奖赏预期对面孔情绪加工的影响：一项事件相关电位研究

采用事件相关电位(ERPs)技术考察了奖赏预期对人类面孔情绪识别的影响。实验采用线索-目标范式, 分别记录了被试在奖赏预期条件下以及无奖赏预期条件下对正性、中性和负性面孔进行情绪辨别任务的ERP数据。行为结果显示, 被试在奖赏预期条件下的反应时快于无奖赏预期条件下的反应时, 对情绪面孔的反应时快于对中性面孔的反应时。ERPs数据显示, 奖赏线索比无奖赏线索诱发了更正的P1、P2和P300成分。目标刺激诱发的P1、N170波幅以及N300均受到奖赏预期的调节, 在奖赏预期条件下目标诱发了更正的ERPs。P1、N170、VPP等成分没有受到面孔情绪的影响, 而额中央位置的N300波幅显示情绪(正性与负性)面孔与中性面孔加工的差异。重要的是, N300波幅出现奖赏预期与情绪的交互作用, 正、负情绪加工效应以及负性偏向效应受奖赏预期的差异性影响。正性情绪加工效应不受奖赏预期的影响, 而负性情绪加工效应和负性偏向效应在奖赏预期条件下显著大于无奖赏预期条件下。这些结果说明, 奖赏预期能够调节对面孔情绪的加工, 且不同加工进程中奖赏对情绪加工的调节作用不同。动机性信息调节注意资源的分配, 促进了个体在加工面孔情绪时的负性偏向。     

奖惩对行为抑制能力和自主生理活动影响的时效性

将45名被试随机分配为奖励组、惩罚组和对照组, 实验进程按时间发展过程被分为五阶段, 采用停止信号任务探讨奖惩刺激对行为抑制能力和自主生理活动影响的时效性。结果显示：奖惩刺激对行为反应时和抑制失败率影响仅在第二、三阶段差异显著, 对心率影响的显著差异在第三阶段结束、而对皮电和指温影响的显著差异仍持续到第五阶段。结果表明：奖惩刺激对行为的抑制作用具有时效性, 有效时间内表现为仅奖励能提高行为抑制能力; 奖惩刺激对心率的影响具有时效性, 但对其它生理指标的影响则未显示出时效性。     

The empowering effect of punishment on forgiveness

We examined the process by which punishment enables forgiveness, testing the proposition that punishment restores a sense of justice to victims, an experience that is empowering. In Study 1 (N = 69), university students received insulting feedback and were given the opportunity (or not) to sanction the offender. In Study 2 (N = 91), participants imagined having the opportunity (or not) to recommend punishment for a person who had vandalized their house. A two‐step mediation model (punishment justice restoration empowerment forgiveness) was supported in these two studies. In Study 3 (N = 227), punishment options were expanded to test the role of victim voice in the context of third‐party and personal retributive and restorative justice responses to workplace bullying, as well as taking into account revenge as an alternative to justice restoration. When victims had voice, empowerment again played a central indirect role in relations between punishment and forgiveness.     

Is revenge about retributive justice,deterring harm,or both?

This paper explores the vast literature on revenge and retributive punishment to ascertain whether revenge seekers are primarily seeking retribution or to deter future harm. This review considers research findings from social, consumer, evolutionary, and industrial/organizational psychology. Revenge is defined as an action in response to some perceived wrongdoing by another party that is intended to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judged responsible. In support of the perspective that revenge is about retribution, vengeance is typically triggered only by unjust harms, revenge‐seekers report a moral imperative, justice beliefs predict revenge, and justice‐related information has the greatest influence on punishment calculations. On the other hand, a plethora of findings in economic games such as serial prisoner dilemmas reveal that tit‐for‐tat style revenge is an effective means of deterring future harm. Overall, the evidence seems to support a retribution model of revenge over a deterrence model; however, as this review describes in its conclusion, the psychology of revenge is in need of further investigation along several key dimensions.     

Discriminative control of punished stereotyped behavior in humans

The purpose of this experiment was to establish discriminative control of responding by an antecedent stimulus using differential punishment because the results of past studies on this topic have been mixed. Three adults with mental retardation who exhibited stereotypy not maintained by social consequences (i.e., automatic reinforcement) participated. For each subject, stereotypy occurred frequently in the presence of a stimulus correlated with nonpunishment of stereotypy and rarely, if ever, in the presence of a stimulus correlated with punishment of stereotypy. Latency measures showed that the antecedent stimulus correlated with punishment served as the discriminative stimulus for the suppression of stereotypy. These results are important insofar as they show that discriminative control by an antecedent stimulus develops with punishment, and because it sometimes may be desirable to establish such control of socially inappropriate behavior.     

Extending Compatibilism: Control,Responsibility, And Blame

In this paper, I argue that ‹moral responsibility’ refers to two concepts, not to one. In the first place, we are not ultimately morally responsible or, therefore, unqualifiedly blameworthy, due to the fact that we lack ultimate forms of control. But, second, it is legitimate to consider us to be morally responsible in another sense, and therefore qualifiedly blameworthy, once we have certain forms of control. Consequently, I argue that our normal practice of blaming is unjust, since it requires that we are ultimately morally responsible. I contend that this practice must, on grounds of justice, be tempered by adequate consideration of the fact that we are not ultimately morally responsible. My proposal in this regard is that blaming be replaced by admonishment. I would like to thank Dr. Cara Nine and Dr. David Hemp (University College Cork), and the two anonymous referees at Res Publica for their helpful comments on this paper.     

The impact of monetary stimuli on object-based attention

Previous research has implied that monetary reward to target location (a reward for spatial properties) can affect object-based attention, but no study has directly investigated the influence of monetary objects (a reward for object properties) on object-based attention. Thus, it is unclear whether and how monetary objects can affect object-based attention. To experimentally investigate this problem, this study adapted the well-established two-rectangle paradigm. In Experiment 1, either two 100-yuan notes or two 1-yuan notes were presented to participants. We found an object-based effect with faster responses to targets at an uncued position on the cued object compared to those at an equidistant position on the uncued object; the effect was similar in 100-yuan and 1-yuan note trials. In Experiment 2, two notes (one 100-yuan and one 1-yuan) were simultaneously presented to participants, and cue location (100-yuan, 1-yuan) was manipulated. We found a greater object-based effect when the cue appeared on the 100-yuan note than on the 1-yuan note. These results suggest that the rewarding property of objects can affect object-based attention by means of altering object salience.     

“仁者”还是“智者”：第三方惩罚对惩罚者声誉的影响

第三方惩罚会对惩罚者的声誉产生显著影响, 然而就影响的方向而言, 现有文献给出了不同答案。上述问题的一个潜在原因是先前研究未能区分声誉的不同维度以及惩罚的不同动机与形式。通过将温暖-能力双维度结构引入惩罚者的声誉, 实验结果显示, 第三方惩罚从总体上降低了人们对惩罚者在温暖维度上的评价而提高了对其在能力维度上的评价。调节效应分析表明, 动机被归因为集体聚焦的惩罚进一步提升了其对能力的正面作用而减缓了对温暖的负面作用, 并且惩罚者的合作水平越高, 其动机被归因为集体聚焦的程度也越高。针对不同惩罚形式的进一步分析显示, 当惩罚动机被归因为个体聚焦时, 经济惩罚对温暖的负面作用显著高于社会惩罚, 而在集体聚焦的归因下经济惩罚对能力的正面作用显著低于社会惩罚。     

论道德惩罚及其目的

道德惩罚作为一种非强制性的制裁手段对于规约和范导道德行为体的行为有着重要的作用。道德惩罚通过公共舆论、传统习俗、内心信念和道德良心等对违背道德法则的行为或坏的道德品质予以谴责,对社会道德风尚产生不良影响的行为体的道德权利予以限制和剥夺,从而促使该道德行为体实现由恶向善的转化,达到维护道德良知的、重申道德秩序的目的。     

Some consequences of aggressive behavior: A selective review of the literature on other animals

Animal experiments in which the opportunity to aggress was positively reinforcing are surveyed, with attention paid to field and laboratory reports on play and play fighting. A distinction is drawn between ways in which aggressive behavior may be elicited and factors which increase or decrease the probability that aggression will be emitted. Since aggression may be emitted and may also be reinforcing, the possibility that aggressive behavior may be self-reinforcing is mentioned. In addition to positive reinforcement, consequences of aggressive behavior are presented. These include punishment, removal of a noxious stimulus, feeding, arousal, and disinhibition.