人际合作与冲突影响博弈决策的结果评价

人际合作与冲突是人际互动的两种主要形式, 在人类社会的发展中有着重要作用。脑成像研究表明, 当个体和人类同伴进行博弈时, 选择合作与选择冲突激活脑区的强度有所不同。但目前尚不清楚, 人际合作与冲突如何影响决策选择之后的结果评价过程。本研究采用Chicken Game任务对此问题进行了探讨, 研究记录了22名健康成人被试与人类同伴进行Chicken Game任务时的脑电活动。结果表明, 反馈负波(FRN)和P300不仅受到结果效价的影响, 同时也受到人际合作与冲突的影响。相对于选择冲突, 个体选择合作时, 输钱和赢钱反馈引发的FRN以及P300波幅差异更大。相关分析表明, RA (被试和解对方进攻)反馈引发的FRN波幅与接受该反馈后下一个trials中和解的选择率(以及总的和解率)呈显著的负相关。上述结果表明, 在社会博弈中, 合作增加了个体对博弈结果的预期, 从而引发更大的FRN效应; 并且合作共赢的结果所具有的物质意义与社会意义, 使其诱发更大的P300波幅。

Interpersonal Cooperation and Conflict Influenced Outcome Evaluation in Social Decision-making

Interpersonal cooperation and conflict are two primary types of interpersonal interaction, and take important role in human social development. Previous fMRI study employing the Chicken Game task has demonstrated that the anterior PCC were more active after risky/aggressive choices than safe/reconciliatory choices when the participants play the game against a human counterpart. However, it is still unclear how people evaluated the feedback when they played such a complex social game, where the mutual cooperation or mutual conflict might occur. In order to address this problem, we use the Chicken Game task and event-related potentials (ERPs) technique to explore how interpersonal cooperation and conflict affect the processing of outcome evaluation and the time course of evaluation to complex social interactive outcome feedback. Brain potentials were recorded while 22 healthy adult participants played the Chicken Game against a human counterpart. In Chicken Game task, two players choose reconciliation or aggression each other; each was rewarded with a sum of money that depends upon the interaction of both players’ choices. There are four possible outcomes: player A (subject) and player B reconcile (RR), player A reconciles and player B aggresses (RA), player A aggresses and player B reconciles (AR), or both player A and player B aggress (AA). The behavioral data and ERP amplitudes (FRN and P300) associated with the four feedbacks were analyzed. The behavioral data suggested that participants selected more aggression than reconciliation. The ERP results indicated that the amplitudes of FRN and P300 were not only influenced by feedback valence but also modulated by the interpersonal cooperation and conflict. The FRN and FRN effect (dFRN) were increased when the participants’ anticipant were higher violated. Specifically, the FRN were largest when participants chose the conciliation while the counterpart chose aggression. The differences P300 between gains and losses were increased when participants chose cooperation, relative when they chose aggression. These results indicated that interpersonal cooperation and conflict influenced the early and later stage of outcome evaluation under complex social game. In social gambling, cooperation increased the anticipation to the gambling outcome, and induced the larger FRN effect, and the double material and social significance of cooperation reciprocal outcome might induce the larger P300 amplitudes. The present study first provides preliminary evidences that interpersonal cooperation and conflict can modulate our outcome evaluation process.