攻击行为的持续性和升级中的情感预测误差。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1037/xge0001570
Marius C Vollberg, Mina Cikara
{"title":"攻击行为的持续性和升级中的情感预测误差。","authors":"Marius C Vollberg, Mina Cikara","doi":"10.1037/xge0001570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People generally empathize with others and find harm aversive. Yet aggression, for example, between groups, abounds. How do people learn to overcome this aversion in order to aggress? Many models of learning emphasize outcome prediction errors-deviations from expected outcomes in the environment-but aggression may also be fueled by affective prediction errors (affective PEs)-deviations from how we expect to feel. Across five preregistered online experiments that hold outcome prediction errors constant (<i>N</i> = 4,607), participants choosing aggressive or nonaggressive actions aggressed more against disliked group members and often escalated or persisted in taking actions that felt better than expected (positive affective PE), especially when those actions were aggressive. Crucially, inducing incidental empathy toward the group of the target rendered affective PE signals sensitive to group identification-participants escalated aggression that felt better than expected relatively less toward liked versus disliked group members. That said, affective PEs did not always add explanatory power beyond levels of postoutcome affect alone; we discuss the importance and implications of these results. In summary, we reveal affective PE integration as a candidate algorithm facilitating exceptions to harm aversion in intergroup conflict. More broadly, we highlight for affective science and decision-making researchers the necessity of appropriately testing separable components of affective signals in predicting subsequent behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Affective prediction errors in persistence and escalation of aggression.\",\"authors\":\"Marius C Vollberg, Mina Cikara\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>People generally empathize with others and find harm aversive. Yet aggression, for example, between groups, abounds. How do people learn to overcome this aversion in order to aggress? Many models of learning emphasize outcome prediction errors-deviations from expected outcomes in the environment-but aggression may also be fueled by affective prediction errors (affective PEs)-deviations from how we expect to feel. Across five preregistered online experiments that hold outcome prediction errors constant (<i>N</i> = 4,607), participants choosing aggressive or nonaggressive actions aggressed more against disliked group members and often escalated or persisted in taking actions that felt better than expected (positive affective PE), especially when those actions were aggressive. Crucially, inducing incidental empathy toward the group of the target rendered affective PE signals sensitive to group identification-participants escalated aggression that felt better than expected relatively less toward liked versus disliked group members. That said, affective PEs did not always add explanatory power beyond levels of postoutcome affect alone; we discuss the importance and implications of these results. In summary, we reveal affective PE integration as a candidate algorithm facilitating exceptions to harm aversion in intergroup conflict. More broadly, we highlight for affective science and decision-making researchers the necessity of appropriately testing separable components of affective signals in predicting subsequent behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001570\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001570","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们通常会同情他人,认为伤害是厌恶的。然而,群体之间的攻击行为却比比皆是。人们是如何学会克服这种厌恶感以进行攻击的呢?许多学习模型都强调结果预测错误--与环境中预期结果的偏差,但攻击行为也可能是由情感预测错误(affective PEs)--与我们预期感受的偏差--助长的。在保持结果预测误差不变的五个预先注册的在线实验中(N = 4,607),选择攻击性或非攻击性行动的参与者对不喜欢的群体成员进行了更多的攻击,并经常升级或坚持采取感觉比预期更好的行动(积极情感PE),尤其是当这些行动具有攻击性时。最重要的是,诱发对目标群体的偶发移情使情感性 PE 信号对群体认同变得敏感--相对于不喜欢的群体成员,参与者对喜欢的群体成员采取的感觉比预期更好的攻击升级相对较少。尽管如此,情感PE并不总能在结果后情感水平之外增加解释力;我们将讨论这些结果的重要性和意义。总之,我们揭示了情感PE整合是促进群体间冲突中伤害厌恶例外的一种候选算法。更广泛地说,我们为情感科学和决策研究人员强调了在预测后续行为时适当测试情感信号的可分离成分的必要性。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Affective prediction errors in persistence and escalation of aggression.

People generally empathize with others and find harm aversive. Yet aggression, for example, between groups, abounds. How do people learn to overcome this aversion in order to aggress? Many models of learning emphasize outcome prediction errors-deviations from expected outcomes in the environment-but aggression may also be fueled by affective prediction errors (affective PEs)-deviations from how we expect to feel. Across five preregistered online experiments that hold outcome prediction errors constant (N = 4,607), participants choosing aggressive or nonaggressive actions aggressed more against disliked group members and often escalated or persisted in taking actions that felt better than expected (positive affective PE), especially when those actions were aggressive. Crucially, inducing incidental empathy toward the group of the target rendered affective PE signals sensitive to group identification-participants escalated aggression that felt better than expected relatively less toward liked versus disliked group members. That said, affective PEs did not always add explanatory power beyond levels of postoutcome affect alone; we discuss the importance and implications of these results. In summary, we reveal affective PE integration as a candidate algorithm facilitating exceptions to harm aversion in intergroup conflict. More broadly, we highlight for affective science and decision-making researchers the necessity of appropriately testing separable components of affective signals in predicting subsequent behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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