Morality or competence is more important? The effect of evaluation dimensions on ERP responses to neutral faces depends on contextual valence and self-relevance

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Xiaoyang Huang , Yuliu Sun , Ruiwen Tao , Kaikai Yan , Entao Zhang
{"title":"Morality or competence is more important? The effect of evaluation dimensions on ERP responses to neutral faces depends on contextual valence and self-relevance","authors":"Xiaoyang Huang ,&nbsp;Yuliu Sun ,&nbsp;Ruiwen Tao ,&nbsp;Kaikai Yan ,&nbsp;Entao Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2024.112358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent studies have shown that the processing of neutral facial expressions could be modulated by the valence and self-relevance of preceding verbal evaluations. However, these studies have not distinguished the dimension (i.e., morality and competence) from verbal evaluations. In fact, there is a hot controversy about whether morality or competence receives more weight. Therefore, using the ERP technique, the current study aimed to address this issue by comparing the influence of morality and competence evaluations on behavioral and neural responses to neutral facial expressions when these evaluations varied with contextual valence and self-relevance. Our ERP results revealed that the early EPN amplitudes were larger for neutral faces after receiving evaluations about self relative to evaluations about senders. Moreover, the EPN was more negative after a competence evaluation relative to a morality evaluation when these evaluations were positive, while this effect was absent when these evaluations were negative. The late LPP was larger after a morality evaluation compared to a competence evaluation when these evaluations were negative and directed to self. However, no significant LPP effect between morality and competence evaluations was observed when these evaluations were positive. The present study extended previous studies by showing that early and late processing stages of faces are affected by the evaluation dimension in a top-down manner and further modulated by contextual valence and self-relevance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54945,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychophysiology","volume":"200 ","pages":"Article 112358"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016787602400062X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that the processing of neutral facial expressions could be modulated by the valence and self-relevance of preceding verbal evaluations. However, these studies have not distinguished the dimension (i.e., morality and competence) from verbal evaluations. In fact, there is a hot controversy about whether morality or competence receives more weight. Therefore, using the ERP technique, the current study aimed to address this issue by comparing the influence of morality and competence evaluations on behavioral and neural responses to neutral facial expressions when these evaluations varied with contextual valence and self-relevance. Our ERP results revealed that the early EPN amplitudes were larger for neutral faces after receiving evaluations about self relative to evaluations about senders. Moreover, the EPN was more negative after a competence evaluation relative to a morality evaluation when these evaluations were positive, while this effect was absent when these evaluations were negative. The late LPP was larger after a morality evaluation compared to a competence evaluation when these evaluations were negative and directed to self. However, no significant LPP effect between morality and competence evaluations was observed when these evaluations were positive. The present study extended previous studies by showing that early and late processing stages of faces are affected by the evaluation dimension in a top-down manner and further modulated by contextual valence and self-relevance.

道德更重要还是能力更重要?评价维度对中性面孔ERP反应的影响取决于情境价值和自我相关性
最近的研究表明,对中性面部表情的处理可能会受到之前言语评价的价值和自我相关性的调节。然而,这些研究并没有区分口头评价的维度(即道德和能力)。事实上,关于道德感和能力感孰重孰轻的问题一直存在争议。因此,本研究利用 ERP 技术,通过比较道德和能力评价对中性面部表情的行为和神经反应的影响(当这些评价随情境价值和自我相关性变化时),旨在解决这一问题。我们的ERP结果显示,相对于对发送者的评价,在收到对自我的评价后,中性面部的早期EPN振幅更大。此外,当能力评价和道德评价是正面评价时,EPN 在能力评价后相对于道德评价更加负面,而当这些评价是负面评价时则没有这种效应。当道德评价是负面的且针对自我时,与能力评价相比,道德评价后的后期 LPP 更大。然而,当道德评价和能力评价都是正面评价时,没有观察到道德评价和能力评价之间有明显的 LPP 效应。本研究扩展了之前的研究,表明面孔的早期和晚期加工阶段以自上而下的方式受到评价维度的影响,并进一步受到情境价值和自我相关性的调节。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
177
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Psychophysiology is the official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, and provides a respected forum for the publication of high quality original contributions on all aspects of psychophysiology. The journal is interdisciplinary and aims to integrate the neurosciences and behavioral sciences. Empirical, theoretical, and review articles are encouraged in the following areas: • Cerebral psychophysiology: including functional brain mapping and neuroimaging with Event-Related Potentials (ERPs), Positron Emission Tomography (PET), Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and Electroencephalographic studies. • Autonomic functions: including bilateral electrodermal activity, pupillometry and blood volume changes. • Cardiovascular Psychophysiology:including studies of blood pressure, cardiac functioning and respiration. • Somatic psychophysiology: including muscle activity, eye movements and eye blinks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信