Facial identity and emotional expression as predictors during economic decisions

Abstract

Two of the sources of information most relevant to guide social decisionmaking are the cooperative tendencies associated to different people and their facial emotional displays. The present electrophysiological experiment aimed to study how the use of personal identity and emotional expressions as cues impacts different stages of face processing and their potential isolated or interactive processing. Participants played a modified Trust Game with 8 different alleged partners, and in separate blocks either the identity or the emotions carried information regarding potential trial outcomes (win or loss).Behaviorally, participants were faster to make decisions based on identity compared to emotional expressions. Also, ignored (non-predictive) emotions interfered with decisions based on identity in trials where these sources of information conflicted. Electrophysiological results showed that expectations based on emotions modulated processing earlier in time than those based on identity. Whereas emotion modulated the central N1 and VPP potentials, identity judgments heightened the amplitude of the N2 and P3b. In addition, the conflict that ignored emotions generated was reflected on the N170 and P3b potentials. Overall, our results indicate that using identity or emotional cues to predict cooperation tendencies recruits dissociable neural circuits from an early point in time, and that both sources of information generate early and late interactive patterns.

N170 Reveals the Categorical Perception Effect of Emotional Valence

“…For instance, the multi-stage account of facial expression recognition proposed that the N170 reflects the stage of distinguishing emotional and neutral expressions ( Luo et al, 2010 ; Zhang et al, 2013 ; Calvo and Nummenmaa, 2016 ). Furthermore, the N170 was shown to be modulated by valence ( Hietanen and Astikainen, 2013 ; Alguacil et al, 2017 ). For example, Hietanen and Astikainen (2013) used an affective priming paradigm and found that the amplitude of N170 elicited by neutral faces was affected by the valence of primes.…”

“…In contrast, ERP studies have produced ambiguous results on the time course of valence processing. Some have found that the P1, N1 and P2 components can be modulated by emotional valence ( Smith et al, 2003 ; Huang and Luo, 2006 ; Lithari et al, 2010 ; Zhang et al, 2013 ; Alguacil et al, 2017 ). However, other studies have shown that valence can also affect later components, such as LPP ( Bernat et al, 2001 ; Schupp et al, 2004 ), P3 ( Huang and Luo, 2006 ; Lithari et al, 2010 ; Alguacil et al, 2017 ), and LPC ( Huang and Luo, 2006 ).…”

“…Some have found that the P1, N1 and P2 components can be modulated by emotional valence ( Smith et al, 2003 ; Huang and Luo, 2006 ; Lithari et al, 2010 ; Zhang et al, 2013 ; Alguacil et al, 2017 ). However, other studies have shown that valence can also affect later components, such as LPP ( Bernat et al, 2001 ; Schupp et al, 2004 ), P3 ( Huang and Luo, 2006 ; Lithari et al, 2010 ; Alguacil et al, 2017 ), and LPC ( Huang and Luo, 2006 ). It has been reported that these components are related to differentiation of certain expressions ( Luo et al, 2010 ; Calvo and Beltrán, 2013 ; Zhang et al, 2013 ; Calvo and Nummenmaa, 2016 ), which should occur after valence processing according to the dimensional model.…”

Category-Based Learning About Deviant Outgroup Members Hinders Performance in Trust Decision Making

“…Therefore, rational decision-making based on risk attitudes is not sufficient to explain how we decide to place our trust in someone. Indeed, several social factors such as socioeconomic status (e.g., Blue et al, 2018 ; Bogliacino et al, 2018 ), emotion (e.g., Tortosa et al, 2013b ; Alguacil et al, 2017 ), or face appearance (e.g., van ’t Wout and Sanfey, 2008 ; Li et al, 2017 ) have been shown to affect trust decision-making at zero acquaintance. All the social variables (e.g., facial expression, gaze direction, gender, ethnicity, attractiveness) that might influence the impression formation process ( Uleman and Kressel, 2013 ; Stolier and Freeman, 2016 ) can in turn affect the decisions being made.…”

Trustors’ disregard for trustees deciding quickly or slowly in three experiments with time constraints

“…The outcomes of many decisions in the social domain depend on the behavior of others and we need to form expectations to adjust our behavior accordingly. For this reason, we often gather information not only about our interaction partners’ identity or emotional state 3 , 5 , 8 , 9 , but also about the process through which they make decisions 7 , 10 – 13 .…”