پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 45 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,219 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,474 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 20,225,261 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 13,916,246 |
بررسی اثر جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی بر تصمیم‌گیری در شرایط عدم‌اطمینان: یک مطالعه‌ی ERP | ||
| شناخت اجتماعی | ||
| دوره 13، شماره 25، خرداد 1403، صفحه 83-99 اصل مقاله (1.1 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/sc.2024.72195.3007 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سعیده خسروی1؛ سمیه حیثیت طلب* 2؛ بیرجیت درنتل3؛ رضا خسروآبادی4؛ تورج هاشمی5 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری علوم اعصاب شناختی، گروه علوم اعصاب شناختی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز ، ایران . | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه علوم اعصاب شناختی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران . | ||
| 3استاد گروه روان‌پزشکی و روان‌درمانی، سلامت روان زنان و عملکرد مغز، مرکز توبینگن برای سلامت روان، دانشگاه توبینگن، توبینگن، آلمان. | ||
| 4استادیار پژوهشکده علوم شناختی و مغز، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران . | ||
| 5استاد گروه روان‌شناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان شناسی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی، که نشان‌دهنده تمایل فرد به پذیرش سلسله‌مراتب اجتماعی و برتری برخی گروه‌ها بر دیگران است، می‌تواند بر نحوه تصمیم‌گیری افراد در شرایط پیچیده و نامشخص تأثیر گذارد. این پژوهش با هدف بررسی الگوهای عصبی و رفتاری مرتبط با تصمیم‌گیری تحت شرایط عدم‌اطمینان در افراد با جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی مختلف انجام شده است. محققان با مطالعه‌ی فعالیت مغز 30 دانشجو، این موضوع را بررسی کردند. شرکت‌کنندگان در شرایط انتظار و عدم قطعیت، بازخوردهای مثبت و منفی دریافت کردند، در حالی که فعالیت مغز آن‌ها با الکتروانسفالوگرافی (EEG) ثبت می‌شد. به طور خاص، ویژگی‌های مرتبط با مؤلفه‌ی N2 (دامنه و زمان تاخیر ) بررسی شد. نتایج رفتاری نشان داد که افراد با جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی بالا، در مقایسه با گروهی که جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی پایینی داشتند، زمان واکنش سریع‌تری از خود نشان دادند، به ویژه در شرایطی که نتایج تصمیمات به طور قطعی مشخص نبود. همچنین، گروه دارای جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی بالا میانگین دامنه N2 بزرگ‌تری نسبت به گروه دارای جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی پایین داشتند. این یافته‌ها حاکی از آن است که سرعت تصمیم‌گیری در شرایط عدم‌اطمینان، می‌تواند به عنوان یک شاخص زیستی بالقوه برای تمایلات فردی به تسلط اجتماعی تلقی شود. این کشف، علاوه بر تأیید ارتباط بین جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی و فرایندهای تصمیم‌گیری، می‌تواند در حوزه‌های مختلفی از جمله طراحی سیستم‌های تصمیم‌گیری مبتنی بر هوش مصنوعی و توسعه استراتژی‌های مدیریت رفتار اجتماعی کاربرد داشته باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| جهت‌گیری غالبیت اجتماعی؛ تصمیم‌گیری تحت شرایط عدم‌اطمینان؛ زمان واکنش؛ پتانسیل وابسته به رویداد؛ N2 | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Exploring the Impact of Social Dominance Orientation on Decision-Making Under Uncertain Conditions: An ERP Study | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Saeedeh Khosravi1؛ soomaayeh heysieattalab2؛ Birgit Derntl3؛ Reza Khosrowabadi4؛ Touraj Hashemi5 | ||
| 1Ph.D student in Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. | ||
| 3Prof., Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Women’s Mental Health & Brain Function, Tübingen Center for Mental Health (TüCMH), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. | ||
| 4Assistant professor, Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 5Prof., Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Tabriz, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Social dominance orientation (SDO) characterizes an individual's inclination to accept social hierarchies and seek superiority over specific groups. Within the context of decision-making, SDO plays a pivotal role, particularly when navigating complex and uncertain situations. This research aimed to examine the neural and behavioral patterns associated with decision-making under uncertainty in individuals with different levels of social dominance orientation. Researchers studied the brain activity of 30 students. Participants received positive and negative feedback under conditions of anticipation and uncertainty, while their brain activity was recorded using electroencephalography (EEG). Specifically, features related to the N2 component (amplitude and latency) were examined. The findings revealed individuals with higher SDO exhibited faster reaction times during decision-making, especially when confronted with uncertain outcomes. As social dominance orientation increased, participants became more adept at swiftly processing information and making choices. Moreover, the high SDO group displayed a larger N2 amplitude compared to the low SDO group. This amplitude difference was particularly pronounced when participants received negative feedback. Interestingly, the effect was context-dependent: When individuals with high SDO anticipated certain outcomes (positive or negative), their N2 amplitude increased significantly upon receiving negative feedback. Conversely, individuals with low SDO showed a larger N2 amplitude specifically when faced with unexpected negative feedback in uncertain situations. However, the comparison of N2 latency between the group with high SDO and the group with low SDO did not yield statistically significant differences. These findings suggest that decision-making speed under uncertainty could be considered a potential biological marker for individual tendencies toward social dominance. This discovery, in addition to confirming the relationship between social dominance orientation and decision-making processes, could have applications in various fields, including the design of AI-based decision-making systems and the development of strategies for managing social behavior. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Social Dominance Orientation, Decision-Making under Uncertainty, Reaction time, Event-Related Potential (ERP) :N2 | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Achtziger, A., Alós-Ferrer, C., Hügelschäfer, S., & Steinhauser, M. (2012). The neural basis of belief updating and rational decision making. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 55–62. Alvarez, M. J. (2018). Impact of Class-Based Prejudice toward Defendants and Victims on Mock Jurors' Decision-Making. University of Nevada, Reno. Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 1246–1247. Azizian, A., Freitas, A.L., Parvaz, M.A., and Squires, N.K.: ‘Beware misleading cues: Perceptual similarity modulates the N2/P3 complex’, Psychophysiology, 2006, 43, (3), 253-260. Bland, A. R., & Schaefer, A. (2011). Electrophysiological correlates of decision making under varying levels of uncertainty. Brain Research, 1417, 55–66. Boelen, P. A., & Reijntjes, A. (2009). Intolerance of uncertainty and social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(1), 130-135. Brady, G. L., Kakkar, H., & Sivanathan, N. (2024). Perilous and unaccountable: The positive relationship between dominance and moral hazard behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Capman, J. F. (2017). The impact of social dominance orientation on experienced threat and consequent interviewer discriminatory behavior: A psychophysiological approach. (degree of Doctor of Philosophy), The Graduate Center, City University of New York . Cassimiro, L., Cecchini, M. A., Cipolli, G. C., & Yassuda, M. S. (2024). Age, but not education, affects social decision-making in the ultimatum game paradigm. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 82(07), 001-009. Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Oby, E. R., Li, Z., Parrish, T., & Bridge, D. J. (2009). Neural representations of social status hierarchy in human inferior parietal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 354-363. Choma, B. L., Hanoch, Y., Gummerum, M., & Hodson, G. (2013). Relations between risk perceptions and socio-political ideology are domain-and ideology-dependent. Personality Individual Differences, 54(1), 29-34. Choma, B. L., Hanoch, Y., Hodson, G., & Gummerum, M. (2014). Risk propensity among liberals and conservatives: The effect of risk perception, expected benefits, and risk domain. Social Psychological Personality Science, 5(6), 713-721. Cozzolino, P. J., & Snyder, M. (2008). Good times, bad times: How personal disadvantage moderates the relationship between social dominance and efforts to win. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1420-1433. da Cruz, J., Rodrigues, J., Thoresen, J. C., Chicherov, V., Figueiredo, P., Herzog, M. H., & Sandi, C. (2018). Dominant men are faster in decision-making situations and exhibit a distinct neural signal for promptness. Cerebral Cortex, 28(10), 3740-3751. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113): Elsevier. Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684-696. Farrow, T. F., Jones, S. C., Kaylor-Hughes, C. J., Wilkinson, I. D., Woodruff, P. W., Hunter, M. D., & Spence, S. A. (2011). Higher or lower? The functional anatomy of perceived allocentric social hierarchies. Neuroimage, 57(4), 1552-1560. Fellows, L. K. (2004). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Decision Making: A Review and Conceptual Framework. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(3), 159-172. Filipovic, S. R., Jahanshahi, M., & Rothwell, J. C. (1999). Cortical potentials related to decision-making: comparison of two types of go/no-go decision. Neuroreport, 10(17), 3583-3587. Folstein, J.R., and Van Petten, C.: ‘Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review’, Psychophysiology, 2008, 45, (1),152-170. Grupe, D. W., & Nitschke, J. B. (2013). Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(7), 488-501. Guinote, A. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1076-1087. Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. (2005). Person-organization congruence and the maintenance of group-based social hierarchy: A social dominance perspective. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 187-203. Han, K., Jung, J., Mittal, V., Zyung, J. D., & Adam, H. (2019). Political identity and financial risk taking: Insights from social dominance orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 581-601. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583-606. Hong, X., Wang, Y., Sun, J., Li, C., & Tong, S. (2017). Segregating top-down selective attention from response inhibition in a spatial cueing Go/NoGo task: An ERP and source localization study. Scientific reports, 7(1), 9662. Hu, J., Cao, Y., Blue, P. R., & Zhou, X. (2014). Low social status decreases the neural salience of unfairness. 8, 402. Johnson, S. L., Leedom, L. J., & Muhtadie, L. (2012). The dominance behavioral system and psychopathology: evidence from self-report, observational, and biological studies. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 692. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 765. Kogler, L., Sailer, U., Derntl, B., & Pfabigan, D. M. (2017). Processing expected and unexpected uncertainty is modulated by fearless-dominance personality traits – An exploratory ERP study on feedback processing. Physiology & Behavior, 168, 74-83. Kutas, M., & Donchin, E. (1980). Preparation to respond as manifested by movement-related brain potentials. Brain Research, 202(1), 95-115. Lei, W., Jiehui, Z., & Qiang, L. (2014). Event-related potentials and the decision making under risk and ambiguity. In 2014 International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Information Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI), 1-6. Ligneul, R., Girard, R., & Dreher, J. C. (2017). Social brains and divides: the interplay between social dominance orientation and the neural sensitivity to hierarchical ranks. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 45920. Lin, W. H. (2024). Unveiling the complexity of learning and decision-making (No. 10510). EPFL. Melamed, D., Savage, S. V., & Munn, C. (2019). Uncertainty and Social Influence. Socius, 5. Mennes, M., Wouters, H., Van Den Bergh, B., Lagae, L., & Stiers, P. (2008). ERP correlates of complex human decision making in a gambling paradigm: detection and resolution of conflict. Psychophysiology, 45(5), 714-720. Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., van den Wildenberg, W., & Ridderink hof, K. R. (2003). Electrophysiological correlates of anterior cingulate function in a go/no-go task: Effects of response conflict and trial type frequency. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 17–26. Ogunleye, A. J., Osekita, D. A., & Eluyinka, O. A. (2024). Predicting Ethical Decision Making in Nigeria: The Roles of Others’ Compassion and Social Dominance Orientation. South Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics, 21(5), 147-155. Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2006). Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of powerholders’ social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 227-243. Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2018). Chapter Two - Unpacking the Inequality Paradox: The Psychological Roots of Inequality and Social Class. In J. M. Olson (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 57, pp. 53-124): Academic Press. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European review of social psychology, 17(1), 271-320. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of personality social psychology, 67(4), 741. RahPima, S. (2012), The relationship between attachment to parents and peers and psychological distance: investigating the role of spiritual identity, Master's thesis, Islamic Azad University, Rasht branch. [Persian] Rands, S. A., Cowlishaw, G., Pettifor, R. A., Rowcliffe, J. M., & Johnstone, R. A. (2008). The emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs when the qualities of individuals differ. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 8(1), 51. Rilling, J. K., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual review of psychology, 62(1), 23-48. Rizkytha, I. Z., & Abraham, J. (2015). Attitudes toward risk, social dominance orientation and perceived scarcity of the opposite sex on Indonesian woman migrant workers. International Journal of Research, 4(2), 17-25. Schindler, S., & Bublatzky, F. (2020). Attention and emotion: An integrative review of emotional face processing as a function of attention. Cortex, 130, 362-386. Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & Van Dijk, W. W. (2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological science, 19(5), 441-447. Tesi, A., Aiello, A., & Pratto, F. (2023). How people higher on social dominance orientation deal with hierarchy-attenuating institutions: the person-environment (mis) fit perspective in the grammar of hierarchies. Current Psychology, 42(30), 26721-26734. Timokhov, V., Zinchenko, O., & Klucharev, V. (2023, September). An Investigation of Neural Dynamics of the Prefrontal Cortex in Decision-Making Under Uncertainty. In 2023 Fifth International Conference Neurotechnologies and Neurointerfaces (CNN) (pp. 100-103). Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182. (3). Yu, A. J., & Dayan, P. (2005). Uncertainty, Neuromodulation, and Attention. Neuron, 46(4), 681-692. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 303 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 90 |
||