自我惩罚：影响因素、模型与展望

自我惩罚是个体在违反社会规范后,自愿使自己承受伤害或蒙受损失的行为。自我惩罚会受到负性情绪、补救机会、代偿机会和性别的影响。情绪模型和互惠模型分别从情绪和互惠的角度阐述了自我惩罚的认知机制。根据近期的研究结果,可以推测自我惩罚与前扣带回、脑岛、右外侧眶额叶皮层、背内侧前额叶皮层、伏隔核、腹内侧前额叶皮层有关。未来值得研究的方向有：进一步确认自我惩罚涉及的情绪成分、为互惠模型收集更多实验证据、探究自我惩罚对集体合作的影响以及开展跨文化研究。     

社会两难情境下的合作选择:自我利益和集体利益间的权衡

社会两难是个人利益与集体利益冲突的情景。在这种情景下,合作选择强调个体是通过分享使集体利益最大化,而非个人利益最大化。"自我控制"、"信任"与"内疚厌恶"被用来阐述两难情境下合作选择的机制。而神经层面的研究也发现,合作选择主要涉及以背外侧前额叶皮层为主的执行控制脑区、以腹内侧前额叶为主的情绪调节脑区,以及包括纹状体、伏隔核和眶额叶等在内的奖赏相关脑区。未来研究需从完善研究方法和内容、深化内在机制以及整合合作决策的神经机制等几个方面着手。     

非情绪与情绪背景下行为抑制时外侧前额叶的功能分化:一项fNIRS研究

采用功能性近红外脑成像技术(f NIRS),结合事件相关设计,在非情绪与情绪背景下,测量个体完成go/no-go任务时外侧前额叶皮层氧合血红蛋白浓度(Hb O)的变化。结果发现:在非情绪背景下,行为抑制时双侧背外侧前额叶皮层和右眶额叶皮层负激活;在情绪背景下,行为抑制时双侧背外侧前额叶皮层和眶额皮层负激活,情绪与行为抑制的交互作用显著负激活双侧腹外侧前额叶皮层。结果表明:在非情绪与情绪背景下,双侧背外侧前额叶和右眶额叶皮层可能以神经抑制的活动形式参与行为抑制反应;腹外侧前额叶皮层可能不是行为抑制的重要脑区,但对情绪与行为抑制整合具有重要意义,特别是在负性情绪背景下,双侧腹外侧前额叶皮层可能以更大程度的神经抑制活动参与到情绪与行为抑制交互作用中来。     

正念冥想对情绪的调节作用:理论与神经机制

正念冥想可调节个体的负性情绪、促进个体正性情绪,对于心身疾病具有显著的干预效用.正念冥想的再感知模型、正念应对模型、推动性上升螺旋模型以及正念情绪调节模型都强调了正念冥想对情绪的调节作用.认知神经科学的研究发现,正念冥想可促进左侧前额叶脑区激活增强,涉及的脑区主要包括背外侧前额叶皮层(DLPFC)和背内侧前额叶皮层(DMPFC).研究者进一步发现,正念特质是通过改善前额叶对边缘系统反应的调节来实现对情绪的调节作用.而且,这种调节作用还有可能体现为通过冥想训练分离联结在一起的两种自我参照神经机制,从而加强体验性神经机制.另外,研究者还发现,正念冥想训练还可以改变与情绪加工相关的大脑结构.进一步澄清冥想训练与大脑偏侧化的关系和不同类型被试之间的比较研究将成为该领域日后研究的重点.     

内疚的认知和情绪活动及其脑区调控

内疚是个体做出危害他人的行为或违反道德准则之后产生的良心上的反省, 对行为负有责任的一种负性体验。内疚在道德规范和人际社会中具有重要的作用。研究者主要采取自我报告范式、情境模拟范式、过失范式和经济博弈范式考察内疚的发生发展及其功能。近年来, 研究者尝试揭示内疚脑机制, 研究发现内疚主要激活前额叶皮层和脑岛等脑区, 前额叶可能与内疚的认知成分相关, 而脑岛主要与内疚的情绪成分相关。未来的研究需要采用多种技术手段进一步考察内疚的认知神经机制。     

决策中主观价值计算与整合的神经机制及其影响因素

决策在人类社会发展历程中扮演着非常重要的角色,而学界对其神经机制的探讨才不过几十年的时间。价值决策理论认为,人们先计算和表征事物的价值,随后进行比较和决策。在人脑中负责主观价值计算的神经基础有腹内侧前额叶皮层、眶额皮层、杏仁核等,而负责价值整合的脑区有腹侧纹状体、腹内侧前额叶皮层、眶额皮层等。人脑将不同属性及成本按照曲线交互模式进行整合形成主观价值,并通过自我控制、注意、认知调节和情绪调节等手段,调节主观价值。未来需要强调模式分析、个体差异和网络分析对价值计算与整合的影响。     

远离“诱惑”:预先承诺对跨期决策的调控机制及其神经基础

预先承诺作为一种有效的自我控制策略,主要通过提前排除那些在未来决策中可能会诱使个体做出冲动决策的选项,以达到降低决策冲动性的目的。预先承诺调控跨期决策主要是通过侧额极皮层(LFPC)、背外侧前额叶(DLPFC)、腹内侧前额叶(vmPFC)、后顶叶皮层(PPC)等脑区的共同激活,在自我控制、价值估算、特质冲动性、惩罚敏感度等心理变量的影响下发挥作用。本研究分别从认知机制和神经基础两个方面提出预先承诺降低冲动决策的整合模型,为干预和降低个体决策冲动性提供理论借鉴。未来研究可进一步探究预先承诺调控跨期决策的心理与神经机制,并加强预先承诺在决策领域的应用研究。     

恐惧情绪加工的神经机制

恐惧是一种基本情绪,在人类的生存和适应中具有重要意义.研究者认为对恐惧情绪的加工存在着两种方式——阈上加工和阈下加工,而最近更多的研究者认为对恐惧的加工是需要中枢神经系统参与的阈上加工.在恐惧的形成与表达中,杏仁核、前扣带回、眶额叶皮质等脑区发挥着重要的作用;恐惧记忆的编码与巩固受到海马和各相关脑区的共同影响;前扣带回、内侧前额叶皮质等相关脑区是恐惧情绪调节的高级中枢;在恐惧的消退过程中,内侧前额叶发挥着重要的作用,它影响杏仁核、海马等相关脑区的活动.未来研究应该从恐惧情绪加工过程中脑区的交互机制、恐惧易感性以及发展认知神经科学等角度对恐惧神经机制展开大量研究,力图全方位地理解恐惧加工的神经机制.     

内隐情绪调节:一种有效的自我保护

内隐情绪调节是情绪调节的一种重要形式,它是指个体在没有意识监控和意图的情况下改变了自身情绪反应的品质、强度和持续时间等的一种情绪活动过程。内隐情绪调节的内部机制是自动反向调节,它能让个体的情绪保持平衡状态,具有自我保护作用;其实验研究过程一般分为诱导特定情绪、引发内隐调节过程两个步骤。内隐情绪调节涉及的脑区主要有前扣带回皮层、腹外侧前额叶皮层和腹内侧前额叶皮层。内隐情绪调节的形式包括内隐认知重评和情绪标签等,这些调节方式本身可能受个体差异、情绪体验强度等多种因素的影响。     

前额叶皮质损伤患者的情绪异常

人类前额叶皮质与情绪之间有着密切的关系,文章在相关的临床和神经成像研究结果基础上,分析了前额叶皮质损伤对情绪行为造成的影响,分别概述了精神分裂症、重性抑郁和焦虑患者的情绪变化、前额叶切除对情绪的影响以及左右前额叶皮质与情绪的关系,重点阐述了前额叶功能异常的神经生理学特点,认为情绪的改变会随着前额叶皮质不同部位的结构缺损或功能变化而有所不同,此有利于对前额叶皮质损伤患者情绪异常的评价与防治。     

Impulsive choice and altruistic punishment are correlated and increase in tandem with serotonin depletion

Human cooperation may partly depend on the presence of individuals willing to incur personal costs to punish noncooperators. The psychological factors that motivate such 'altruistic punishment' are not fully understood; some have argued that altruistic punishment is a deliberate act of norm enforcement that requires self-control, while others claim that it is an impulsive act driven primarily by emotion. In the current study, we addressed this question by examining the relationship between impulsive choice and altruistic punishment in the ultimatum game. As the neurotransmitter serotonin has been implicated in both impulsive choice and altruistic punishment, we investigated the effects of manipulating serotonin on both measures. Across individuals, impulsive choice and altruistic punishment were correlated and increased following serotonin depletion. These findings imply that altruistic punishment reflects the absence rather than the presence of self control, and suggest that impulsive choice and altruistic punishment share common neural mechanisms.     

主观社会阶层正向预测利他性惩罚

利他性惩罚是指个体自行承担成本来惩罚违规者的行为, 它受到社会阶层的影响。研究1利用2013年中国综合社会调查数据发现阶层显著正向预测利他性惩罚。研究2 (N = 450)基于真实生活事件的调查表明, 惩罚成本调节了阶层对惩罚的影响：在成本较高的直接惩罚中, 阶层正向预测惩罚; 而在成本较低的间接惩罚中, 这种作用不再显著。研究3 (N = 232)通过操纵阶层与成本进一步证实惩罚成本的调节作用：高阶层者比低阶层者更有可能做出利他性惩罚, 但两者的差距在高成本条件下更突出。研究4 (N = 125)综合考察了阶层影响惩罚的心理机制, 多层线性分析显示：惩罚成本较低时, 阶层通过公正世界信念来间接影响惩罚, 而成本较高时, 阶层直接正向影响了惩罚。上述结果意味着利他性惩罚受到个体社会阶层的影响, 同时也在一定程度上说明在利他性惩罚中基于成本-收益的策略性考虑并非完全缺席。     

利他惩罚的认知机制和神经生物基础

利他惩罚是指在团体中与他人合作, 并不惜花费个人代价去惩罚不合作者以维护群体规范的一种利他行为。这种行为所具有的利他特征, 可能是人类在漫长进化过程中形成的一种特定行为模式, 是人类本性的一个组成部分。本文结合已有研究, 总结了可用于研究利他惩罚的主要范式, 回顾了利他惩罚的进化背景, 从大量实证性文献中提炼出 “不公平厌恶”及“心理理论和共情”两个维度来阐释引起利他惩罚行为的认知-情绪加工机制, 并整合了与其相关的脑神经证据, 最后对该研究领域未来的发展方向进行了展望。     

Third-party punishment: altruistic and anti-social behaviours in in-group and out-group settings

This study aims at exploring the decision-making process involved in third-party punishment (TPP) within an economic frame, using the TPP game. We investigated altruistic punishment, that is, the behaviour of spending one's own money, with no personal gain, to punish those who violate the norms of cooperation. We analysed this behaviour, in an in-group and out-group game setting, to compare how individuals behave with members of their own group (in-group) and with members of another group (out-group). In particular, groups were defined on a real nationality basis (Chinese or Italian). Our results showed altruistic punishment behaviour in both experimental groups and this tendency emerged as more prominent when faced with unfair play towards a member of one's own group. Furthermore, both groups exhibited a propensity for anti-social punishment behaviour: many participants spent small amounts of money to punish fair behaviour, regardless of national group membership.     

得失情境下第三方惩罚决策差异的神经机制：基于rTMS的研究

本研究应用低频rTMS技术,通过在第三方惩罚（研究1）及第三方惩罚和第三方补偿（恢复性惩罚）并存的情况下（研究2）,对个体双侧vmPFC功能进行抑制,探索vmPFC在得失情境下第三方惩罚决策中的作用。研究1结果表明,rTMS抑制右侧vmPFC功能将降低损失情境下的第三方惩罚,收益情境下未发生改变。研究2得到与研究1一致的结果,且第三方惩罚减少程度更大,第三方补偿并未发生改变。这些结果强调了vmPFC与第三方惩罚紧密相关,在第三方判断得失情境的影响时起关键作用。     

Judgments in a hurry: Time pressure affects how judges assess unfairly shared losses and unfairly shared gains

Human society has evolved to allow third parties—the court system, parents or other societal arbitrators—to punish norm violators and compensate victims. Few studies explore the effect of stress or time pressure on a third‐party judge. Under time pressure, people will likely show a more instinctual reaction or judgment style. We investigated third‐party punishment and compensation within the context of unfairly shared losses and gains in a dictator game under time pressure. Our results show that under no time pressure, participants were inclined to punish dictators who unfairly split windfall gains; however, participants chose to compensate victims more than punish the norm‐violating dictators in the context of unfairly shared losses. With added time pressure, third‐parties were disposed to inflict punishment upon the dictator in both the gain and loss contexts—punishment became the action of choice. Our results shed light on the way observed behavior and stress affect social cognition and decision making in the context of altruistic social interventions and the enforcement of social norms.     

Punishing and compensating others at your own expense: The role of empathic concern on reactions to distributive injustice

When confronted with violations of justice, people may be motivated not only to punish the violator, but also to compensate the victim. Whereas prior research has primarily concentrated on the question of when people are willing to punish, we provide a more comprehensive picture by also studying the willingness to compensate and by assessing the moderating role of empathic concern. Study 1 introduces the altruistic compensation game and shows that especially high empathic (compared to low empathic) people are willing to give up parts of their own resources to financially compensate the victims of distributive injustice. Study 2 completes the picture by directly comparing altruistic compensation with altruistic punishment. The study showed that high empathic people decided to compensate the victim, but low empathic people decided to punish the offender. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Behavioral Logic of Collective Action: Partisans Cooperate and Punish More Than Nonpartisans

Laboratory experiments indicate that many people willingly contribute to public goods and punish free riders at a personal cost. We hypothesize that these individuals, called strong reciprocators, allow political parties to overcome collective action problems, thereby allowing those organizations to compete for scarce resources and to produce public goods for like‐minded individuals. Using a series of laboratory games, we examine whether partisans contribute to public goods and punish free riders at a greater rate than nonpartisans. The results show that partisans are more likely than nonpartisans to contribute to public goods and to engage in costly punishment. Given the broad theoretical literature on altruistic punishment and group selection as well as our own formal evolutionary model, we hypothesize that it is being a partisan that makes an individual more likely to be a strong reciprocator and not vice versa.     

利他惩罚中的结果评价—— ERP研究

利他惩罚是指个体为惩罚违反社会规范的人, 自愿支付成本。前人研究发现利他惩罚行为激活了背侧纹状体等与奖赏有关的脑区, 因此可以认为利他惩罚的结果是一种相当于金钱奖赏的正性结果, 不惩罚结果则是一种负性结果。本研究利用事件相关电位技术考察了被试在多次信任博弈游戏中观察“利他惩罚结果”和“不惩罚结果”的脑电成分, 结果发现被试产生了明显的反馈相关负波(feedback related negativity, FRN), 且负性程度更大的“不惩罚”结果其FRN波幅大于负性程度更小的“惩罚”结果。因为FRN是对负性反馈结果敏感的一个脑电成分。可见个体并非把利他惩罚结果知觉为一种正性结果, 因此FRN反映了对社会结果的情绪动机意义的评价。     

Amount of altruistic punishment accounts for subsequent emotional gratification in participants with primary psychopathy

We are often willing to incur personal costs in order to punish people that violate group norms. Previous studies have suggested that high-psychopathy participants may engage in more such “altruistic punishment behaviors” than those with lower levels of psychopathy. Although this finding could suggest that psychopathy is in fact associated with prosocial behavior, high-psychopathy participants show clear evidence of various decision-making and emotional deficits. It is therefore possible that the increased altruistic punishment behavior observed in psychopathy participants is in some fashion related to such deficits. To address this possibility, we administered the altruistic punishment paradigm to a group of university students with low and high levels of psychopathy (N = 50). We found that high-psychopathy participants (n = 24) gave defectors significantly more punishment than did low psychopathy participants (n = 26), under personally costly conditions. Furthermore, a mediational analysis revealed that the amount of altruistic punishment administered completely mediated the relationship between primary psychopathy and a person’s emotional gratification subsequent to performing the altruistic punishment behavior. These findings suggest that while high psychopathy participants do appear to engage in greater levels of altruistic punishment behavior, they may do this largely for their own emotional gratification.