20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      You Have My Word: Reciprocity Expectation Modulates Feedback-Related Negativity in the Trust Game

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 3 , *
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Promise is one of the most powerful tools producing trust and facilitating cooperation, and sticking to the promise is deemed as a key social norm in social interactions. The present study explored the extent to which promise would influence investors’ decision-making in the trust game where promise had no predictive value regarding trustees’ reciprocation. In addition, we examined the neural underpinnings of the investors’ outcome processing related to the trustees’ promise keeping and promise breaking. Consistent with our hypothesis, behavioral results indicated that promise could effectively increase the investment frequency of investors. Electrophysiological results showed that, promise induced larger differentiated-FRN responses to the reward and non-reward discrepancy. Taken together, these results suggested that promise would promote cooperative behavior, while breach of promise would be regarded as a violation of the social norm, corroborating the vital role of non-enforceable commitment in social decision making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The P300 and reward valence, magnitude, and expectancy in outcome evaluation.

          The P300 in event-related potentials (ERPs) has been implicated in outcome evaluation and reward processing, but it is controversial as to what aspects of reward processing it is sensitive. This study manipulated orthogonally reward valence, reward magnitude, and expectancy towards reward magnitude in a monetary gambling task and observed both the valence and the magnitude effects on the P300, but only when the amount of reward was expected on the basis of a previous cue. The FRN (feedback-related negativity), defined as the mean amplitudes of ERP responses to the loss or the gain outcome in the 250-350 ms time window post-onset of feedback, was found to be sensitive not only to reward valence, but also to expectancy towards reward magnitude and reward magnitude, with the violation of expectancy and the small magnitude eliciting more negative-going FRN. These findings demonstrate that while the FRN may function as a general mechanism that evaluates whether the outcome is consistent or inconsistent with expectation, the P300 is sensitive to a later, top-down controlled process of outcome evaluation, into which factors related to the allocation of attentional resources, including reward valence, reward magnitude, and magnitude expectancy, come to play.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            ERP correlates of feedback and reward processing in the presence and absence of response choice.

            The feedback negativity is a component of the event-related brain potential that is elicited by feedback stimuli associated with unfavorable outcomes. The present research investigated whether this component reflects an evaluation of the valence of experienced outcomes or a process of learning about actions that led to those outcomes. The latter hypothesis predicts that the feedback negativity should be observed only when negative outcomes are experienced in relation to executed actions. Contrary to this prediction, feedback negativities were observed in simple monetary gambling tasks in which participants made no active choices (experiment 1) and no overt actions (experiment 2). However, the amplitude of the component was reduced in these tasks relative to a gambling task in which the outcomes appeared to be contingent upon participants' response choices. This reduction was correlated with changes in participants' subjective ratings of involvement in the tasks, suggesting that the evaluative process indexed by the feedback negativity is sensitive to the motivational significance of ongoing events.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              It's worse than you thought: the feedback negativity and violations of reward prediction in gambling tasks.

              The reinforcement learning theory suggests that the feedback negativity should be larger when feedback is unexpected. Two recent studies found, however, that the feedback negativity was unaffected by outcome probability. To further examine this issue, participants in the present studies made reward predictions on each trial of a gambling task where objective reward probability was indicated by a cue. In Study 1, participants made reward predictions following the cue, but prior to their gambling choice; in Study 2, predictions were made following their gambling choice. Predicted and unpredicted outcomes were associated with equivalent feedback negativities in Study 1. In Study 2, however, the feedback negativity was larger for unpredicted outcomes. These data suggest that the magnitude of the feedback negativity is sensitive to violations of reward prediction, but that this effect may depend on the close coupling of prediction and outcome.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                26 February 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 2
                : e0119129
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
                [2 ]Neuromanagement Lab, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
                [3 ]National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
                National University of Singapore, SINGAPORE
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: LM QS. Performed the experiments: LM. Analyzed the data: LM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: QM. Wrote the paper: QM LM QS.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-37605
                10.1371/journal.pone.0119129
                4342159
                25719408
                a2474b97-4e7f-4d21-a230-f91a111e0b02
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 22 August 2014
                : 9 January 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, Pages: 10
                Funding
                This work was supported by grant No. 71371167 from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project of Zhejiang Province (No. 14NDJC011Z). Qiang Shen was funded by Open Research Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning of Beijing Normal University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article