Social value orientation modulates the processing of outcome evaluation involving others

Hu, Xinmu; Xu, Zhenhua; Mai, Xiaoqin

doi:10.1093/scan/nsx102

Cited by 54 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the present experiment do not corroborate the observation of FRN modulations made by Boksem et al () (see also Hu et al, ; Luo et al, ). The absence of any FRN modulation caused by the quality of preceding feedback might indicate that, in the present design, social comparison does not change feedback interpretation according to valence or expectedness.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the absence of any FRN modulation, in the present experiment, social comparison had a significant effect on the P3a component. However, two characteristics of the observed P3a modulations do not conform to the late ERP effects reported in other studies of social comparison (Hu et al, ; Luo et al, ; Qiu et al, ; Wu et al, ). First, contrary to the observation of parietal modulations in Luo et al (), Hu et al (), and Wu et al () or to the widespread effect in Qiu et al (), in the present experiment, social comparison affected the P3 amplitude over fronto‐central electrodes, with bilateral electrodes showing the most robust effect.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

“…Previous studies of the electrophysiological underpinnings of social comparison reported discordant results about which ERP component evoked by performance monitoring reflects the relative interpretation of feedback. With the presentation of personal and nonpersonal feedback within the same external signal, Boksem et al () observed that social comparison affected the FRN, Wu et al () and Qiu et al () reported P3 effects, whereas Luo et al () and Hu et al () recorded modulations of both the FRN and the P3. Contrary to previous studies of social comparison, the present experiment aimed to identify the ERP related to social comparison by presenting personal and nonpersonal feedback in sequence and analyzed how the first feedback affected the interpretation of the second feedback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, in these two studies, inequality seemed to be the most effective factor, irrespective of whether the personal outcome was better or worse than the outcome of the other participant. Furthermore, Luo et al () found modulations of both the FRN and the P3 induced by feedback descriptive of the outcomes of three people involved in a gambling task, and recently Hu et al () observed FRN and P3 modulations, along with effects on the LPC activity, but only in participants that showed prosocial value orientation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neuroimaging studies have shown that the relative evaluation of outcomes is associated with the activity of the bilateral ventral striatum (Bault, Joffily, Rustichini, & Coricelli, ; Dvash, Gilam, Ben‐Ze'ev, Hendler, & Shamay‐Tsoory, ; Fliessbach et al, ; Takahashi et al, ). However, the effect of social comparison on the ERPs evoked by feedback processing is still unclear (Boksem, Kostermans, & De Cremer, ; Hu, Xu, & Mai, ; Luo et al, ; Qiu et al, ; Wu, Zhang, Elieson, & Zhou, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Feedback processing in the context of social comparison

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many situations, social comparison calls for the evaluation of one´s own performance in relative terms by taking into account the performances of other people. Here, we investigated the effects of social comparison on performance monitoring with the help of ERPs. Two participants performed two identical experiments at the same time and in the same room. Instructions created a social context of cooperation by suggesting that participants were performing the same task for the maximization of a shared bonus. The experiment was a response‐choice task with two feedback signals presented in sequence after each response: one feedback described the personal performance (personal feedback) and one reflected the other participant's performance (nonpersonal feedback). In the present experiment, social comparison should induce interpretations of the second feedback in relative terms (e.g., “I performed better”) according to the quality of the first feedback. ERP results showed that the first nonpersonal feedback affected the fronto‐central P3 component (P3a) evoked by the second personal feedback but did not modulate the feedback‐related negativity (FRN). The P3a component evoked by the personal feedback was larger when the comparison against the preceding nonpersonal feedback signaled that the personal performance was worse than the other participant's performance. Interestingly, the effect was prominent over bilateral fronto‐central electrodes (FC3, FC4). The observed P3a effect might indicate the recruitment of attentional resources when the comparison between personal and nonpersonal performance shows that the personal performance was not as good as the performance of others.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Feedback processing in the context of social comparison

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The impact of social hierarchies on neural response to feedback evaluations after advice giving

Li,

Sun

et al. 2024

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advisors generally evaluate advisee‐relevant feedback after advice giving. The response to these feedback—(1) whether the advice is accepted and (2) whether the advice is optimal—usually involves prestige. Prior literature has found that prestige is the basis by which individuals attain a superior status in the social hierarchy. However, whether advisors are motivated to attain a superior status when engaging in advice giving remains uncharacterized. Using event‐related potentials, this study investigates how advisors evaluate feedback after giving advice to superior (vs. inferior) status advisees. A social hierarchy was first established based on two advisees (one was ranked as superior status and another as inferior status) as well as participants' performance in a dot‐estimation task in which all participants were ranked as medium status. Participants then engaged in a game in which they were assigned roles as advisors to a superior or inferior status advisee. Afterward, the participants received feedback in two phases. In Phase 1, participants were told whether the advisees accepted the advice provided. In Phase 2, the participants were informed whether the advice they provided was correct. In these two phases, when the advisee was of superior status, participants exhibited stronger feedback‐related negativity and P300 difference in response to (1) whether their advice was accepted, and (2) whether their advice was correct. Moreover, the P300 was notably larger when the participants' correct advice led to a gain for a superior‐status advisee. In the context of advice giving, advisors are particularly motivated to attain a superior status when the feedback involving social hierarchies, which is reflected in higher sensitivity to feedback associated with superior status advisees at earlier and later stages during feedback evaluations in brains.

show abstract