The Influence of Gain-Loss Contexts and Effort Cost on Prosocial Decision-Making: An ERP Study

Nie Yangang; Ye Wanyu; Li Zhenhua; Chen Pei; Dou Kai

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250218

PDF(2515 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2025, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (2) : 459-471. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250218

Social, Personality & Organizational Psychology

The Influence of Gain-Loss Contexts and Effort Cost on Prosocial Decision-Making: An ERP Study

Nie Yangang, Ye Wanyu, Li Zhenhua, Chen Pei, Dou Kai

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Prosocial behavior refers to voluntary actions intended to benefit others or society. Although substantial research has examined the economic and moral costs associated with prosocial behavior, the impact of effort cost has received relatively little scholarly attention. Effort cost encompasses the cognitive and motivational resources that an individual allocates toward attainment of a goal, typically characterized as burdensome and aversive. The manifestation of prosocial behavior frequently depends on an individual's willingness to invest effort for the benefit of others, encompassing both the pursuit of rewards and the mitigation of potential losses. The effort-cost-reward model posits that both social and non-social motivations play a significant role in shaping an individual's decision to invest effort in a task. Non-social motivations include elements such as rewards, punishments, risks, and perceived efficacy. Meanwhile, social motivations, which encompass the intended beneficiaries of the decision and social cues, significantly affect the decision-making process. This study investigates the impact of effort cost on prosocial decision-making behaviors and the related neural activity in contexts involving gains (e.g., helping others in achieving positive outcomes) and losses (e.g., helping others avoid negative outcomes). This study used event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the influence of gain-loss contexts and effort costs on prosocial decision making. It includes a comparative analysis of the decision-making processes when individuals make decision on behalf of themselves versus others.
The study utilizes a 2 (context: gain, loss) × 2 (decision beneficiaries: self, others) within-subjects experimental design with 40 participants (M_age = 19.63 years, SD = 2.1 years). Participants were required to engage in two different conditions: making decisions for themselves and making decisions on behalf of others. In the decision-making phase, participants were presented with two lottery options. One option required high effort, characterized by a greater number of key presses, and offered either a higher probability of monetary gain or a lower probability of monetary loss. The other option required low effort, was reflected by fewer key presses, and was associated with a lower probability of gain or a higher probability of loss. In the subsequent effort phase, participants were required to press keys a specified number of times to unlock a virtual lock, with successful unlocking signifying that the selected lottery outcome had been secured. In the feedback phase, participants received information about the actual outcomes of the chosen lottery, indicating whether they had won or lost.
The behavioral results revealed that participants were more likely to exert high effort when the benefits were personally advantageous. In decision-making scenarios on behalf of others, participants showed a higher willingness to invest significant effort in gain contexts rather than loss contexts. Furthermore, under high effort cost conditions, participants displayed significantly slower response times. The ERP results indicated that high effort costs were associated with significantly larger effort-P3 amplitudes compared to low effort costs. In gain contexts, RewP amplitudes were significantly larger than in loss contexts. When participants made decisions autonomously, feedback-P3 amplitudes were significantly higher under low effort cost conditions compared to high effort cost conditions. Moreover, in loss contexts, low effort costs elicited larger feedback-P3 amplitudes than high effort costs.
This research provides novel insights into the mechanisms by which gain-loss contexts and effort costs jointly influence behavior and neural responses in prosocial decision making, applicable to both self-directed and other-directed actions. The results advance our comprehension of the effort cost-reward model by incorporating both social and non-social motivational elements. The findings of this study bear significant implications for the development of effective social policies and interventions aimed at promoting prosocial behavior. By elucidating the interaction between effort, context, and social motivations, this research highlights the complexity of human decision making and offers a nuanced understanding of how individuals navigate the balance between personal and social considerations in prosocial actions.

Key words

prosocial decision-making / effort cost / gain-loss context / event-related potentials

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Nie Yangang, Ye Wanyu, Li Zhenhua, Chen Pei, Dou Kai. The Influence of Gain-Loss Contexts and Effort Cost on Prosocial Decision-Making: An ERP Study[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2025, 48(2): 459-471 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250218

References

[1] 曹思琪, 汤晨晨, 伍海燕, 刘勋. (2022). 价值计算决定何时与如何努力. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 877-887.
[2] 黄丽, 杨廷忠, 季忠民. (2003). 正性负性情绪量表的中国人群适用性研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 17(1), 54-56.
[3] 苏彦捷, 张慧, 张康. (2012). 社会决策: 自我利益与他人利益的权衡. 心理科学, 35(6), 1423-1428.
[4] 易伟, 梅淑婷, 郑亚. (2019). 努力: 成本还是奖赏? 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1439-1450.
[5] 张振, 张帆, 原胜, 郭丰波, 王益文. (2015). 社会价值取向滑块测验中文版的测量学分析. 心理与行为研究, 13(3), 404-409.
[6] Bowyer C., Brush C. J., Threadgill H., Harmon-Jones E., Treadway M., Patrick C. J., & Hajcak G. (2021). The effort-doors task: Examining the temporal dynamics of effort-based reward processing using ERPs. NeuroImage, 228, Article 117656.
[7] Carlson R. W., Aknin L. B., & Liotti M. (2016). When is giving an impulse? An ERP investigation of intuitive prosocial behavior. Social Cognitve and Affective Neuroscience, 11(7), 1121-1129.
[8] Chennells, M., & Michael, J. (2018). Effort and performance in a cooperative activity are boosted by perception of a partner's effort. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 15692.
[9] Chong T. T. J., Apps M., Giehl K., Sillence A., Grima L. L., & Husain M. (2017). Neurocomputational mechanisms underlying subjective valuation of effort costs. PLoS Biology, 15(2), e1002598.
[10] Contreras-Huerta L. S., Pisauro M. A., & Apps, M. A. J. (2020). Effort shapes social cognition and behaviour: A neuro-cognitive framework. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 118, 426-439.
[11] Contreras-Huerta L. S., Lockwood P. L., Bird G., Apps M. A. J., & Crockett M. J. (2022). Prosocial behavior is associated with transdiagnostic markers of affective sensitivity in multiple domains. Emotion, 22(5), 820-835.
[12] Hajcak, G., & Foti, D. (2020). Significance?.. Significance! Empirical, methodological, and theoretical connections between the late positive potential and P300 as neural responses to stimulus significance: An integrative review. Psychophysiology, 57(7), Article e13570.
[13] Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183.
[14] Higinio-Rodríguez F., Rivera-Villaseñor A., Calero-Vargas I., & López-Hidalgo M. (2022). From nociception to pain perception, possible implications of astrocytes. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 16, Article 972827.
[15] Inzlicht M., Shenhav A., & Olivola C. Y. (2018). The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 337-349.
[16] Kool, W., & Botvinick, M. (2018). Mental labour. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(12), 899-908.
[17] Kührt C., Pannasch S., Kiebel S. J., & Strobel A. (2021). Dispositional individual differences in cognitive effort investment: Establishing the core construct. BMC Psychology, 9(1), Article 10.
[18] Kujawa A., Burkhouse K. L., Karich S. R., Fitzgerald K. D., Monk C. S., & Phan K. L. (2019). Reduced reward responsiveness predicts change in depressive symptoms in anxious children and adolescents following treatment. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 29(5), 378-385.
[19] Lengersdorff L. L., Wagner I. C., Lockwood P. L., & Lamm C. (2020). When implicit prosociality trumps selfishness: The neural valuation system underpins more optimal choices when learning to avoid harm to others than to oneself. The Journal of Neuroscience, 40(38), 7286-7299.
[20] Li J., Sun Y., Li M., Li H. E., Fan W., & Zhong Y. P. (2020). Social distance modulates prosocial behaviors in the gain and loss contexts: An event-related potential (ERP) study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 150, 83-91.
[21] Li M., Li J., Li H. E., Zhang G. F., Fan W., & Zhong Y. P. (2022). Interpersonal distance modulates the influence of social observation on prosocial behaviour: An event-related potential (ERP) study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 176, 108-116.
[22] Lockwood P. L., Abdurahman A., Gabay A. S., Drew D., Tamm M., Husain M., & Apps M. A. (2021). Aging increases prosocial motivation for effort. Psychological Science, 32(5), 668-681.
[23] Lockwood P. L., Apps M. A. J., Valton V., Viding E., & Roiser J. P. (2016). Neurocomputational mechanisms of prosocial learning and links to empathy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(35), 9763-9768.
[24] Lockwood P. L., Hamonet M., Zhang S. H., Ratnavel A., Salmony F. U., Husain M., & Apps, M. A. J. (2017). Prosocial apathy for helping others when effort is required. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(7), Article 0131.
[25] Lockwood P. L., Wittmann M. K., Nili H., Matsumoto-Ryan M., Abdurahman A., Cutler J., & Apps, M. A. J. (2022). Distinct neural representations for prosocial and self-benefiting effort. Current Biology, 32(19), 4172-4185.e7.
[26] Murphy R. O., Ackermann K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781.
[27] Nelson B. D., Infantolino Z. P., Klein D. N., Perlman G., Kotov R., & Hajcak G. (2018). Time-frequency reward-related delta prospectively predicts the development of adolescent-onset depression. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(1), 41-49.
[28] Novak, K. D., & Foti, D. (2015). Teasing apart the anticipatory and consummatory processing of monetary incentives: An event-related potential study of reward dynamics. Psychophysiology, 52(11), 1470-1482.
[29] Polich, J., & Kok, A. (1995). Cognitive and biological determinants of P300: An integrative review. Biological Psychology, 41(2), 103-146.
[30] Teng Z. J., Nie Q., Liu Y. L., & Guo C. (2018). Is prosocial video game exposure related to prosociality? An ERP study based on a prosocial help needed decision task. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 30-39.
[31] Treadway M. T., Cooper J. A., & Miller A. H. (2019). Can't or won't? Immunometabolic constraints on dopaminergic drive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 435-448.
[32] Westhoff B., Molleman L., Viding E., van den Bos W., & van Duijvenvoorde, A. C. K. (2020). Developmental asymmetries in learning to adjust to cooperative and uncooperative environments. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 21761.
[33] Yang L., Gao Y., Ao, L. H. , Wang, H., Zhou S. H., & Liu Y. J. (2024). Context modulates perceived fairness in altruistic punishment: Neural signatures from ERPs and EEG oscillations. Brain Topography, 37(5), 764-782.
[34] Yin Y. L., Yu H. B., Su Z. B., Zhang Y., & Zhou X. L. (2017). Lateral prefrontal/orbitofrontal cortex has different roles in norm compliance in gain and loss domains: A transcranial direct current stimulation study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 46(5), 2088-2095.
[35] Zhang Y. Y., Li Q., Wang Z., Liu X., & Zheng Y. (2017). Temporal dynamics of reward anticipation in the human brain. Biological Psychology, 128, 89-97.
[36] Zheng Y., Wang M. Y., Zhou S. Y., & Xu J. (2020). Functional heterogeneity of perceived control in feedback processing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(3), 329-336.