, W. (2017). Selfish punishers: An experimental investigation of designated punishment behavior in public goods. Economics Letters157, 41-44.[link]
Jensen, K. (2010). Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences365(1553), 2635-2650.[link]
Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K., Treyer, V., & Fehr, E. (2006). Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. science314(5800), 829-832.[link]
Masaki, H., Takeuchi, S., Gehring, W. J., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2006). Affective-motivational influences on feedback-related ERPs in a gambling task. Brain research1105(1), 110-121.[link]
Mayer, S. V., Rauss, K., Pourtois, G., Jusyte, A., & Schönenberg, M. (2019). Behavioral and electrophysiological responses to fairness norm violations in antisocial offenders. European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience269(6), 731-740.[link]
McClure, S. M., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2007). Time discounting for primary rewards. Journal of neuroscience27(21), 5796-5804.[link]
   Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. science314(5805), 1560-1563.[link]
Parton, D. M., & Ent, M. R. (2018). Vulnerable narcissism predicts greater spiteful punishment of a third-party transgressor. Journal of Research in Personality76, 150-153.[link]
Peterburs, J., Voegler, R., Liepelt, R., Schulze, A., Wilhelm, S., Ocklenburg, S., & Straube, T. (2017). Processing of fair and unfair offers in the ultimatum game under social observation. Scientific reports7, 44062.[link]
Polezzi, D., Lotto, L., Daum, I., Sartori, G., & Rumiati, R. (2008). Predicting outcomes of decisions in the brain. Behavioural brain research187(1), 116-122.[link]
Qu, C., Wang, Y., & Huang, Y. (2013). Social exclusion modulates fairness consideration in the ultimatum game: an ERP study. Frontiers in human neuroscience7, 505.[link]
Raihani, N. J., & Bshary, R. (2019). Punishment: one tool, many uses. Evolutionary Human Sciences1.[link]
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. Science300(5626), 1755-1758.[link]
Stallen, M., & Sanfey, A. G. (2013). The cooperative brain. The Neuroscientist19(3), 292-303.[link]
Sun, L., Tan, P., Cheng, Y., Chen, J., & Qu, C. (2015). The effect of altruistic tendency on fairness in third-party punishment. Frontiers in psychology6, 820.[link]
Sylwester, K., Herrmann, B., & Bryson, J. J. (2013). Homo homini lupus? Explaining antisocial punishment. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics6(3), 167.[link]
Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. Journal of economic perspectives2(4), 195-206.[link]
Utku, H., Erzengin, Ö. U., Cakmak, E. D., & Karakaş, S. (2002). Discrimination of brain's neuroelectric responses by a decision-making function. Journal of neuroscience methods114(1), 25-31.[link]
Van der Veen, F. M., & Sahibdin, P. P. (2011). Dissociation between medial frontal negativity and cardiac responses in the ultimatum game: Effects of offer size and fairness. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience11(4), 516-525.[link]
Wang, G., Li, J., Li, Z., Wei, M., & Li, S. (2016). Medial frontal negativity reflects advantageous inequality aversion of proposers in the ultimatum game: An ERP study. Brain research1639, 38-46.[link]
Wu, Y., Leliveld, M. C., & Zhou, X. (2011). Social distance modulates recipient's fairness consideration in the dictator game: An ERP study. Biological psychology88(2-3), 253-262.[link]
Yamagishi, T., Li, Y., Fermin, A. S., Kanai, R., Takagishi, H., Matsumoto, Y., ... & Sakagami, M. (2017). Behavioural differences and neural substrates of altruistic and spiteful punishment. Scientific reports7(1), 1-8.[link]
Yu, R., Hu, P., & Zhang, P. (2015). Social distance and anonymity modulate fairness consideration: An ERP study. Scientific reports5, 13452.[link]
Zhong, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, E., Luo, J., & Chen, J. (2013). Individuals’ attentional bias toward an envied target's name: An event-related potential study. Neuroscience letters550, 109-114.[link]