Social relationship modulates advisor's brain response to advice-giving outcome evaluation: Evidence from an event-related potential study

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

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.

Active vs. computer-based passive decision-making leads to discrepancies in outcome evaluation: evidence from self-reported emotional experience and brain activity

People prefer active decision-making and induce greater emotional feelings than computer-based passive mode, yet the modulation of decision-making mode on outcome evaluation remains unknown. The present study adopted event-related potentials to investigate the discrepancies in active and computer-based passive mode on outcome evaluation using a card gambling task. The subjective rating results showed that active mode elicited more cognitive effort and stronger emotional feelings than passive mode. For received outcomes, we observed no significant Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) effect on difference waveshapes (d-FRN) between the 2 modes, but active decision-making elicited larger P300 amplitudes than the passive mode. For unchosen card outcomes, the results revealed larger d-FRN amplitudes of relative valences (Superior - Inferior) in responses to negative feedback in active mode than in passive mode. The averaged P300 results revealed an interplay among outcome feedback, decision-making mode, and relative valence, and the average P300 amplitude elicited by the received loss outcome in the active mode partially mediated the relationship between subjective cognitive effort and negative emotion ratings on loss. Our findings indicate discrepancies between active and computer-based passive modes, and cognitive effort and emotional experience involved in outcome evaluation.