Context-based interpersonal relationship modulates social comparison between outcomes: an event-related potential study

Abstract

Social comparison is a common behavior that largely determines people’s experience of decision outcome. Previous research has showed that interpersonal relationship plays a pivotal role in social comparison. In the current study, we investigated whether the manipulation of context-based relationship would affect participants’ comparison of self-outcome and other-outcome. Participants first finished a trust game with likeable (dislikeable) partner and then they were involved in a gambling task and observed the outcomes for themselves and for partners. According to self-reports, participants were more satisfied with likeable partner’s gains than losses only when they received gains, but they were always more satisfied with dislikeable player’s losses compared to gains. Event-related potentials including the feedback-related negativity (FRN), P3 and late positive component (LPC) were sensitive to context-based relationship. Specifically, the prediction error signal (indexed by the FRN) was largest when participants received losses but dislikeable player received gains. Meanwhile, the P3 indicates that participants had stronger motivation to outperform dislikeable player. Finally, the LPC was larger when participants received the same outcomes with dislikeable players. In general, our results support the key point of the self-evaluation maintenance model that personal closeness modulates subjective sensitivity when drawing a comparison of one’s outcomes with other’s outcomes.

Working memory load reduces the processing of outcome evaluation involving others but not oneself: Event‐related potential evidence

“…Boksem et al (2011) showed that differential P300 responses between self-related positive and negative feedback were smaller when others obtained positive feedback than when others obtained negative feedback. When participants gained an amount of money, the RewP and LPP responses were more positive for others' gains than for others' losses; however, this effect was not shown when participants lost money (Zhang et al, 2020(Zhang et al, , 2021.…”

“…Based on previous studies (e.g., Hu et al, 2017;Liu et al, 2020;Marco-Pallarés et al, 2010;Rigoni et al, 2010;Qi et al, 2018;Wu et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2020Zhang et al, , 2021 and visual inspection of grand waveforms, ERPs were quantified using the mean amplitudes for P200 (190-260 ms), RewP (290-360 ms), P300 (360-420 ms) and LPP (420-750 ms) components. The P200 and RewP components were measured at the Fz and FCz electrodes.…”

“…Moreover, several studies have presented both selfrelated and others' outcomes, suggesting that these two outcomes interact with each other (e.g., Boksem et al, 2011;Hu et al, 2017;Liu et al, 2020;Marco-Pallarés et al, 2010;Rigoni et al, 2010;Qi et al, 2018;Wu et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2020Zhang et al, , 2021. For example, Rigoni and colleagues (2010) reported that the P200 component was larger in amplitude for self-related gains than for selfrelated losses when participants were only presented with their own outcome, whereas the difference was reduced when both participants' own outcomes and the outcomes of other individuals were presented.…”

I, robot: depression plays different roles in human–human and human–robot interactions

“…While the P3 has been related to diverse cognitive operations [ 107 , 108 ], many studies suggest that this component is closely associated with a motivational level in decision-making tasks, such that a larger P3 indicates the stronger motivational significance of the ongoing event [ 56 , 71 , 109 – 111 ]. For instance, a larger P3 was observed when participants were comparing their task performance with that of a disliked opponent’s, indicating stronger motivation to outperform that opponent [ 112 ]. Given this background knowledge, we propose a possible interpretation of the P3 finding: compared to the controls, mild depressive individuals’ motivation to provide better performance in a social scenario is less likely to be modulated by their expectation of receiving positive social feedback (or avoiding negative social feedback) from a human companion.…”

Electrophysiological Markers of Fairness and Selfishness Revealed by a Combination of Dictator and Ultimatum Games

“…4.6. Posterior-parietal late positive component LPC is another ERP component closely related to relevant motivational stimuli and the subsequent sustained allocation of attention [56,57,126], and to the saliency of an outcome also in social comparisons [127][128][129]. Recent evidence provided by the analysis of a modified Dictator Game exploring the role of players' social status [40] revealed that LPC amplitude was more sensitive to the interaction of the recipient's status and fairness -i.e., with a tendency of greater amplitude triggered by unfair endowment shares for a high-status Recipient and greater amplitude triggered by fair splits for a medium-status Recipient.…”