Department of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Beijing Polytechnic, Beijing, China.
School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance, School of Physics and Materials Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China; Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics, Ministry of Education, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China; National Demonstration Center for Experimental Psychology Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Int J Psychophysiol. 2022 Jul;177:27-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.04.003. Epub 2022 Apr 9.
Third-party punishment plays a crucial role in fairness norm enforcement. The present study investigated how punishment cost would affect third-parties' behavioral and neural responses to unfairness using a modified Third-Party Dictator Game and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants acted as third-parties and decided how many monetary units (MUs) to invest to punish norm violations in two punishment cost contexts. Participants' every MU investment reduced dictators' payoff by 6 MUs in the low punishment cost context and 3 MUs in the high one. Participants' invested MUs reflected the cost they would like to pay to punish dictators while dictators' reduced MUs represented the amount of punishment they received. Behavioral results showed participants' fairness ratings were not affected by punishment cost. However, punishment amount decreased in the high punishment cost context where participants invested more MUs and spent more time for decision-making. Neurally, left anterior insula (AI) and bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) showed stronger responses to unfair relative to fair allocations in both contexts. Moreover, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) was more active during unfair allocations in the high punishment cost context than in the low one and the difference of dACC activity between these two conditions was positively correlated with the difference of reaction times. Overall, the present study demonstrated that punishment cost would not affect people's fairness perception but increase the conflicts between norm enforcement and self-interest. The decision for punishment was the outcome of integrating fairness and economic considerations.
第三方惩罚在公平规范执行中起着至关重要的作用。本研究使用改良的第三方独裁者博弈和功能磁共振成像（fMRI）来研究惩罚成本如何影响第三方对不公平的行为和神经反应。参与者作为第三方，决定在两种惩罚成本情境下投资多少货币单位（MU）来惩罚违反规范的行为。在低惩罚成本情境下，参与者每投资一个 MU，就会减少独裁者 6 个 MU 的收益，而在高惩罚成本情境下，参与者每投资一个 MU，就会减少独裁者 3 个 MU 的收益。参与者的投资 MU 反映了他们愿意支付的惩罚独裁者的成本，而独裁者减少的 MU 则代表了他们受到的惩罚金额。行为结果表明，惩罚成本并不影响参与者的公平评价。然而，在高惩罚成本情境下，参与者投资了更多的 MU，并且决策时间更长，因此惩罚金额减少。神经上，左前岛叶（AI）和双侧背外侧前额叶皮层（dlPFC）在两种情境下对不公平分配的反应都比公平分配更强。此外，在高惩罚成本情境下，背侧前扣带皮层（dACC）在不公平分配时比在低惩罚成本情境下更活跃，并且这两个条件之间的 dACC 活动差异与反应时间差异呈正相关。总的来说，本研究表明，惩罚成本不会影响人们的公平感知，但会增加规范执行和自身利益之间的冲突。惩罚的决策是公平和经济考虑因素综合的结果。
