承诺对于维持对社会等级制度的信任至关重要。众所周知,并非所有的承诺都得到遵守;然而,社会地位对遵守或违背承诺的反应的影响还远未被理解。这种效应背后的神经过程也是如此。在这里,我们操纵参与者的社会地位,然后在迭代信任游戏(TG)中衡量他们作为投资者的投资行为。参与者决定对他们的合作伙伴投资多少,在TG担任受托人,在被告知社会地位较高或较低的伴侣承诺返还乘以总和的一半(4×投资金额)后,没有承诺,或者没有机会承诺。当参与者看到受托人的决定时,记录了与事件相关的电位(ERP),在该决定中,合伙人总是有一半时间返回,不管实验条件如何。受托人承诺返回或不返回的决定被定义为诚实和不诚实,分别。行为上,当受托人承诺时,参与者的投资比受托人没有机会承诺时更多,对于地位较高的受托人,这种影响比地位较低的受托人更大。神经上,在查看受托人返回决定时,当受托人没有返回时,参与者内侧额叶消极(MFN)反应(发病后250-310ms)比他们返回时更消极,表明不返回是违反预期的。P300响应仅对较高状态返回反馈敏感,与地位较低的合作伙伴回报相比,地位较高的合作伙伴回报更积极,这表明,更高的地位回报可能更有回报/动机意义。重要的是,只有低主观社会经济地位(SES)的参与者证明了对较高地位的P300效应比对较低地位的诚实(诚实-不诚实)增加,这表明,对于SES较低的参与者,较高的地位诚实尤其有益/动机意义重大。一起来看,我们的结果表明,在较早的时间窗口中,最惠国编码返回价,不管诚实或社会地位,这在后来的认知评估过程(P300)中得到了解决。我们的发现表明,社会地位在行为和神经层面都会影响诚实感知,主观SES可能会调节这种效果。
Promises are crucial for maintaining trust in social hierarchies. It is well known that not all promises are kept; yet the effect of social status on responses to promises being kept or broken is far from understood, as are the neural processes underlying this effect. Here we manipulated participants\' social status before measuring their investment behavior as Investor in iterated Trust Game (TG). Participants decided how much to invest in their partners, who acted as Trustees in TG, after being informed that their partners of higher or lower social status either promised to return half of the multiplied sum (4 × invested amount), did not
promise, or had no opportunity to
promise. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded when the participants saw the Trustees\' decisions in which the partners always returned half of the time, regardless of the experimental conditions. Trustee decisions to return or not after promising to do so were defined as honesty and dishonesty, respectively. Behaviorally, participants invested more when Trustees promised than when Trustees had no opportunity to
promise, and this effect was greater for higher status than lower status Trustees. Neurally, when viewing Trustees\' return decisions, participants\' medial frontal negativity (MFN) responses (250-310 ms post onset) were more negative when Trustees did not return than when they did return, suggesting that not returning was an expectancy violation. P300 responses were only sensitive to higher status return feedback, and were more positive-going for higher status partner returns than for lower status partner returns, suggesting that higher status returns may have been more rewarding/motivationally significant. Importantly, only participants in low subjective socioeconomic status (SES) evidenced an increased P300 effect for higher status than lower status honesty (honesty - dishonesty), suggesting that higher status honesty was especially rewarding/motivationally significant for participants with low SES. Taken together, our results suggest that in an earlier time window, MFN encodes return valence, regardless of honesty or social status, which are addressed in a later cognitive appraisal process (P300). Our findings suggest that social status influences honesty perception at both a behavioral and neural level, and that subjective SES may modulate this effect.