Monetary payoffs modulate reciprocity expectations in outcome evaluations: An event‐related potential study

Abstract

Choosing cooperation or aggression relies on reciprocity preferences which refer to the tendency of an individual to return cooperative or aggressive action for cooperative or aggressive action (i.e., positive or negative reciprocity preference). The reciprocity preference is positively correlated with reciprocity expectation, wherein individuals with stronger reciprocity preferences may have higher expectations than future cooperative or aggressive behavior should be delivered by beneficiaries (positive reciprocity expectation) or victims (negative reciprocity expectation). Although previous studies have demonstrated that the presence of monetary payoffs enhances reciprocity preferences, the modulation of monetary payoffs in reciprocity expectations remains unclear. Using event‐related potentials (ERPs), we examined how monetary payoffs modulated reciprocity expectations by adopting the Chicken game. Participants were asked to choose between cooperation and aggression with a putative opponent in the Chicken game involving the monetary (vs. non‐monetary) payoffs. Participants’ electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded when they saw the opponent's cooperative or aggressive decision. Results showed that compared to the non‐monetary payoff trials, the feedback‐related negativity (FRN) effect in response to the opponent's decisions was stronger following the participant's aggressive decision in the monetary payoff trials, whereas P3 was insensitive to monetary payoffs. These findings suggest that monetary payoffs heighten expectations of negative reciprocity at the earlier and automatic outcome processing stage.

Supervisor Bottom-Line Mentality, Performance Pressure, and Workplace Cheating: Moderating Role of Negative Reciprocity

“…Therefore, an-eye-for-an-eye strategy or negative reciprocity belief serves as the missing link elucidating when and why some employees cheat as a result of BLM and others do not. Negative reciprocity is a powerful psychological mechanism which even supersedes positive reciprocity ( Chernyak et al, 2019 ), and it significantly affects individual behavior in situations involving economic outcomes ( Li et al, 2021 ), such as bottom-line-driven work environments. In their meta-analysis on 96,930 individuals from 207 studies, Greco et al (2019) present consistent support for negative reciprocity in explaining why one party shows aggressive behavior (with equal or higher severity and activity) when instigated by negative work behavior from another party in the organization.…”

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

“…Previous studies have proposed the dual‐strategies theory of social hierarchy, which suggests that individuals mainly depend on two types of strategies (i.e., dominance‐based and prestige‐based strategies) to gain a superior status in the social hierarchy (Cheng, 2020 ; McClanahan et al, 2022 ). To be more specific, the dominance‐based strategy involves the use of force or coercion to demand compliance from others, whereas a prestige‐based strategy involves demonstrating capacity based on skills, abilities, knowledge, or task performance in the presence of others so the others admire, respect or approve (Cloutier et al, 2016 ; Feng et al, 2016 ; Henrich & Gil‐White, 2001 ; Li, Krueger, et al, 2021 ; Li, Xu, & Zhong, 2021 ). For example, Zink et al ( 2008 ) established the social hierarchies based on prestige: participants demonstrated the visual‐related skills in a visual discrimination task.…”

“…Most studies have interpreted FRN as a “negative prediction error” index that is more negative‐going for negative feedback (e.g., reward‐loss or performance error) than for positive feedback (Holroyd et al, 2003 ; Holroyd & Krigolson, 2010 ; Nieuwenhuis et al, 2004 ). Several studies have also reported that the FRN can be regarded as an “expectation violation” signal that codes for expectation violation such that the greater violation of expectations leads to a more negative‐going FRN deflection (Gu et al, 2020 ; Li, Krueger, et al, 2021 ; Li, Xu, & Zhong, 2021 ; Van der Molen et al, 2013 ). Along with the FRN, the other key ERP index reflecting feedback evaluation is P300.…”