Social distance modulates the process of uncertain decision-making: evidence from event-related potentials

References

• Platt ML, Huettel SA. Risky business: the neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11(4):398–403. doi:10.1038/nn206218368046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trope Y, Liberman N. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev. 2010;117(2):440–463. doi:10.1037/a001896320438233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Liu Y, Chen X, Shang X, Liu Y. Decisions for others are less risk-averse in the gain frame and less risk-seeking in the loss frame than decisions for the self. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1601. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.0160128966604
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Chen X, Gao Y, Liu Y, Liu Y. Self-promotion hypothesis: the impact of self-esteem on self–other discrepancies in decision making under risk. Pers Indiv Differ. 2018;127:26–30. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polman E. Self–other decision making and loss aversion. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2012;119(2):141–150. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson O, Holm HJ, Tyran J-R, Wengström E. Deciding for others reduces loss aversion. Manage Sci. 2014;55(3):29–36. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beisswanger AH, Stone ER, Hupp JM, Allgaier L. Risk taking in relationships: differences in deciding for oneself versus for a friend. Basic Appl Social Psychol. 2003;25(2):121–135. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garciaretamero R, Galesic M. Doc, what would you do if you were me? On self–other discrepancies in medical decision making. J Exp Psychol. 2012;18(1):38–51. doi:10.1037/a0026018
   Google Scholar
• Stone ER, Choi YS, de Bruin WB, Mandel DR. I can take the risk, but you should be safe: self-other differences in situations involving physical safety. Judgm Decis Mak. 2013;8(3):250–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zikmundfisher BJ, Sarr B, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. A matter of perspective: choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(6):618–622. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00410.x16808746
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone ER, Allgaier L. A social values analysis of self-other differences in decision making involving risk. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2008;30(2):114–129. doi:10.1080/01973530802208832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Q, Liu Y, Zhang H, Lu J. Increased social distance makes people more risk-neutral. J Soc Psychol. 2017;157(4):502–512. doi:10.1080/00224545.2016.124247127685243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington GL, Roese NJ. Regulatory focus and temporal distance. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2003;39(6):563–576. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00058-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita K, Henderson MD, Eng J, Trope Y, Liberman N. Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(4):278–282. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x16623682
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberman N, Trope Y. Traversing psychological distance. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(7):364–369. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.00124726527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillaume S, Jollant F, Jaussent I, Lawrence N, Malafosse A, Courtet P. Somatic markers and explicit knowledge are both involved in decision-making. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(10):2120–2124. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.04.00319427005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lermer E, Streicher B, Sachs R, Raue M, Frey D. The effect of construal level on risk-taking. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2015;45(1):99–109. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raue M, Streicher B, Lermer E, Frey D. How far does it feel? Construal level and decisions under risk. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2015;4(3):256–264. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okdie BM, Buelow MT, Bevelhymer-Rangel K. It’s all in how you think about it: construal level and the Iowa Gambling Task. Front Neurosci. 2016;10(773):2. doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.0000226834531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui JF, Chen YH, Wang Y, Shum DH, Chan RC. Neural correlates of uncertain decision making: ERP evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7(1):776. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.0077624298248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold JI, Shadlen MN. The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:535–574. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.11303817600525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Zheng J, Huang S, Sun H. P300 and decision making under risk and ambiguity. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2015;2015(1):108417. doi:10.1155/2015/10841726539213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118(10):2128–2148. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.01917573239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonala BK, Jansen BH. A computational model for generation of the P300 evoked potential component. J Integr Neurosci. 2012;11(3):277–294. doi:10.1142/S021963521250021522974337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogler L, Sailer U, Derntl B, Pfabigan DM. Processing expected and unexpected uncertainty is modulated by fearless-dominance personality traits - An exploratory ERP study on feedback processing. Physiol Behav. 2017;168:74. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.10.01627789252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuermann B, Endrass T, Kathmann N. Neural correlates of feedback processing in decision-making under risk. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:204. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.0020422783182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandrakumar D, Feuerriegel D, Bode S, Grech M, Keage HAD. Event-related potentials in relation to risk-taking: a systematic review. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018;12. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giustiniani J, Gabriel D, Nicolier M, Monnin J, Haffen E. Neural correlates of successful and unsuccessful strategical mechanisms involved in uncertain decision-making. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130871. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.013087126086196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser TU, Iannaccone R, Stampfli P, et al. The feedback-related negativity (FRN) revisited: new insights into the localization, meaning and network organization. Neuroimage. 2014;84:159–168. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.02823973408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu X, Wu H, Yang S, Gu R. Motivational hierarchy in the Chinese brain: primacy of the individual self, relational self, or collective self? Front Psychol. 2016;7:877. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.0087727378977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varnum ME, Shi Z, Chen A, Qiu J, Han S. When “Your” reward is the same as “My” reward: self-construal priming shifts neural responses to own vs. friends’ rewards. Neuroimage. 2014;87:164–169. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.04224185022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braams BR, Peters S, Peper JS, Guroglu B, Crone EA. Gambling for self, friends, and antagonists: differential contributions of affective and social brain regions on adolescent reward processing. Neuroimage. 2014;100(6):281–289. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.02024945662
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leng Y, Zhou X. Interpersonal relationship modulates brain responses to outcome evaluation when gambling for/against others: an electrophysiological analysis. Neuropsychologia. 2014;63:205–214. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.03325218954
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu R, Hu P, Zhang P. Social distance and anonymity modulate fairness consideration: an ERP study. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):13452. doi:10.1038/srep1345226293456
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strombach T, Weber B, Hangebrauk Z, et al. Social discounting involves modulation of neural value signals by temporoparietal junction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(5):1619–1624. doi:10.1073/pnas.141471511225605887
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim H, Schnall S, White MP. Similar psychological distance reduces temporal discounting. Personality Social Psychol Bull. 2013;39(8):1005–1016. doi:10.1177/0146167213488214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones B, Rachlin H. Social discounting. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(4):283–286. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01699.x16623683
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margittai Z, Strombach T, Van Wingerden M, Joels M, Schwabe L, Kalenscher T. A friend in need: time-dependent effects of stress on social discounting in men. Horm Behav. 2015;73:75–82. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.05.01926122295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cauffman E, Shulman EP, Steinberg L, et al. Age differences in affective decision making as indexed by performance on the Iowa Gambling Task. Dev Psychol. 2010;46(1):193–207. doi:10.1037/a001612820053017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brevers D, Bechara A, Cleeremans A, Noel X. Iowa Gambling Task (IGT): twenty years after - gambling disorder and IGT. Front Psychol. 2013;4(9):665. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.0018624137138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong X, Du X, Qi B. Conceptual knowledge influences decision making differently in individuals with high or low cognitive flexibility: an ERP study. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0158875. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.015887527479484
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994;50(1–3):7–15. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-38039375
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klem GH, Lüders HO, Jasper H, Elger C. The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;52(3):3–6.
   Google Scholar
• Nunez PL, Srinivasan R, Westdorp AF, et al. EEG coherency: I: statistics, reference electrode, volume conduction, Laplacians, cortical imaging, and interpretation at multiple scales. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997;103(5):499–515. doi:10.1016/s0013-4694(97)00066-79402881
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004;134(1):9–21. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.00915102499
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung TP, Makeig S, Humphries C, et al. Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology. 2000;37(2):163–178. doi:10.1111/1469-8986.372016310731767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makeig S, Bell AJ, Jung T, Sejnowski TJ Independent component analysis of electroencephalographic data. Paper presented at: neural information processing systems; November 27-30, 1995; Denver, Colorado, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Bianchin M, Angrilli A. Decision preceding negativity in the Iowa Gambling Task: an ERP study. Brain Cogn. 2011;75(3):273–280. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.01.00521306813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gehring WJ, Willoughby AR. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science. 2002;295(5563):2279–2282. doi:10.1126/science.106689311910116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung N, Sanfey AG. Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. J Neurosci. 2004;24(28):6258. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0553-04.200415254080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu R, Huang YX, Luo YJ. Anxiety and feedback negativity. Psychophysiology. 2010;47(5):961–967. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.00997.x20374540
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li P, Jia S, Feng T, Liu Q, Suo T, Li H. The influence of the diffusion of responsibility effect on outcome evaluations: electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study. Neuroimage. 2010;52(4):1727–1733. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.27520452440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rigoni D, Brass M, Roger C, Vidal F, Sartori G. Top-down modulation of brain activity underlying intentional action and its relationship with awareness of intention: an ERP/Laplacian analysis. Exp Brain Res. 2013;229(3):347–357. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3400-023354661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog SM, Hansen J, Wänke M. Temporal distance and ease of retrieval. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43(3):483–488. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todorov A, Goren A, Trope Y. Probability as a psychological distance: construal and preferences. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43(3):473–482. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita K, Carnevale JJ, Trope Y. Understanding self-control as a whole vs. part dynamic. Neuroethics. 2018;11(3):283–296. doi:10.1007/s12152-016-9250-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin C, Chiu Y, Lee P, Hsieh J. Is deck B a disadvantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task. Behav Brain Funct. 2007;3(1):16. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-3-1617362508
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu YC, Lin CH. Is deck C an advantageous deck in the Iowa Gambling Task? Behav Brain Funct. 2007;3(1):37. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-3-3717683599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–458. doi:10.1126/science.74556837455683
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krain AL, Hefton S, Pine DS, et al. An fMRI examination of developmental differences in the neural correlates of uncertainty and decision-making. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006;47(10):1023–1030. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01677.x17073981
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwenhuis S, Aston-Jones G, Cohen JD. Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. Psychol Bull. 2005;131(4):510–532. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.51016060800
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajcak G, Nieuwenhuis S. Reappraisal modulates the electrocortical response to unpleasant pictures. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2006;6(4):291–297. doi:10.3758/CABN.6.4.29117458444
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keil A, Bradley MM, Hauk O, Rockstroh B, Elbert T, Lang PJ. Large-scale neural correlates of affective picture processing. Psychophysiology. 2002;39(5):641–649. doi:10.1017/S004857720239416212236331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kok A. Event-related-potential (ERP) reflections of mental resource̊s: a review and synthesis. Biol Psychol. 1997;45(1–3):19–56. doi:10.1016/s0301-0511(96)05221-09083643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer A, Schneider W, Fisk A, Donchin E. The effects of practice and task structure on components of the event-related brain potential. Psychophysiology. 1986;23(1):33–47. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00590.x3945706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mecklinger A, Kramer AF, Strayer DL. Event related potentials and EEG components in a semantic memory search task. Psychophysiology. 1992;29(1):104–119. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1992.tb02021.x1609022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mars RB, Coles MG, Grol MJ, et al. Neural dynamics of error processing in medial frontal cortex. Neuroimage. 2005;28(4):1007–1013. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.04116055352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asp E, Manzel K, Koestner B, Denburg NL, Tranel D. Benefit of the doubt: a new view of the role of the prefrontal cortex in executive functioning and decision making. Front Neurosci. 2013;7(7):86. doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.0008623745103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadland KA, Rushworth MF, Gaffan D, Passingham RE. The anterior cingulate and reward-guided selection of actions. J Neurophysiol. 2003;89(2):1161–1164. doi:10.1152/jn.00634.200212574489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson SM, Zayas V, Guthormsen A. Neural correlates of decision making on a gambling task. Child Dev. 2009;80(4):1076–1096. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01318.x19630895
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim H, Schnall S, Yi DJ, White MP. Social distance decreases responders’ sensitivity to fairness in the ultimatum game. Judgment Decis Making. 2013;8(5):632–638.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfabigan DM, Sailer U, Lamm C. Size does matter! Perceptual stimulus properties affect event-related potentials during feedback processing. Psychophysiology. 2015;52(9):1238–1247. doi:10.1111/psyp.1245826059201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellebaum C, Polezzi D, Daum I. It is less than you expected: the feedback-related negativity reflects violations of reward magnitude expectations. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(11):3343–3350. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.07.02320655319
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Zhou X. The P300 and reward valence, magnitude, and expectancy in outcome evaluation. Brain Res. 2009;1286:114–122. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.06.03219539614
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sato A, Yasuda A, Ohira H, et al. Effects of value and reward magnitude on feedback negativity and P300. Neuroreport. 2005;16(4):407. doi:10.1097/00001756-200503150-0002015729147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajcak G, Moser JS, Holroyd CB, Simons RF. The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biol Psychol. 2006;71(2):148–154. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.04.00116005561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leng Y, Zhou X. Modulation of the brain activity in outcome evaluation by interpersonal relationship: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(2):448–455. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.00219822163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma Q, Shen Q, Xu Q, Li D, Shu L, Weber B. Empathic responses to others’ gains and losses: an electrophysiological investigation. Neuroimage. 2011;54(3):2472–2480. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.04520974264
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung N, Holroyd CB, Cohen JD. ERP correlates of feedback and reward processing in the presence and absence of response choice. Cereb Cortex. 2005;15(5):535–544. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhh15315319308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClure SM, York MK, Montague PR. The neural substrates of reward processing in humans: the modern role of FMRI. Neuroscientist. 2004;10(3):260–268. doi:10.1177/107385840426352615155064
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Güroğlu B, Haselager GJ, van Lieshout CF, Takashima A, Rijpkema M, Fernã NG. Why are friends special? Implementing a social interaction simulation task to probe the neural correlates of friendship. Neuroimage. 2008;39(2):903–910. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.00717964185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown TG, Ouimet MC, Eldeb M, et al. Personality, executive control, and neurobiological characteristics associated with different forms of risky driving. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0150227. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.015022726910345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne KA, Worthy DA. Toward a mechanistic account of gender differences in reward-based decision-making. J Neurosci Psychol Econ. 2016. doi:10.1037/npe0000059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buelow MT, Suhr JA. Personality characteristics and state mood influence individual deck selections on the Iowa Gambling Task. Pers Indiv Differ. 2013;54(5):593–597. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson SA, Yechiam E, Murphy RR, Queller S, Stout JC. Motivational processes and autonomic responsivity in Asperger’s disorder: evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006;12(5):668–676. doi:10.1017/S135561770606080216961948
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubia K. Functional brain imaging across development. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;22(12):719–731. doi:10.1007/s00787-012-0291-822729957
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar