郑旭涛^1,2, 郭文姣¹, 陈满¹, 金佳³, 尹军¹()

¹ 宁波大学心理学系暨研究所, 宁波 315211
² 东北师范大学心理学院, 长春 130024
³ 宁波大学神经经济管理学研究院, 宁波 315211

收稿日期:2019-06-18出版日期:2020-05-25发布日期:2020-03-26
通讯作者:尹军E-mail:yinjun1@nbu.edu.cn

基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金青年基金项目资助(31600871)

Influence of the valence of social actions on attentional capture: Focus on helping and hindering actions

ZHENG Xutao^1,2, GUO Wenjiao¹, CHEN Man¹, JIN Jia³, YIN Jun¹()

¹ Department of Psychology, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China
² School of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
³ Academy of Neuroeconomics and Neuromanagement, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China

Received:2019-06-18Online:2020-05-25Published:2020-03-26
Contact:YIN Jun E-mail:yinjun1@nbu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用学习-测验两任务范式, 通过3项实验探讨了社会行为的效价信息对注意捕获的影响。在学习阶段, 被试观看具有积极效价的帮助行为(某智能体帮助另一智能体爬山)和消极效价的阻碍行为(某智能体阻碍另一智能体爬山), 以及与各自运动特性匹配的无社会交互行为, 其目的为建立不同智能体颜色与社会行为效价信息的联结关系。在测验阶段, 则分别检验社会行为中的施动方(帮助者和阻碍者)颜色和受动方(被帮助者和被阻碍者)颜色的注意捕获效应。结果发现, 消极社会行为中施动方颜色和受动方颜色均更容易捕获注意, 而积极社会行为效价信息并没有改变联结特征值的注意捕获效应; 且相比于受动方, 与消极社会行为效价建立联结的施动方颜色的注意捕获效应更强。该结果提示, 存在消极社会行为效价驱动的注意捕获, 且消极的效价信息与卷入社会行为所有个体的特征建立联结, 但该联结中施动方物理特征具有更高的注意优先性。这一发现暗示, 声誉信息与对社会交互行为的整体表征可能综合作用于对社会交互事件的注意选择。

图/表 9

图1Anderson等人(2011)设计的实验流程(A为学习阶段, B为测验阶段)
图1Anderson等人(2011)设计的实验流程(A为学习阶段, B为测验阶段)



图2视频材料示意图
图2视频材料示意图


表1实验1视频中施动方的颜色

视频版本	“有帮助” 事件	“无帮助” 事件	“有阻碍” 事件	“无阻碍” 事件
版本一	绿色	黄色	青色	紫色
版本二	黄色	绿色	紫色	青色
版本三	青色	紫色	绿色	黄色
版本四	紫色	青色	黄色	绿色

表1实验1视频中施动方的颜色

视频版本	“有帮助” 事件	“无帮助” 事件	“有阻碍” 事件	“无阻碍” 事件
版本一	绿色	黄色	青色	紫色
版本二	黄色	绿色	紫色	青色
版本三	青色	紫色	绿色	黄色
版本四	紫色	青色	黄色	绿色

图3社会行为效价评定结果(误差线表示标准误)
图3社会行为效价评定结果(误差线表示标准误)



图4测验阶段视觉搜索任务流程
图4测验阶段视觉搜索任务流程



图5实验1测验阶段各条件下反应时平均值(误差线表示标准误)
图5实验1测验阶段各条件下反应时平均值(误差线表示标准误)



图6实验2测验阶段各条件下反应时平均值(误差线表示标准误)
图6实验2测验阶段各条件下反应时平均值(误差线表示标准误)


表2实验3视频中施动方、受动方的颜色

视频版本	施动方	受动方
版本一	青色	黄色
版本二	黄色	青色

表2实验3视频中施动方、受动方的颜色

视频版本	施动方	受动方
版本一	青色	黄色
版本二	黄色	青色

图7实验3测验阶段各条件下反应时平均值(误差线表示标准误)
图7实验3测验阶段各条件下反应时平均值(误差线表示标准误)

参考文献 47

[1]	Achterberg M., van Duijvenvoorde A. C. K., Bakermans- Kranenburg M. J., & Crone E. A . (2016). Control your anger! The neural basis of aggression regulation in response to negative social feedback. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(5), 712-720. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsv154URLpmid: 26755768
[2]	Anderson B. A . (2013). A value-driven mechanism of attentional selection. Journal of Vision, 13(3), 7. doi: 10.1167/13.3.7URLpmid: 23589803
[3]	Anderson B. A . (2015). Value-driven attentional priority is context specific. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(3), 750-756. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0724-0URLpmid: 25199468
[4]	Anderson B. A . (2016a). The attention habit: How reward learning shapes attentional selection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1), 24-39. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12957URLpmid: 26595376
[5]	Anderson B. A . (2016b). Social reward shapes attentional biases. Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1-4), 30-36. doi: 10.1080/17588928.2015.1047823URLpmid: 25941868
[6]	Anderson B. A . (2017). Counterintuitive effects of negative social feedback on attention. Cognition and Emotion, 31(3), 590-597. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1122576URLpmid: 26744037
[7]	Anderson B. A., Laurent P. A., & Yantis S . (2011). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(25), 10367-10371. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1104047108URL
[8]	Anderson B. A., Laurent P. A., & Yantis S . (2012). Generalization of value-based attentional priority. Visual Cognition, 20(6), 647-658. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2012.679711URL
[9]	Baumeister R. F., Bratslavsky E., Finkenauer C., & Vohs K. D . (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323URL
[10]	Beston P. J., Barbet C., Heerey E. A., & Thierry G . (2018). Social feedback interferes with implicit rule learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(6), 1248-1258. doi: 10.3758/s13415-018-0635-zURLpmid: 30191470
[11]	Buon M., Jacob P., Loissel E., & Dupoux E . (2013). A non- mentalistic cause-based heuristic in human social evaluations. Cognition, 126(2), 149-155. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.006URLpmid: 23177140
[12]	Camilleri J. A., Kuhlmeier V. A., & Chu J. Y. Y . (2010). Remembering helpers and hinderers depends on behavioral intentions of the agent and psychopathic characteristics of the observer. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(2), 303-316. URLpmid: 22947799
[13]	Cohen J . (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[14]	Connor C. E., Egeth H. E., & Yantis S . (2004). Visual attention: Bottom-up versus top-down. Current Biology, 14(19), 850-852.
[15]	Cushman F . (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353-380. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006URLpmid: 18439575
[16]	Desimone R., & Duncan J . (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193-222. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205URL
[17]	Ding X., Gao Z., & Shen M . (2017). Two equals one: Two human actions during social interaction are grouped as one unit in working memory. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1311-1320. doi: 10.1177/0956797617707318URLpmid: 28719763
[18]	Earley R. L . (2010). Social eavesdropping and the evolution of conditional cooperation and cheating strategies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 365(1553), 2675-2686. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0147URLpmid: 20679111
[19]	Egeth H. E., & Yantis S . (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269-297. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.269URLpmid: 9046562
[20]	Fehr E., & Fischbacher U . (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 63-87. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4URL
[21]	Folk C. L., Remington R. W., & Johnston J. C . (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030-1044. URLpmid: 1431742
[22]	Frith C. D., & Frith U . (2012). Mechanisms of social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 287-313. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100449URL
[23]	Guglielmo S., Monroe A. E., & Malle B. F . (2009). At the heart of morality lies folk psychology. Inquiry, 52(5), 449-466. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw077URLpmid: 27317926
[24]	Hamlin J. K . (2015). The case for social evaluation in preverbal infants: gazing toward one's goal drives infants' preferences for helpers over hinderers in the hill paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 563 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00563URLpmid: 24971067
[25]	Hamlin J. K., Wynn K., & Bloom P . (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450(7169), 557-559. doi: 10.1038/nature06288URLpmid: 18033298
[26]	Lavie N . (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75-82. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004URLpmid: 15668100
[27]	Leber A. B . (2010). Neural predictors of within-subject fluctuations in attentional control. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(34), 11458-11465. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0809-10.2010URLpmid: 20739567
[28]	Liu Y., Li L., Zheng L., & Guo X . (2017). Punish the perpetrator or compensate the victim? Gain vs. Loss context modulate third-party altruistic behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 75-84. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00075URLpmid: 28194127
[29]	Kobayashi K., & Hsu M . (2019). Common neural code for reward and information value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(26), 13061-13066. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1820145116URLpmid: 31186358
[30]	Kurzban R., DeScioli P., & O'Brien E . (2007). Audience effects on moralistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(2), 75-84. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.06.001URL
[31]	Milinski M . (2016). Reputation, a universal currency for human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 371(1687). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0100URLpmid: 26729939
[32]	Milinski M., Semmann D., Bakker T. C. M., & Krambeck H. J . (2001). Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: Image scoring or standing strategy? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1484), 2495-2501. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1809URLpmid: 11747570
[33]	Mineka S., & Ohman A . (2002). Phobias and preparedness: The selective, automatic, and encapsulated nature of fear. Biological Psychiatry, 52(10), 927-937. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(02)01669-4URLpmid: 12437934
[34]	Olsson A., Nearing K. I., & Phelps E. A . (2007). Learning fears by observing others: the neural systems of social fear transmission. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(1), 3-11. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsm005URLpmid: 18985115
[35]	Posner M. I . (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3-25.Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (1997). Infants attribute value± to the goal-directed actions of self-propelled objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(6), 848-856. doi: 10.1080/00335558008248231URLpmid: 7367577
[36]	Rendell L., Boyd R., Cownden D., Enquist M., Eriksson K., Feldman M. W., … Laland K. N . (2010). Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science, 328(5975), 208-213. doi: 10.1126/science.1184719URLpmid: 20378813
[37]	Reynolds J. H., Chelazzi L., & Desimone R . (1999). Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(5), 1736-1753. URLpmid: 10024360
[38]	Rozin P., & Royzman E. B . (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296-320. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2URL
[39]	Sali A. W., Anderson B. A., & Yantis S . (2014). The role of reward prediction in the control of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1654-1664. doi: 10.1037/a0037267URLpmid: 24955700
[40]	Semmann D., Krambeck H. J., & Milinski M . (2005). Reputation is valuable within and outside one’s own social group. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 57(6), 611-616. doi: 10.1007/s00265-004-0885-3URL
[41]	Theeuwes J . (1994). Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: Selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 799-806. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.4.799URLpmid: 8083635
[42]	Theeuwes J . (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77-99. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.006URLpmid: 20507828
[43]	Wedekind C., & Milinski M . (2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288(5467), 850-852. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5467.850URLpmid: 10797005
[44]	Wentura D., Muller P., & Rothermund K . (2014). Attentional capture by evaluative stimuli: Gain- and loss-connoting colors boost the additional-singleton effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 701-707. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0531-zURLpmid: 24488806
[45]	Yantis S., & Jonides J . (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 601-621. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.601URLpmid: 6238122
[46]	Yin J., Xu H., Duan J., & Shen M . (2018). Object-based attention on social units: Visual selection of hands performing a social interaction. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1040-1048. doi: 10.1177/0956797617749636URLpmid: 29741989
[47]	Young L., Cushman F., Hauser M., & Saxe R . (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(20), 8235-8240. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701408104URLpmid: 17485679

相关文章 15

[1]	车晓玮, 徐慧云, 王凯旋, 张倩, 李寿欣. 工作记忆表征精度加工需求对注意引导的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(7): 694-713.
[2]	尚雪松, 陈卓, 陆静怡. 帮忙失败后我会被差评吗?好心帮倒忙中的预测偏差[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(3): 291-305.
[3]	黄月胜, 张豹, 范兴华, 黄杰. 无关工作记忆表征的负性情绪信息能否捕获视觉注意?一项眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(1): 26-37.
[4]	宋晓蕾, 贾筱倩, 赵媛, 郭晶晶. 情绪对联合行动中共同表征能力的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(3): 269-282.
[5]	王文超, 伍新春. 共情对灾后青少年亲社会行为的影响：感恩、社会支持和创伤后成长的中介作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(3): 307-316.
[6]	姚琦, 吴章建, 张常清, 符国群. 权力感对炫耀性亲社会行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(12): 1421-1435.
[7]	王建峰, 戴冰. “追名弃利”：权力动机与社会存在对亲社会行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(1): 55-65.
[8]	李毕琴, 李玲, 王爱君, 张明. 言语工作记忆内容在语义水平的注意捕获[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(5): 483-493.
[9]	王慧媛, 隋洁, 张明. 语义关联的注意捕获——来自线索化范式的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(10): 1071-1082.
[10]	毛江华, 廖建桥, 韩 翼, 刘文兴. 谦逊领导的影响机制和效应： 一个人际关系视角[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1219-1233.
[11]	宋晓蕾, 张俊婷, 石杰, 游旭群. 语音反应方式下情绪效价对空间Simon效应的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1031-1040.
[12]	柯淳淳, 聂爱情, 张瑞卿. 回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节 ——情绪效价和编码水平的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 733-744.
[13]	王艳辉;李董平;孙文强;赵力燕;赖雪芬;周月月. 亲子依恋与初中生亲社会行为：有调节的中介效应[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 663-679.
[14]	潘颖秋. 大学生专业兴趣的形成机制：专业选择、社会支持和学业投入的长期影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(12): 1513-1523.
[15]	刘丽;白学军. 注意控制定势和线索类型在注意捕获中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1093-1104.

PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4702