Risk-taking is a prominent aspect of adolescent behavior. A recent neurodevelopmental model suggests that this trait could influence prosocial and antisocial decision-making, proposing a new category known as prosocial and antisocial risk-taking. The primary objective of this study was to examine the electrophysiological underpinnings of prosocial and antisocial risk-taking in adolescence, a developmental period characterized by elevated risky, prosocial, and antisocial decisions. To this end, 32 adolescents aged 13–19 years completed a modified dictator game to choose between three options, representing prosocial and antisocial risk-taking constructs and a risk-free fair one. At the behavioral level, adolescents favored antisocial risky decisions over prosocial risky ones. ERP results at the electrophysiological level in the response selection stage demonstrated that decision preceding negativity was more negative-going before making prosocial risky decisions than other decisions. During the feedback evaluation stage, feedback-related negativity was the least negative after selecting the antisocial risky option and receiving successful feedback. However, choosing the fair option and receiving neutral feedback resulted in the most negative feedback-related negativity. Moreover, P300 showed the most positive mean amplitude following the selection of the antisocial risky option and facing successful feedback, with the lowest positive amplitude observed after choosing the fair option and encountering neutral feedback. These results underscore the distinct electrophysiological underpinnings associated with prosocial and antisocial decisions involving risks.

People do not necessarily share the same interests throughout their social lives. Consequently, they sometimes have to inevitably act in favor of or against each other. However, there are instances, such as offering financial aid or providing emotional support, where people willingly extend help to or benefit others but not themselves. Such actions are referred to as prosocial behavior (Crone & Achterberg, 2022; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005; Denham, 1986). Conversely, individuals may also engage in behaviors that involve taking possession of others' resources, intentionally violating their personal and property rights or humiliating others, all categorized as antisocial behavior (Baumeister & Lobbestael, 2011; Calkins & Keane, 2009). Prosocial decisions often involve forgoing self-interest for the benefit of others, yielding intrinsic rewards (Luo, 2018; Moll et al., 2006). Conversely, in antisocial decisions, the self-oriented behavior that leads to harm to others and benefit to self is excessively rewarding (Byrd, Loeber, & Pardini, 2014; Quay, 1993).

Given their significance, extensive research in social cognition has sought to explore the causes and consequences of these behaviors. However, until recently, much of this research relied on traditional bargaining games such as dictator and ultimatum games, where participants make choices regarding prosocial, antisocial, or fair behaviors with deterministic outcomes (Miraghaie et al., 2022; Peterburs et al., 2017; Feng, Luo, & Krueger, 2015; Wu, Zhou, van Dijk, Leliveld, & Zhou, 2011). However, real-world prosocial and antisocial decisions do not always result in predetermined outcomes, as they may involve risks (Gross et al., 2021; Do, Moreira, & Telzer, 2017). In the real world, the decision to help or hurt others could happen at the expense of personal costs. For instance, intervening to help a peer facing humiliation may come with potential costs, such as risking one's reputation and experiencing humiliation. Do and colleagues (2017) coined the term “prosocial risk-taking” (PSRT) to describe such decisions, where individuals engage in behaviors that benefit others with the risk of experiencing personal cost. Meanwhile, antisocial risk-taking (ASRT) refers to decisions that involve causing harm to others while putting oneself at risk (Do et al., 2017). For example, when engaging in the act of theft, individuals expose themselves to the risk of facing legal consequences. Despite the cooccurrence of risk with both prosocial and antisocial decisions, little research has examined these decision-making processes. Thus, the current study aims to explore the neural and behavioral underpinnings of prosocial and antisocial risky decision-making.

Developmental factors play a crucial role in understanding these decisions. Due to asynchrony in developmental time courses between the affective and cognitive control brain systems, adolescence is a developmental period with a heightened level of risk-taking (Willoughby, Good, Adachi, Hamza, & Tavernier, 2013; Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005) as well as prosocial (Do, McCormick, & Telzer, 2019) and antisocial (van den Bos et al., 2014; Moffitt, 1993) behavior. Critical changes in neural circuits associated with reward processing, inhibitory control system, and social processing are thought to be related to these changes in adolescence (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Pfeifer & Peake, 2012; Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010; Casey, Getz, & Galvan, 2008; Lebel, Walker, Leemans, Phillips, & Beaulieu, 2008; Galvan et al., 2006; Ernst et al., 2005). Reward-related underpinnings like ventromedial prefrontal cortex, ventral striatum (Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010), and accumbens have been to exhibit increased activity before the sufficient development of control system, namely, lateral prefrontal cortex and dorsal anterior cerebral cortex. This is indicated as a possible reason for an inclination toward risky and rewarding choices (Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010; Casey et al., 2008; Lebel et al., 2008; Galvan et al., 2006; Ernst et al., 2005). Concerning social processing, structural and functional changes in neural substrates necessary for other's perceptions, like the medial part of the prefrontal cortex and TPJ, have been reported (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Pfeifer & Peake, 2012). Moreover, overlapping circuits for risky and prosocial decisions were also found in adolescents (Telzer, 2016). Therefore, this critical period presents a valuable and appropriate time window for studying the compound construct of prosocial risky decisions and antisocial risky decisions along with each other.

On the basis of these neural changes, Do and colleagues (2017) suggest an increased inclination toward PSRT during adolescence. Although PSRT is not studied enough in adolescence, evidence from adulthood shows that risk-taking tendency has more weight than prosocial attitudes in delineating prosocial risky decision-making (Gross et al., 2021), mainly when the risk is low cost, and the decision is being made in the presence of peers (Liu, Xiao, Pi, Tan, & Zhan, 2023). On the other hand, antisocial risky decision-making as a single unit has not been experimentally studied in either adolescents or adults in the fields of psychology and developmental neuroscience. Yet, evidence has revealed an association between risky decision-making and antisocial behavior (Egan & Bull, 2020; Brindle, Bowles, & Freeman, 2019; Tieskens, Buil, Koot, Krabbendam, & van Lier, 2018; Aklin, Lejuez, Zvolensky, Kahler, & Gwadz, 2005).

Among various tools available, EEG offers valuable insights into the neural mechanisms behind both prosocial/antisocial and risky decision-making. Its remarkable temporal resolution enables the examination of the rapid dynamics inherent in decision-making processes. However, like other forms of decision-making, these processes can be divided into distinct stages: the response selection stage, during which individuals make a decision, and the feedback processing, where individuals face the outcome of their choices (Cui, Chen, Wang, Shum, & Chan, 2013; Ernst & Paulus, 2005; Paulus, 2005). Each of these phases occurs quickly, in a fraction of a second, making them amenable to investigation through high temporal resolution techniques such as EEG and ERPs.

During the response selection stage, the decision preceding negativity (DPN) emerges as a pivotal component, characterized by a negative and slow potential belonging to the readiness potential (RP) and stimulus preceding negativity (SPN) families, typically observed 500–1000 msec before making a decision in the frontocentral regions (Giustiniani, Gabriel, Nicolier, Monnin, & Haffen, 2015; Cui et al., 2013; Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011). Although RP is mainly related to motor preparation (Schurger, Hu, Pak, & Roskies, 2021), SPN is associated with any stimulus (Tanovic & Joormann, 2019). However, DPN is specifically defined as the negativity preceding economic decisions with outcomes rather than general events (Guo, Song, Liu, Xu, & Shen, 2019; Giustiniani et al., 2015; Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011). Despite these distinctions, all of these components—RP, SPN, and DPN—belong to the family of slow cortical potentials, characterized by their negative polarity (Böcker, Baas, Kenemans, & Verbaten, 2001). The amplitude of the DPN preceding risky decisions reflects the prospective advantageousness or disadvantageousness of the decision outcomes (Guo et al., 2019; Giustiniani et al., 2015; Cui et al., 2013). Specifically, the amplitude of this component is more negative-going before selecting disadvantageous options associated with long-term losses, contrasting the less negative amplitude preceding advantageous choices linked to long-term benefits (Guo et al., 2019; Dong, Du, & Qi, 2016; Giustiniani et al., 2015; Cui et al., 2013; Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011). Moreover, when the option to pass the disadvantageous choice is available and selected, the amplitude of DPN increases, compared with when one decides to play and accept the risk associated with the disadvantageous choice (Cui et al., 2013). This suggests that when the specified option seems risky, DPN indexes the emotional unease in deciders, leading them to refrain from choosing it.

Two well-known ERP components, the feedback-related negativity (FRN) and the P300, have been widely examined in the feedback processing phase. The FRN is mainly observed in frontocentral regions approximately 250 msec after the feedback presentation (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002; Miltner, Braun, & Coles, 1997). Previous studies have shown that the amplitude of the FRN component is associated with feedback-based learning (Cui et al., 2013; Schuermann, Kathmann, Stiglmayr, Renneberg, & Endrass, 2011), outcome unexpectedness (Schuermann et al., 2011; Christie & Tata, 2009; Holroyd & Coles, 2002), and risk processing (Yi, Mei, Li, Liu, & Zheng, 2018; Schuermann et al., 2011; Gehring & Willoughby, 2002). Notably, the amplitude of FRN exhibits sensitivity to feedback valence, being more pronounced (i.e., more negative-going) following unfavorable outcomes or losses compared with favorable feedback or gains (Peterburs, Kobza, & Bellebaum, 2016; Leng & Zhou, 2014; Cui et al., 2013; Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011; Schuermann et al., 2011; Christie & Tata, 2009; Wu & Zhou, 2009; Gehring & Willoughby, 2002). Moreover, affective and motivational factors are crucial in modulating the FRN response. The motivational significance of the outcome, reflecting activation within the dopaminergic/reward system, influences FRN amplitude (Gehring & Willoughby, 2002; Holroyd & Coles, 2002). According to Holroyd and Coles (2002), the dopaminergic system, in conjunction with the ACC, mediates FRN, enabling individuals to choose among available options based on positive and negative consequences (Holroyd & Coles, 2002). According to this model, variations in dopamine levels, contingent upon the direction of prediction errors, inversely impact FRN amplitude. Elevated dopamine levels lead to decreased FRN amplitude following positive prediction errors, whereas reduced dopamine levels correlate with increased FRN amplitude following negative prediction errors (Holroyd & Coles, 2002).

The P300 is a positive potential elicited approximately 300–600 msec after feedback or stimulus presentation in the centroparietal regions and serves as an index for attention allocation based on the motivational salience of the stimulus (Nieuwenhuis, Aston-Jones, & Cohen, 2005; Picton, 1992). The amplitude of the P300 increases with the motivational significance of the feedback (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005). Devoting more attention to stimuli or outcomes also produces a greater (more positive-going) P300 amplitude (Zhang et al., 2013; Donchin, 1981). In the realm of decision-making, risky decisions evoke a greater P300 compared with nonrisky decisions (He, Guan, Zhao, & Cao, 2013; Schuermann, Endrass, & Kathmann, 2012; Oberg, Christie, & Tata, 2011; Christie & Tata, 2009), indicative of heightened motivation toward risky options (Polezzi, Sartori, Rumiati, Vidotto, & Daum, 2010). Furthermore, the magnitude of this component is influenced by the recipient of the economic decision being made, with a larger P300 reported in the self-related conditions compared with the other-related ones (Liu, Hu, Shi, & Mai, 2020). This underscores the role of social context in shaping neural responses during decision-making processes, with individuals exhibiting heightened attentional engagement when decisions directly impact themselves.

The present study aims to investigate the electrophysiological correlates (i.e., DPN, FRN, and P300) of various stages of prosocial and antisocial risky decision-making in adolescents. Specifically, we focus on the response selection and feedback processing stages. To this end, we designed a modified dictator game based on the underlying concepts of prosocial and antisocial risky decisions, as well as a fair decision. Because antisocial and prosocial risky decisions have only recently been introduced, the precise alterations in the abovementioned electrophysiological components following these decisions or their outcomes were not entirely predictable. However, in the response selection stage, we hypothesized that the DPN amplitude would exhibit greater negativity for antisocial and prosocial risky decisions than for fair decisions. Moreover, given the lower self-outcome associated with prosocial risky decisions and their inherent emphasis on social communication, we further expect to observe a heightened DPN amplitude for prosocial risky decisions compared with antisocial ones. Moving to the feedback-processing phase, we expected different neural responses to prosocial and antisocial risky choices. We anticipated that the motivational significance of feedback would impact the FRN. Indeed, the outcomes of risky options (i.e., ASRT and PSRT) are more motivationally salient and rewarding than the risk-free (i.e., fair) option; therefore, they would elicit a smaller FRN. In addition, negative feedback was anticipated to evoke an increased FRN amplitude compared with positive feedback. The P300, serving as an indicator of outcome salience and representation updating, was expected to exhibit a larger (more positive) amplitude following feedback from both PSRT and ASRT options compared with neutral feedback following fair options. In addition, successful feedback outcomes were predicted to elicit a larger P300 compared with unsuccessful outcomes. However, we did not have specific expectations regarding the differences between prosocial and antisocial risky decisions regarding P300 amplitude.

Participants

Thirty-two healthy right-handed adolescents aged 13–19 years (15 female participants; meanage = 15.91 ± 2.16 years) were recruited using an online advertisement through social media (e.g., Instagram, Telegram, and WhatsApp). The outcome of a priori analysis using G*Power Version 3.1.9.7 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) indicated that a total sample size of 28 participants was sufficiently powered at 80% to detect a medium effect size in repeated-measures ANOVA with three measurements (f = 0.25). The inclusion criteria consisted of no history of neurological or psychiatric disorders, surgery, or severe head trauma, which was assessed by a medical doctor through an in-house standardized form in the National Brain Mapping Laboratory, where the experiment was performed, and the data were collected. Participants who did not consume caffeine, alcohol, or drugs for at least 24 hr before the experiment and had at least 7 hr of sleep the night before the experiment were included. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Three participants were excluded from the final analysis due to excessive signal artifacts, leaving the data of 29 participants (15 male participants) to analyze. Participants and their parents provided written informed consent to participate and were compensated with 100 Tomans ($2). The ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University approved the study.

Stimuli Selection

Given the absence of an Iranian adolescent face database, our initial image selection was drawn from the Iranian Emotional Face database (Heydari, Sheybani, & Yoonessi, 2023; https://e-face.ir/). This database comprised 37 colorful face photographs depicting young Iranian adults (23 male and 14 female participants). To create adolescent representations, the photographs in the E-face database were transformed using the Faceapp application. The attractiveness of target faces could possibly influence participants' decisions. Research has shown that individuals tend to make more prosocial decisions when encountering more attractive receivers, as evidenced by greater allocations (Kleinhans & Nicholls, 2023; Rosenblat, 2008) or offers (Lucas & Koff, 2013; Andreoni & Petrie, 2008) in games like The Dictator and Ultimatum games. Thus, to control the effect of the receiver attractiveness, 21 participants (meanage = 27.57 years, SD = 8.05 years; 9 male participants) evaluated the attractiveness of each face in a pilot investigation. They rated each of the photographs on a scale ranging from 0 to 10 based on how attractive they found the faces. Subsequently, 18 photographs (9 male and 9 female participants) with a mean attractiveness of 0.75 more and less than the median, which was 5, were selected for the next step. Finally, 12 photographs (6 male and 6 female participants) that did not exhibit statistically significant differences from one another were chosen.

Modified Dictator Game Task

As in the traditional Dictator Game, the task involves two players: the decider and the receiver. In each round, players are endowed with a fixed amount of money, and deciders must choose whether to keep the fair allocation between themselves and the receiver or to alter it. Participants were always assigned the role of the decider. They were informed that they would interact with six different receivers who had previously participated in the experiment on prior days in the laboratory. Moreover, participants were informed that their image would be presented to the next six participants as a receiver. However, no physical receiver was present in the game, and six different preselected face stimuli represented receivers (see the Stimuli Selection section).

As depicted in Figure 1, each trial began with a white fixation cross appearing in the center of the screen against a black background for 200 msec. Subsequently, participants were presented with the image of a same-gender receiver for 500 msec. The task was coded, so the same receiver never appeared consecutively across two trials. After a blank screen jittered interval of 700–1000 msec, individuals were presented with three options, each representing a particular type of decision, remaining on the screen for a maximum of 2000 msec as the decision time. Each option was denominated in coins; each player's share was 50 coins per trial. The central option represented a fair and risk-free decision, ensuring an equal distribution of 50 coins to both players upon selection. In contrast, risky options were presented on the right and left sides, introducing a 50% probability of success or failure. On the right-hand side, the prosocial risky option was presented, where, in the case of success, the receiver received 100 coins and the decider received 45 coins. In comparison, failure resulted in the receiver obtaining 50 coins and the decider receiving 30 coins. This option showcased a propensity for PSRT, as the participant took the risk of losing 15 coins to benefit the other player with 50 more coins. Conversely, the left-hand option mirrored the nature of its counterpart. However, upon success, the decider received 100 coins, with no allocation to the receiver. The failure led to the decider obtaining no more than 25 coins, and the receiver received 50 coins. Opting for this alternative represented ASRT, as the deciders risk their share to maximize their personal gain, leaving nothing for the receiver. Participants were informed that each player is allocated a fair share of 50 coins, and by choosing either the prosocial or antisocial risky option, they would intentionally alter this fair share. Specifically, they were told that one of the choices (ASRT) would violate the receiver's share and the other choice (PSRT) would benefit the receiver, whereas the last choice (fair) would lead to having equal shares.

Figure 1.

Schematic flow of modified dictator game task. In each trial, after facing a fixation cross for 200 msec, participants observed a neutral face of the same gender for 500 msec. Following a blank jittered interval of 700–1000 msec, they had three options to choose from for a maximum period of 2000 msec before encountering a jittered interval of 800–1100 msec. There was a 50% chance of facing success (indicated by a checkmark) and a 50% chance of facing failure (indicated by an x mark) feedback. Then, the feedback screen with a marker indicating success or failure was presented for 1000 msec before reaching a blank intertrial interval (ITI) screen, lasting for 1000 msec. The right option represented PSRT, and the left option represented ASRT. Right coin bags were for the participants, and the left coin bags were for the receivers. This figure includes edited icons by www.freepik.com.

Figure 1.

Schematic flow of modified dictator game task. In each trial, after facing a fixation cross for 200 msec, participants observed a neutral face of the same gender for 500 msec. Following a blank jittered interval of 700–1000 msec, they had three options to choose from for a maximum period of 2000 msec before encountering a jittered interval of 800–1100 msec. There was a 50% chance of facing success (indicated by a checkmark) and a 50% chance of facing failure (indicated by an x mark) feedback. Then, the feedback screen with a marker indicating success or failure was presented for 1000 msec before reaching a blank intertrial interval (ITI) screen, lasting for 1000 msec. The right option represented PSRT, and the left option represented ASRT. Right coin bags were for the participants, and the left coin bags were for the receivers. This figure includes edited icons by www.freepik.com.

Close modal

If a decision was not made within the designated timeframe (i.e., no response), no coin was awarded to the participant, and the other player received their share, which was 50 coins. Participants had to utilize the right, down, and left arrow keys to select the PSRT, fair, and ASRT options, respectively. Whether the participant pressed one of the keys on the keyboard that corresponded to the options or did not press any of the mentioned keys for a maximum period of 2000 msec, all the options disappeared. Following a jittered interval of 800–1100 msec, feedback was provided for 1000 msec, categorized as success (indicated by a checkmark), failure (indicated by an x mark), and neutral (presented by an empty circle). There was an equitable probability for success and failure feedback, each presented with a chance of 50% on each trial (see Figure 2B for the feedback distribution). Neutral feedback also appeared either after choosing the fair option or after the decision period of 2 sec had passed. In addition, on the right and left sides of the check, x or neutral marks indicated the number of coins belonging to the decider and receiver, respectively. Finally, an intertrial interval of 1000 msec separated the trials.

Figure 2.

The distribution of responses and feedback. The distribution of participants' responses (A) and feedback (B) in the first half of the trials (240 trials). Due to missing trials (i.e., if an option was not chosen within 2 sec), the number of trials is not the same for respondents.

Figure 2.

The distribution of responses and feedback. The distribution of participants' responses (A) and feedback (B) in the first half of the trials (240 trials). Due to missing trials (i.e., if an option was not chosen within 2 sec), the number of trials is not the same for respondents.

Close modal

The number of coins was determined based on several factors. First, to avoid the contamination of self and other-related risk, and following the antisocial and prosocial risky decision definitions provided earlier, it was decided that the decider would always bear the risk. This meant that in cases of unsuccessful prosocial or antisocial decisions, the receiver would not experience any change and would continue to receive 50 coins. Conversely, in cases of success, the outcome had to be maximized: 100 coins for the decider in a successful antisocial risky decision and 100 coins for the receiver in a successful prosocial risky decision. To maintain consistency with previous studies, it was also important to ensure that the difference between the expected value of the prosocial and antisocial decisions, compared with the fair decision, remained the same. This led to the following equation: (100 + 50)/2 − 50 = 50 − (successful prosocial outcome for the receiver + 50)/2, which resulted in a successful prosocial outcome of 0 coins for the receiver. On the other hand, the expected return for the decider was modeled by the equation: (100 + unsuccessful antisocial risky outcome) − 50 = 50 − (successful prosocial risky outcome + unsuccessful prosocial risky outcome). Although this equation could yield various solutions, the goal was to keep the successful prosocial risky outcome as high as possible but less than 50 coins. This approach ensures that participants incur a cost when choosing the prosocial option—aligning with the definition of prosocial decisions—while still making the expected return appealing enough for consideration. This led to a successful prosocial risky outcome of 45 coins, which, in turn, yielded an unsuccessful prosocial risky outcome of 30 coins. This final configuration created a balance between the expected returns of the prosocial and antisocial decisions in relation to the fair decision (50 coins). The expected return for the decider was (45 + 30)/2 = 37.5 coins for prosocial decisions and (100 + 25)/2 = 62.5 coins for antisocial decisions. For the receiver, the expected returns were (100 + 50)/2 = 75 coins for prosocial decisions and (0 + 50)/2 = 25 coins for antisocial decisions.

The task consisted of at least 480 trials divided into six blocks of 80 trials each. If an option was not selected within 2 sec, one trial was added to the total number of trials. To have enough trials in different conditions for ERP analysis and to avoid the excessive choice of one particular option, whenever any of the three options was chosen 160 times, that option was blurred and could no longer be selected. When a block was completed after 80 trials, the total number of coins earned by the participant appeared on the screen, and a 60-sec rest period was allowed between blocks.

Procedure

On the day before the experiment, participants were instructed to send a photograph of themselves in a predetermined manner. They were told they would randomly play against six other teenagers who had previously participated in the experiment or would participate later. They were also told that they would play the role of the decider in the experimental session, and their photograph would be used as the receiver for the other six participants (see Modified Dictator Game section).

The experiment was held in an electrically shielded, sound-attenuated room. Upon arrival, participants were instructed to participate in a computerized task. In this task, they would randomly encounter six adolescents within their age range who either already participated in the experiment or would participate later but had sent us their photographs. They were told that they would play with each of the six receivers multiple times in random order, and they could decide about each receiver in each round as they preferred. In addition, they were instructed that they would take on the receiver role for another six adolescents who would participate in the experiment on subsequent days. To this end, they were informed that their photographs would be shown to future participants. Participants were informed that they would be randomly awarded the number of coins received in some trials after the end of the project. Plus, they became aware that half of the money they would receive was based on their decisions, whereas the other half would be the average of the six times they would act as the receiver. Participants then sat on a comfortable chair approximately 60 cm away from a 22-in. screen with a refresh rate of 60 Hz. Afterward, the EEG electrodes were attached, and participants played 10 training trials to get acquainted with the experiment, followed by the main experiment. The experiment lasted approximately 50 min. After completing the task, all participants were debriefed and informed about the true nature of the experiment. They were asked whether they believed the cover story. None reported suspecting any form of deception.

EEG Recording and Analysis

The EEG data were recorded using a g.HIamp (g.tec company) device with Ag/AgCl electrodes, and 64 channels was placed in the 10–20 EEG system. The sampling frequency was set to 512 Hz, and A2 and FPz were used as reference and ground, respectively. The EOG electrodes were placed at the external canthi of each eye and below the right eye. Impedances were maintained below 10 kΩ. EEGLAB toolbox (Delorme & Makeig, 2004) was used to preprocess the EEG data. The raw signal was bandpass filtered in the 0.5- to 30-Hz range. Waveforms were first inspected visually; then, the Clean Rawdata plugin (Pernet, Martínez-Cancino, Truong, Makeig, & Delorme, 2021) was used to clean data for artifacts. Then, the data were rereferenced to the average of all electrodes. Next, an independent component analysis was performed, and sources related to eye movement, head movement, muscle activity, heartbeat artifacts, and channel noise were excluded from the data. Then, based on different stages of decision-making, different epochs were extracted.

Response Selection Stage

To analyze the DPN component, a slow negative potential within the RP family (Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011), epochs were extracted from 800 msec before the response (i.e., pressing the response keys) to 800 msec after the response (Cui et al., 2013)—moreover, the time interval from 600 to 800 msec after the response was used as the baseline (Cui et al., 2013). Epochs with voltages outside the 75 μV- and −75-μV range were excluded from averaging (Liu et al., 2020). ERPs were separately averaged across PSRT (mean remaining epochs: 104.63), fair (mean remaining epochs: 102.17), and ASRT (mean remaining epochs: 111.10) trials. Regarding the topographic maps (see Figure A1), the literature (Cui et al., 2013; Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011), and the average RT of all participants (0.51 sec), Fz, FCz, and Cz electrodes in the −500- to 0-msec time window (i.e., 500 msec preceding the response) were selected to conduct a DPN analysis.

Feedback Evaluation Stage

The components that were considered for analysis at this stage were P300 and FRN. Epochs were extracted in two ways based on decision conditions (ASRT, PSRT, and fair) as well as feedback conditions (ASRT failure; ASRT_F, ASRT successful; ASRT_S, fair, PSRT failure; PSRT_F, and PSRT successful; PSRT_S) from 200 msec preceding the appearance of feedback to 800 msec after displaying the feedback. Baseline corrections were made using the 200-msec interval before feedback onset. Epochs with a mean voltage greater than 75 μV or less than −75 μV were excluded from averaging. Epochs were once averaged across PSRT (mean remaining epochs: 109.87), fair (mean remaining epochs: 110.80), and ASRT (mean remaining epochs: 114.23) options (decision conditions) and then averaged across ASRT_F (mean remaining epochs: 56.60), ASRT_S (mean remaining epochs: 57.63), fair (mean remaining epochs: 55.47), PSRT_F (mean remaining epochs: 56.17), and PSRT_S (mean remaining epochs: 53.70) feedbacks (feedback conditions). According to previous studies (Li et al., 2020; Kardos, Tóth, Boha, File, & Molnár, 2017; Carlson, Aknin, & Liotti, 2016; Leng & Zhou, 2014) and the topographical distributions, P300 was analyzed across Pz, CPz, and Cz channels in the period of 300–450 msec. In line with previous studies (Liu et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2020; Kardos et al., 2017), FRN was also calculated across Fz, FCz, and Cz electrodes in the 220- to 300-msec time range based on the visual inspection of the grand average waveforms.

Statistical Analysis

Two different two-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted to investigate the differences between ERP components in different risky decisions. First, two-way repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted with a 3 (Decisions: ASRT, PSRT, and fair) × 3 (Fz, FCz, and Cz for DPN and FRN; Pz, Cpz, and Cz for P300) within-subject factor design and DPN, P300, and FRN components as the dependent variables. Then, feedback effects were included, and the same analyses were done for P300 and FRN, this time with five levels of feedback (ASRT_F, ASRT_S, fair, PSRT_F, and PSRT_S). Because DPN is not a feedback-related component, those analyses were limited to FRN and P300. If sphericity was violated, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used, and corrected p values (uncorrected degrees of freedom) were reported in the Results section. Pairwise t tests were used as post hoc tests, and p values were corrected using the Benjamini & Hochberg FDR (FDR-bh) method (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). In addition, as part of a sensitivity analysis, we repeated all these analyses while controlling for age and gender. Moreover, to investigate the influence of facial stimuli on participants' decisions, we first assessed differences in option selection and RT across facial stimuli. Next, we applied two separate random effects models with option selection count and RT as dependent variables. Option type, age, and gender were included as fixed effects, whereas facial stimuli and participant ID were treated as random effects. All analyses were done using Python programming language and IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26 software. Effect sizes were calculated using the partial eta squared (ηp2) and the eta squared (η2).

Behavioral Results

During the first half of trials (240 first trials, in which participants could freely decide between all options), participants chose the three options at a comparable rate (see Figure 2A), with the antisocial risky decision as the most frequent (90.59 ± 26.34), the prosocial risky decision as the least frequent (64.07 ± 24.29), and the fair decision in between (83.45 ± 29.71). A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA with the number of selections as the dependent variable and Options (ASRT, fair, and PSRT) as the within-subject factor showed a significant main effect of Options, F(2, 56) = 5.04, p = .010, ηp2 = 0.153. Post hoc pairwise t test results demonstrated a significant difference between the number of choosing ASRT and PSRT options, t(28) = 3.46, p = .005, η2 = .215. In contrast, this significance was not observed when comparing fair option with antisocial, t(28) = −0.76, p = .45, and prosocial, t(28) = 2.21, p = .054, alternatives. In contrast, the RT was relatively equal when choosing fair (0.50 sec ± 0.29 sec) and ASRT (0.50 sec ± 0.29 sec) options, slightly quicker than selecting PSRT (0.52 sec ± 0.29 sec) options. The result of a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA with RT as the dependent variable and Options as a within-subject factor indicated that there was no significant difference between the RT of choosing ASRT, fair, and PSRT options, F(2, 56) = 2.02, p = .14.

ERP Results

Descriptive statistics of DPN, FRN, and P300 components at all selected electrodes (Fz, FCz, and Cz for DPN and FRN; Pz, Cpz, and Cz for P300) concerning feedback and decision conditions are reported in Table 1. Detailed results regarding the repeated-measures ANOVA and post hoc pairwise t tests along with bar charts (Figure A2) representing the mean and the standard error of ERP components mean amplitudes across decision and feedback conditions at three electrodes (Fz, FCz, and Cz for DPN and FRN; Pz, Cpz, and Cz for P300) were provided in Appendix A.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for DPN, FRN, and P300 in Pz, CPz, Cz, FCz, and Fz Electrodes

Conditions (F/D)PzCPzCzFCzFz
MSDMSDMSDMSDMSD
DPN 
Fair (D)         −1.90 1.58 −2.64 1.89 −2.95 2.25 
ASRT (D)         −1.68 1.69 −2.60 1.81 −2.97 2.39 
PSRT (D)         −2.27 1.50 −3.26 1.79 −3.51 2.31 
FRN 
Fair (F)         −3.46 2.23 −4.85 2.63 −5.43 3.00 
ASRT_F (F)         −2.78 2.58 −4.54 2.67 −5.67 3.43 
ASRT_S (F)         −1.87 3.11 −3.47 3.12 −5.05 3.41 
PSRT_F (F)         −2.87 2.72 −4.38 2.85 −5.19 3.03 
PSRT_S (F)         −2.36 2.59 −4.00 2.29 −5.10 2.47 
Fair (D)         −3.52 2.31 −4.88 2.49 −5.46 2.73 
ASRT (D)         −2.33 2.78 −4.00 2.77 −5.35 3.25 
PSRT (D)         −2.62 2.54 −4.20 2.45 −5.15 2.66 
P300 
Fair (F) 3.32 3.88 0.07 2.30 −2.88 2.15         
ASRT_F (F) 4.73 4.56 1.97 3.69 −0.83 3.27         
ASRT_S (F) 5.20 4.01 3.00 3.54 0.21 3.47         
PSRT_F (F) 3.75 3.81 0.98 2.64 −1.43 2.45         
PSRT_S (F) 4.40 4.02 1.77 3.28 −0.91 2.96         
Fair (D) 3.23 3.64 0.05 2.34 −2.81 2.16         
ASRT (D) 4.96 4.18 2.48 3.55 −0.31 3.33         
PSRT (D) 4.07 3.84 1.37 2.86 −1.18 2.57         
Conditions (F/D)PzCPzCzFCzFz
MSDMSDMSDMSDMSD
DPN 
Fair (D)         −1.90 1.58 −2.64 1.89 −2.95 2.25 
ASRT (D)         −1.68 1.69 −2.60 1.81 −2.97 2.39 
PSRT (D)         −2.27 1.50 −3.26 1.79 −3.51 2.31 
FRN 
Fair (F)         −3.46 2.23 −4.85 2.63 −5.43 3.00 
ASRT_F (F)         −2.78 2.58 −4.54 2.67 −5.67 3.43 
ASRT_S (F)         −1.87 3.11 −3.47 3.12 −5.05 3.41 
PSRT_F (F)         −2.87 2.72 −4.38 2.85 −5.19 3.03 
PSRT_S (F)         −2.36 2.59 −4.00 2.29 −5.10 2.47 
Fair (D)         −3.52 2.31 −4.88 2.49 −5.46 2.73 
ASRT (D)         −2.33 2.78 −4.00 2.77 −5.35 3.25 
PSRT (D)         −2.62 2.54 −4.20 2.45 −5.15 2.66 
P300 
Fair (F) 3.32 3.88 0.07 2.30 −2.88 2.15         
ASRT_F (F) 4.73 4.56 1.97 3.69 −0.83 3.27         
ASRT_S (F) 5.20 4.01 3.00 3.54 0.21 3.47         
PSRT_F (F) 3.75 3.81 0.98 2.64 −1.43 2.45         
PSRT_S (F) 4.40 4.02 1.77 3.28 −0.91 2.96         
Fair (D) 3.23 3.64 0.05 2.34 −2.81 2.16         
ASRT (D) 4.96 4.18 2.48 3.55 −0.31 3.33         
PSRT (D) 4.07 3.84 1.37 2.86 −1.18 2.57         

This table depicts the mean amplitude of DPN, FRN, and P300 components with their standard deviations at Pz, CPz, Cz, FCz, and Fz channels regarding feedback (ASRT_F, ASRT_S, Fair, PSRT_F, and PSRT_S) and decision (ASRT, Fair, and PSRT) conditions. (F) = feedback conditions; (D) = decision conditions.

Response Selection Stage

The mean DPN amplitude averaged for all three options (ASRT, fair, and PSRT) reached a maximum negative deflection in a time window of −500 to 0 msec over Fz, FCz, and Cz channels, as depicted in Figure 3. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (options: ASRT, fair, and PSRT × electrodes: Fz, FCz, and Cz) was used to examine the difference between the mean DPN amplitude across three options (Table A1). A significant difference was found between the mean DPN across options, F(2, 56) = 5.82, p = .006, ηp2 = .172. Pairwise t tests (Table A2) revealed that the DPN component is significantly more negative-going before making the prosocial risky (−3.01 ± 1.95 μV) option compared with both the fair (−2.50 ± 1.95 μV), t(28) = −3.20, p = .007, η2 = .023, and the antisocial risky (−2.41 ± 2.04 μV), t(28) = −3.05, p = .007, η2 = .031, options. However, there was no significant difference between choosing the antisocial risky option and the fair one, t(28) = 0.40, p = .70.

Figure 3.

Grand-average ERPs in the response selection stage. Grand-average ERPs at Fz (A), FCz (B), and Cz (C) electrodes were elicited in a period of −500 to 800 msec when fair, ASRT, and PSRT options were chosen.

Figure 3.

Grand-average ERPs in the response selection stage. Grand-average ERPs at Fz (A), FCz (B), and Cz (C) electrodes were elicited in a period of −500 to 800 msec when fair, ASRT, and PSRT options were chosen.

Close modal

Feedback Evaluation Stage

Feedback conditions.
FRN.

The mean FRN amplitudes were measured at the same electrodes as the DPN in a time window of 220–300 msec post-feedback (Figure 4AC). A 5 (Feedback Conditions: ASRT_F, ASRT_S, fair, PSRT_F, and PSRT_S) × 3 (Electrodes: Fz, FCz, and Cz) repeated-measures ANOVA (Table A3) showed a significant main effect of Feedback Conditions, F(4, 112) = 4.07, p = .009, ηp2 = .127. Pairwise t tests (Table A4) results revealed that facing neutral feedback following making the fair decision evoked the most negative FRN (−4.58 ± 2.74 μV) compared with receiving successful feedback after deciding to choose ASRT (−3.46 ± 3.44 μV), t(28) = −3.13, p = .020, η2 = .041, and PSRT (−3.82 ± 2.68 μV), t(28) = −2.97, p = .020, η2 = .027 options. Moreover, a larger FRN is elicited for failure feedbacks (−4.33 ± 3.12 μV) compared with successful ones (−3.46 ± 3.44 μV), following antisocial risky choices, t(28) = −3.04, p = .020, η2 = .024. However, no significant difference was found between successful and failure feedback following the prosocial risky option, t(28) = 1.29, p = .30.

Figure 4.

Grand-average ERPs in the feedback evaluation stage (feedback conditions). Grand-average ERPs at Fz (A), FCz (B), Cz (C), Pz (D), and Cpz (E) channels evoked after encountering ASRT_F, ASRT_S, fair, PSRT_F, and PSRT_S feedbacks. ASRT_F = ASRT failure feedback; ASRT_S = ASRT successful feedback; PSRT_F = PSRT failure feedback; PSRT_S = PSRT successful feedback.

Figure 4.

Grand-average ERPs in the feedback evaluation stage (feedback conditions). Grand-average ERPs at Fz (A), FCz (B), Cz (C), Pz (D), and Cpz (E) channels evoked after encountering ASRT_F, ASRT_S, fair, PSRT_F, and PSRT_S feedbacks. ASRT_F = ASRT failure feedback; ASRT_S = ASRT successful feedback; PSRT_F = PSRT failure feedback; PSRT_S = PSRT successful feedback.

Close modal
P300.

The P300 mean amplitudes were measured at Cz, CPz, and Pz electrodes at 300–450 msec postfeedback (Figure 4CE). A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (Feedback Conditions: ASRT_F, ASRT_S, fair, PSRT_F, and PSRT_S × Electrodes: Pz, CPz, and Cz) revealed a significant main effect of Feedback Conditions, F(4, 112) = 18.63, p < .001, ηp2 = .400, demonstrating that receiving successful feedback after choosing the ASRT option (2.80 ± 4.18 μV) elicited the largest P300 amplitude while observing the neutral feedback after choosing the fair option (0.17 ± 3.82 μV) evoked the smallest P300 (see Table A5 for detailed statistics). The pairwise t tests (Table A6) revealed significant differences between all feedback conditions (all ps < .05; see Table 2) except the difference between the failure ASRT and the successful PSRT feedbacks, t(28) = 0.52, p = .61.

Table 2.

Pairwise t Tests (Post Hoc) Results for P300 in Feedback Conditions

ABtpη2
ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.55 .002** .016 
ASRT_S Fair 7.44 <.001*** .182 
ASRT_S PSRT_S 3.75 .002** .027 
ASRT_S PSRT_F 5.98 <.001*** .077 
ASRT_F Fair 4.46 <.001*** .090 
ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.52 .60 – 
ASRT_F PSRT_F 2.47 .025* .020 
Fair PSRT_S −4.65 <.001*** .082 
Fair PSRT_F −3.52 .002** .037 
PSRT_S PSRT_F 2.26 .036* .013 
ABtpη2
ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.55 .002** .016 
ASRT_S Fair 7.44 <.001*** .182 
ASRT_S PSRT_S 3.75 .002** .027 
ASRT_S PSRT_F 5.98 <.001*** .077 
ASRT_F Fair 4.46 <.001*** .090 
ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.52 .60 – 
ASRT_F PSRT_F 2.47 .025* .020 
Fair PSRT_S −4.65 <.001*** .082 
Fair PSRT_F −3.52 .002** .037 
PSRT_S PSRT_F 2.26 .036* .013 
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Decision conditions.
FRN.

As shown in Figure 5AC, the mean amplitudes of 220–300 msec at Fz, FCz, and Cz were selected for FRN. A 3 (Decision Conditions: ASRT, fair, and PSRT) × 3 (Electrodes: Fz, FCz, and Cz) repeated-measures ANOVA (Table A7) revealed a significant main effect of Decision Conditions, F(2, 56) = 5.39, p = .013, ηp2 = .161. Pairwise t test outputs (Table A8) showed that when participants received the feedback, FRN amplitude was more negative for choosing the fair option (−4.62 ± 2.62 μV) in comparison with the PSRT (−3.99 ± 2.73 μV), t(28) = −3.77, p = .002, η2 = .018, and the ASRT (−3.89 ± 3.16 μV) alternatives, t(28) = −2.59, p = .023, η2 = .021.

Figure 5.

Grand-average ERPs in the feedback evaluation stage (decision conditions). Grand-average waveforms at Fz (A), FCz (B), Cz (C), Pz (D), and CPz (E) electrodes were elicited after choosing fair, ASRT, and PSRT options.

Figure 5.

Grand-average ERPs in the feedback evaluation stage (decision conditions). Grand-average waveforms at Fz (A), FCz (B), Cz (C), Pz (D), and CPz (E) electrodes were elicited after choosing fair, ASRT, and PSRT options.

Close modal
P300.

The mean P300 amplitudes were measured in a 300- to 450-msec time window after confronting feedback at Cz, Pz, and Cpz electrodes, as depicted in Figure 5CE. A 3 (Decision Conditions: ASRT, fair, and PSRT) × 3 (Electrodes: Pz, CPz, and Cz) repeated-measures ANOVA (Table A9) demonstrated a significant main effect of Decision Conditions, F(2, 56) = 25.93, p < .001, ηp2 = .481. Pairwise t tests (Table A10) suggested that when the feedback was displayed, the amplitude of the P300 component was larger after deciding to choose the ASRT option (2.38 ± 4.25 μV) compared with the PSRT (1.42 ± 3.77 μV), t(28) = 3.58, p = .001, η2 = .025, as well as fair (0.16 ± 3.71 μV) alternatives, t(28) = 5.98, p < .001, η2 = .135. P300 was also more positive after selecting prosocial risky compared with fair options significantly, t(28) = 4.54, p < .001, η2 = .060.

Sensitivity Analyses

To investigate the potential influence of age and gender on the results, sensitivity analyses were conducted at both behavioral (see Appendix B for more information) and neurophysiological (see Appendix C for more details) levels using mixed ANCOVAs. Across all analyses, the main effects of age and gender were statistically insignificant. The results remained consistent for behavioral data, DPN, and P300, with no interaction observed between the variables of interest and age or gender. For FRN in the feedback condition, while the previous results remained unchanged, a significant interaction was found between Age and Feedback, F(3.24, 84.28) = 0.4.28, p = .006 (Table C2). Despite this, none of the post hoc comparisons remained significant after correcting for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method (Table C6). In the decision condition for FRN, the results similarly remained consistent after adjusting for age and gender. Nonetheless, a significant interaction between Age and Condition was observed, F(1.68, 43.78) = 5.11, p = .014 (Table C4). Post hoc analysis revealed that the difference in FRN amplitude between fair and ASRT increased with age, β = 0.323, SE = 0.118, t(26) = 2.745, p = 0.027 (Table C7).

To examine whether facial stimuli affect participants' decisions, we performed two sensitivity analyses. We first investigated differences among facial stimuli in terms of option selection and RT. No significant differences were found in either the number of selections or RTs across facial stimuli (Tables D1D4). In a second analysis, we performed two separate random effects models with the number of option selections and RT as dependent variables. The fixed effects included Option Type, Age, and Gender, whereas facial stimuli and participant ID were random effects. Consistent with previous analyses, participants showed a significant preference for choosing antisocial risky options over prosocial risky options, β = 4.42, p < 0.001. A significant difference was also found between fair option selection and prosocial risky option selection, with a higher frequency of fair option choices, β = 3.23, p < 0.001. In addition, fair decisions were made significantly faster than prosocial ones, accounting for the facial stimuli, β = 0.02, p = 0.027. Despite that, the variance and standard deviation for the photograph intercept were nearly zero when RT or the number of selections were the dependent variables (Table D5).

The current study examined prosocial and antisocial risky decision-making in adolescents both at behavioral and electrophysiological levels. More specifically, using the modified dictator game task, we studied the ERP components (i.e., DPN, FRN, and P300) elicited in different stages (i.e., response selection and feedback evaluation) of fair, prosocial, and antisocial risky decision-making processes. At the behavioral level, adolescents selected significantly more antisocial risky options over prosocial ones. ERP findings at the electrophysiological level and in the response selection phase demonstrated that DPN at the frontocentral regions was more negative-going before making prosocial risky decisions, compared with antisocial risky and fair decisions. In the feedback evaluation stage, FRN had the least negative mean amplitude after choosing the antisocial risky option and encountering successful feedback. However, choosing the fair option and facing the neutral feedback elicited the most negative FRN. In addition, P300 showed the most positive mean amplitude following making the antisocial risky decision and confronting the successful feedback. However, making the fair decision and encountering the neutral feedback resulted in the least positive P300. These findings highlight the different electrophysiological underpinnings of responses before and after making the prosocial and antisocial risky decisions.

Our behavioral results revealing a higher frequency of antisocial risky choices are in line with previous evidence for an increase in self-oriented behavior in adolescents (Güroğlu, van den Bos, & Crone, 2014; Crone, 2013) that might originate from heightened activation in neural substrates associated with enhancing self-gain, like dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (van den Bos, van Dijk, Westenberg, Rombouts, & Crone, 2011). Moreover, adolescents may be more vulnerable to antisocial decision-making compared with prosocial ones concerning the developmental trajectories of these decisions (Moffitt, 2007). There is a considerable rise in antisocial decisions during adolescence (Blonigen, 2010), whereas findings regarding prosocial decisions are mixed (Do et al., 2017; Eisenberg, Cumberland, Guthrie, Murphy, & Shepard, 2005). Although there is some evidence for increased prosocial giving during adolescence (Kwak & Huettel, 2016), it seems that what is more crucial than prosocially toward others is taking the perspective of others (Kilford, Garrett, & Blakemore, 2016). Perspective-taking was not evaluated among participants during the task, which represents a limitation of the study. Considering that the participants were unfamiliar with the receivers, the lack of perspective-taking might have influenced their decision-making (Güroğlu et al., 2014). This potential effect cannot be examined with the current data and should be addressed in future studies. These findings add to the previous ones by revealing that self-benefiting decisions are more prominent in adolescents' social decisions, even when they are antisocial and risky.

Our electrophysiological findings revealed that at the response selection stage, the mean amplitude of DPN preceding prosocial risky decisions was significantly higher (more negative) than before choosing antisocial risky and fair options. This finding presents several potential interpretations. At first glance, it aligns with existing literature indicating that DPN deflection tends to increase before disadvantageous outcomes (Guo et al., 2019; Dong et al., 2016; Giustiniani et al., 2015; Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011; Carlson, Zayas, & Guthormsen, 2009). In our modified dictator game task, opting for the PSRT option always results in obtaining fewer coins, suggesting a disadvantageous outcome for the individual and potentially explaining the greater DPN deflection.

However, a deeper analysis suggests a nuanced perspective. If we solely consider the expected returns, one might anticipate that choosing the fair option would evoke a higher DPN compared with the antisocial risky option, which entails the highest expected return. The absence of a significant difference between antisocial risky and fair decisions in our study may be attributed to the deliberate design of our task, which integrates both risk and return factors simultaneously, sometimes in opposition. For instance, previous research has indicated higher DPN for risky options (Lu, Li, Li, & Li, 2023; Catena et al., 2012), implying that although the higher expected return associated with antisocial risky decisions might lower DPN, the elevated risk involved could conversely increase it. This complex interplay may contribute to our results' lack of distinction between fair and antisocial risky decisions. This may lead to the inability to find a difference between fair and antisocial risky decisions.

Notably, most prior studies have investigated DPN using the Iowa Gambling Task (Dong et al., 2016; Giustiniani et al., 2015; Cui et al., 2013; Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011), which involves a nonsocial situation where participants aim to maximize personal gain. However, interpreting DPN within the context of social interactions necessitates a distinct perspective. Studies examining SPN, another type of RP closely related to DPN, have demonstrated higher activation levels in social contexts compared with nonsocial ones, particularly when individuals anticipate judgment or feedback from others (van der Molen, Harrewijn, & Westenberg, 2018; van der Molen, Dekkers, Westenberg, van der Veen, & van der Molen, 2017; van der Molen et al., 2014). Furthermore, RPs are closely linked to affective and motivational valence regarding the anticipated outcome, with heightened activation observed when individuals are particularly motivated and want something (Giustiniani et al., 2020; Berridge, Robinson, & Aldridge, 2009) or when their needs are being addressed (Oumeziane, Schryer-Praga, & Foti, 2017). Thus, our findings may indicate that, in contrast to fair or antisocial risky decisions, individuals making prosocial risky choices are more attuned to their decisions and how they might be perceived by their peers, reflecting a heightened motivational orientation toward social evaluations.

Regarding the early phase of the feedback evaluation, FRN exhibited a more negative-going response when encountering failure feedback following antisocial risky decisions compared with successful feedback. However, no difference was observed between successful and unsuccessful feedback for prosocial risky decisions. This finding holds significant implications, given that greater FRN amplitude is typically associated with unfavorable feedback (Leng & Zhou, 2014; Cui et al., 2013; Bianchin & Angrilli, 2011; Schuermann et al., 2011; Pfabigan, Alexopoulos, Bauer, & Sailer, 2010; Christie & Tata, 2009; Wu & Zhou, 2009; Gehring & Willoughby, 2002). Our finding suggests that participants place considerable emotional significance on the outcomes of their decisions, particularly when opting for antisocial risky behaviors. This likely reflects greater activation of the dopaminergic reward system for the outcome of antisocial risky choices. However, when making prosocial risky decisions, participants might not discriminate between successful and unsuccessful outcomes as favorable and unfavorable that strongly, perhaps due to the more outcome-focused nature of antisocial behaviors. This observation may stem from the notion that antisocial behaviors are more outcome-oriented than prosocial behaviors.

Furthermore, we found no disparity in FRN amplitude between neutral feedback following fair decisions and unsuccessful outcomes of both prosocial and antisocial risky decisions. However, neutral feedback for fair decisions evoked higher FRN compared with successful outcomes of prosocial and antisocial risky decisions. Despite the predictability of neutral feedback following fair decisions, risk-taking and ambiguity appear to modulate FRN mean amplitude. Some studies have demonstrated a reduction in FRN amplitude with riskier decisions (Yi et al., 2018; Schuermann et al., 2011; Gehring & Willoughby, 2002). Two (ASRT and PSRT) out of three options in our task also entail risk. Thus, reduced FRN following antisocial and prosocial risky decisions compared with neutral feedback derived from risk-free fair decisions is in line with previous studies (Yi et al., 2018; Schuermann et al., 2011; Gehring & Willoughby, 2002).

In the later stages of the feedback evaluation, we observed a greater P300 response following success feedback in both prosocial and antisocial risky decisions than failure feedback. This finding corroborates previous research associating P300 with enhanced stimulus processing and the motivational significance of the outcomes (Kardos et al., 2017; Leng & Zhou, 2014; Kamarajan et al., 2010; Luu, Shane, Pratt, & Tucker, 2009; Wu & Zhou, 2009; Yeung, Holroyd, & Cohen, 2005). Furthermore, this discovery holds significance as it demonstrates the absence of a distinction between FRN responses to successful and unsuccessful prosocial risky feedback while revealing a notable disparity in the P300 component between these outcomes. One interpretation lies in the difference between these two components. Although FRN reflects a more early binary evaluation of the outcomes based on valence (positive vs. negative), P300 is linked to later stages of processing and reflects aspects such as outcome magnitude and salience, as well as attention, memory, and updating of mental representations (Polich, 2007; Hajcak, Moser, Holroyd, & Simons, 2006; Sato et al., 2005; Donchin, 1981). In addition, previous research has established a correlation between FRN and negative affect but not with positive ones, whereas the relationship is reversed for the P300 component (Sato et al., 2005). Thus, our findings may be attributed to the fact that when individuals make a prosocial risky decision, successful and unsuccessful feedback do not significantly differ in valence or at least neither induces negative affects. Consequently, we do not observe a difference in FRN amplitudes. However, they accurately discern and incorporate the difference between successful and unsuccessful feedback to update their representations regarding the relationship between the choice and its outcome.

Moreover, regardless of the outcome's success or failure, prosocial and antisocial feedback elicited a higher P300 than neutral feedback received after the fair decision. Notably, successful antisocial risky feedback triggered a greater P300 response than successful prosocial risky feedback, whereas unsuccessful antisocial risky feedback induced a heightened P300 compared with unsuccessful prosocial risky feedback. These findings can be interpreted according to the motivational significance of outcomes following different decision options in our modified dictator game. Given that the outcomes of making fair decisions were always constant, their motivational salience was lower compared with the outcomes of the other two options. Consequently, participants allocated less attention to the outcomes associated with the fair option. In addition, previous studies have reported larger P300 mean amplitude after making risky choices compared with risk-free ones (He et al., 2013; Schuermann et al., 2012; Oberg et al., 2011; Christie & Tata, 2009). Thus, the fair decision required less motivation and involved less risk, giving rise to the smallest P300 response. Regarding the difference between prosocial and antisocial feedback in the same situation (successful vs. successful, unsuccessful vs. unsuccessful), these findings may reflect prioritizing one's own gain over others' gain. Liu and colleagues (2020) demonstrated that individuals showed an increased P300 when making decisions for themselves compared with others. In our dictator game task, it could be inferred that adolescents perceived themselves as the primary target during antisocial risky decisions. In contrast, when making prosocial risky choices, the primary focus might be benefiting others. Consequently, participants weighted the additional obtained coins in the successful antisocial risky feedback more heavily than the confederate's additional outcome in successful prosocial risky feedback. Similarly, when the feedback was unsuccessful, participants incurred greater losses in antisocial risky decisions than in prosocial risky ones (25 vs. 20). On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, P300 is affected by allocating attentional resources based on the motivational significance of stimuli and the updating of mental representations (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005; Picton, 1992). It is plausible that individuals update their mental representation toward prosocial risky decisions to a lesser extent than antisocial risky decisions or allocate fewer attentional resources to these outcomes. As a result, outcomes following antisocial risky choices may absorb more attention compared with outcomes following prosocial risky alternatives, leading to a greater P300 response. However, it is essential to note that these comparisons are valid only for the case of comparing successful antisocial to successful prosocial and unsuccessful antisocial to unsuccessful prosocial decisions. As our results show, there was no difference between unsuccessful antisocial risky and successful prosocial risky feedback, which emphasizes that antisocial risky decisions alone should not be considered as more salient compared with prosocial decisions.

In conclusion, this study represents the first investigation into prosocial and antisocial risk-taking in adolescents conducted simultaneously. Moreover, utilizing EEG signals, we, for the first time, explored the temporal dynamics of prosocial and antisocial risky decision-making within a social exchange context, revealing distinct electrophysiological indicators across various stages of social decision-making during adolescence. Although these findings offer valuable insights into understanding such decision types, they must be viewed in light of the limitations. First, limiting prosocial and antisocial risky decisions to a computer-based task may lack ecological validity. Future research can examine these decision types in field experiments to better capture the complexities of decision-making behaviors. Second, our study focused primarily on the economic and financial aspects of prosocial and antisocial risky decisions, neglecting potential nonmonetary aspects. This might also be one of the reasons that our participants chose antisocial risky decisions more than prosocial ones. It is possible that other types of prosocial risky decisions are more engaging for adolescents. Moreover, our study did not include other age groups or incorporate more exploratory behavioral and questionnaire data. Thus, a robust interpretation of this important issue cannot be provided. Future investigations should incorporate broader considerations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these decision types. Third, the antisocial risky decisions may have been underestimated, as participants were not able to freely choose between all options throughout the entire task. However, during the first half of the task, on which the behavioral analysis is based, participants were selecting options freely without any restrictions. We found that by the beginning of block five (i.e., after completing 320 trials), 26 participants had the opportunity to choose the ASRT option freely. Nevertheless, in the final block, the majority of participants (17 out of 29) were no longer able to select the antisocial risky option. Another limitation is the imbalance in the number of coins across different conditions. Although incorporating risky prosocial and antisocial options within a task inevitably requires unbalanced coin distributions, future studies might investigate the differences between various options, including those that incur risk to both parties and nonrisky options. Next, the location of decision choices was not counterbalanced across participants, which may introduce a confounding effect due to the position of the options. To address this potential bias, we suggest that future studies counterbalance the position of options to minimize this effect. Another confounding variable could be the age of the participants. We found that FRN could be influenced by age because a significant interaction effect between age and feedback/decision conditions was observed. Yet, given the sample size and the age distribution within our study, this finding should be interpreted with caution, and future studies are needed to address this issue. One other limitation is linked to using more scales to consider broader aspects of participants' personalities and intentions. It is highly recommended to include post questionnaires regarding participants' purpose of choosing options and factors such as psychoticism, self-control, social conformity, and family environment (Morgado & da Luz Vale-Dias, 2016) in future studies to shed light on the underlying reasons why participants chose antisocial risky options more than prosocial ones. Last, possible gender effects were not reliable in the current study due to sample size limitations. Gender might be a more considerable variable that could impact decision-making behaviors, with research suggesting that risky and antisocial decisions are more prevalent among males, whereas females tend to exhibit more prosocial tendencies (Russell, Robins, & Odgers, 2014; Pursell, Laursen, Rubin, Booth-LaForce, & Rose-Krasnor, 2008; Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999). Therefore, future studies should strive to account for gender differences to gain a more nuanced understanding of decision-making dynamics in adolescents. By addressing these limitations and continuing to explore the complexities of prosocial and antisocial decision-making, we can further enhance our understanding of social behavior and contribute to developing interventions to promote positive decision-making outcomes among adolescents.

Table A1.

Repeated-measures ANOVA Results for DPN in Response Selection Stage

SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Conditions 56 5.82 0.005 0.006 .172 0.919 
Electrodes 56 9.01 <0.001 0.004 .243 0.553 
Conditions × Electrodes 112 0.68 0.61 0.44 .024 0.293 
SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Conditions 56 5.82 0.005 0.006 .172 0.919 
Electrodes 56 9.01 <0.001 0.004 .243 0.553 
Conditions × Electrodes 112 0.68 0.61 0.44 .024 0.293 

p-unc = uncorrected p values; p-GG-corr = Greenhouse–Geisser corrected p values; eps = Greenhouse–Geisser epsilon value.

Table A2.

Pairwise t Tests (Post Hoc) Results for DPN in Response Selection Stage

ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – Cz FCz 4.19 28 0.001 .072 
Electrodes – Cz Fz 2.97 28 0.009 .093 
Electrodes – FCz Fz 1.40 28 0.17 .006 
Conditions – ASRT Fair 0.40 28 0.70 .001 
Conditions – ASRT PSRT 3.05 28 0.007 .031 
Conditions – Fair PSRT 3.20 28 0.007 .023 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT Fair 1.01 28 0.42 .005 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT PSRT 2.98 28 0.019 .034 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT 1.84 28 0.11 .014 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT Fair 0.18 28 0.94 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT PSRT 2.94 28 0.019 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz Fair PSRT 3.26 28 0.019 .028 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT Fair −0.07 28 0.94 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT PSRT 2.12 28 0.078 .013 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz Fair PSRT 2.84 28 0.019 .015 
ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – Cz FCz 4.19 28 0.001 .072 
Electrodes – Cz Fz 2.97 28 0.009 .093 
Electrodes – FCz Fz 1.40 28 0.17 .006 
Conditions – ASRT Fair 0.40 28 0.70 .001 
Conditions – ASRT PSRT 3.05 28 0.007 .031 
Conditions – Fair PSRT 3.20 28 0.007 .023 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT Fair 1.01 28 0.42 .005 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT PSRT 2.98 28 0.019 .034 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT 1.84 28 0.11 .014 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT Fair 0.18 28 0.94 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT PSRT 2.94 28 0.019 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz Fair PSRT 3.26 28 0.019 .028 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT Fair −0.07 28 0.94 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT PSRT 2.12 28 0.078 .013 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz Fair PSRT 2.84 28 0.019 .015 

p-corr = FDR-bh corrected p values.

Table A3.

Repeated-measures ANOVA Results for FRN in Feedback Conditions

SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Conditions 112 4.07 0.004 0.009 .127 0.776 
Electrodes 56 32.43 <0.001 <0.001 .537 0.544 
Conditions × Electrodes 224 3.16 0.002 0.047 .101 0.265 
SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Conditions 112 4.07 0.004 0.009 .127 0.776 
Electrodes 56 32.43 <0.001 <0.001 .537 0.544 
Conditions × Electrodes 224 3.16 0.002 0.047 .101 0.265 

Table A4.

Pairwise t Tests (Post Hoc) Results for FRN in Feedback Conditions

ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – Cz FCz 6.34 28 <0.001 .094 
Electrodes – Cz Fz 5.78 28 <0.001 .199 
Electrodes – FCz Fz 4.46 28 <0.001 .038 
Conditions – ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.04 28 0.020 .024 
Conditions – ASRT_S Fair 3.13 28 0.020 .041 
Conditions – ASRT_S PSRT_S 1.18 28 0.31 .005 
Conditions – ASRT_S PSRT_F 1.82 28 0.16 .014 
Conditions – ASRT_F Fair 0.73 28 0.53 .002 
Conditions – ASRT_F PSRT_S −2.12 28 0.11 .011 
Conditions – ASRT_F PSRT_F −0.53 28 0.60 .001 
Conditions – Fair PSRT_S −2.97 28 0.020 .027 
Conditions – Fair PSRT_F −1.58 28 0.21 .007 
Conditions – PSRT_S PSRT_F 1.29 28 0.30 .005 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.47 28 0.010 .025 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S Fair 4.43 28 0.004 .079 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S PSRT_S 1.71 28 0.21 .007 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S PSRT_F 2.61 28 0.062 .028 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F Fair 2.24 28 0.12 .019 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F PSRT_S −1.66 28 0.21 .007 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F PSRT_F 0.28 28 0.81 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT_S −3.99 28 0.006 .049 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT_F −2.12 28 0.13 .014 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz PSRT_S PSRT_F 1.78 28 0.21 .009 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.47 28 0.010 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_S Fair 3.55 28 0.010 .054 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_S PSRT_S 1.62 28 0.21 .009 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_S PSRT_F 2.22 28 0.12 .023 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_F Fair 0.82 28 0.55 .003 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_F PSRT_S −2.02 28 0.14 .012 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_F PSRT_F −0.42 28 0.79 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz Fair PSRT_S −2.74 28 0.054 .029 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz Fair PSRT_F −1.39 28 0.30 .007 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz PSRT_S PSRT_F 1.26 28 0.34 .005 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_S ASRT_F 1.62 28 0.21 .008 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_S Fair 0.86 28 0.54 .004 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_S PSRT_S 0.14 28 0.89 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_S PSRT_F 0.36 28 0.79 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_F Fair −0.52 28 0.73 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_F PSRT_S −1.62 28 0.21 .009 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_F PSRT_F −1.05 28 0.45 .005 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz Fair PSRT_S −0.91 28 0.53 .004 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz Fair PSRT_F −0.71 28 0.60 .002 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz PSRT_S PSRT_F 0.34 28 0.79 <.001 
ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – Cz FCz 6.34 28 <0.001 .094 
Electrodes – Cz Fz 5.78 28 <0.001 .199 
Electrodes – FCz Fz 4.46 28 <0.001 .038 
Conditions – ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.04 28 0.020 .024 
Conditions – ASRT_S Fair 3.13 28 0.020 .041 
Conditions – ASRT_S PSRT_S 1.18 28 0.31 .005 
Conditions – ASRT_S PSRT_F 1.82 28 0.16 .014 
Conditions – ASRT_F Fair 0.73 28 0.53 .002 
Conditions – ASRT_F PSRT_S −2.12 28 0.11 .011 
Conditions – ASRT_F PSRT_F −0.53 28 0.60 .001 
Conditions – Fair PSRT_S −2.97 28 0.020 .027 
Conditions – Fair PSRT_F −1.58 28 0.21 .007 
Conditions – PSRT_S PSRT_F 1.29 28 0.30 .005 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.47 28 0.010 .025 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S Fair 4.43 28 0.004 .079 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S PSRT_S 1.71 28 0.21 .007 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S PSRT_F 2.61 28 0.062 .028 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F Fair 2.24 28 0.12 .019 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F PSRT_S −1.66 28 0.21 .007 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F PSRT_F 0.28 28 0.81 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT_S −3.99 28 0.006 .049 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT_F −2.12 28 0.13 .014 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz PSRT_S PSRT_F 1.78 28 0.21 .009 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.47 28 0.010 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_S Fair 3.55 28 0.010 .054 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_S PSRT_S 1.62 28 0.21 .009 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_S PSRT_F 2.22 28 0.12 .023 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_F Fair 0.82 28 0.55 .003 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_F PSRT_S −2.02 28 0.14 .012 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT_F PSRT_F −0.42 28 0.79 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz Fair PSRT_S −2.74 28 0.054 .029 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz Fair PSRT_F −1.39 28 0.30 .007 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz PSRT_S PSRT_F 1.26 28 0.34 .005 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_S ASRT_F 1.62 28 0.21 .008 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_S Fair 0.86 28 0.54 .004 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_S PSRT_S 0.14 28 0.89 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_S PSRT_F 0.36 28 0.79 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_F Fair −0.52 28 0.73 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_F PSRT_S −1.62 28 0.21 .009 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT_F PSRT_F −1.05 28 0.45 .005 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz Fair PSRT_S −0.91 28 0.53 .004 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz Fair PSRT_F −0.71 28 0.60 .002 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz PSRT_S PSRT_F 0.34 28 0.79 <.001 

Table A5.

Repeated-measures ANOVA Results for P300 in Feedback Conditions

SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Conditions 112 18.63 <0.001 <0.001 .400 0.740 
Electrodes 56 54.51 <0.001 <0.001 .661 0.540 
Conditions × Electrodes 224 2.63 0.009 0.10 .086 0.171 
SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Conditions 112 18.63 <0.001 <0.001 .400 0.740 
Electrodes 56 54.51 <0.001 <0.001 .661 0.540 
Conditions × Electrodes 224 2.63 0.009 0.10 .086 0.171 

Table A6.

Pairwise t Tests (Post Hoc) Results for P300 in Feedback Conditions

ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – CPz Cz 7.69 28 <0.001 .196 
Electrodes – CPz Pz −6.63 28 <0.001 .139 
Electrodes – Cz Pz −7.54 28 <0.001 .406 
Conditions – ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.55 28 0.002 .016 
Conditions – ASRT_S Fair 7.44 28 <0.001 .182 
Conditions – ASRT_S PSRT_S 3.75 28 0.002 .027 
Conditions – ASRT_S PSRT_F 5.98 28 <0.001 .077 
Conditions – ASRT_F Fair 4.46 28 <0.001 .090 
Conditions – ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.52 28 0.61 .001 
Conditions – ASRT_F PSRT_F 2.47 28 0.025 .020 
Conditions – Fair PSRT_S −4.65 28 <0.001 .082 
Conditions – Fair PSRT_F −3.52 28 0.002 .037 
Conditions – PSRT_S PSRT_F 2.26 28 0.036 .013 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.66 28 0.002 .020 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_S Fair 7.24 28 <0.001 .194 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_S PSRT_S 3.77 28 0.002 .032 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_S PSRT_F 6.02 28 <0.001 .094 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_F Fair 4.04 28 0.001 .087 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.46 28 0.67 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_F PSRT_F 2.38 28 0.035 .023 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz Fair PSRT_S −4.62 28 <0.001 .083 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz Fair PSRT_F −3.00 28 0.010 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz PSRT_S PSRT_F 2.57 28 0.025 .017 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S ASRT_F 4.75 28 <0.001 .023 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S Fair 7.26 28 <0.001 .223 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S PSRT_S 3.32 28 0.005 .029 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S PSRT_F 4.15 28 0.001 .069 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F Fair 4.87 28 <0.001 .120 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.22 28 0.83 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F PSRT_F 1.62 28 0.15 .010 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT_S −5.88 28 <0.001 .126 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT_F −5.25 28 <0.001 .090 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz PSRT_S PSRT_F 1.53 28 0.16 .009 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_S ASRT_F 1.34 28 0.22 .003 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_S Fair 4.85 28 <0.001 .054 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_S PSRT_S 2.66 28 0.021 .010 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_S PSRT_F 4.82 28 <0.001 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_F Fair 3.13 28 0.008 .027 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.70 28 0.53 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_F PSRT_F 2.17 28 0.050 .013 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz Fair PSRT_S −2.41 28 0.035 .018 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz Fair PSRT_F −1.09 28 0.32 .003 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz PSRT_S PSRT_F 2.25 28 0.044 .007 
ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – CPz Cz 7.69 28 <0.001 .196 
Electrodes – CPz Pz −6.63 28 <0.001 .139 
Electrodes – Cz Pz −7.54 28 <0.001 .406 
Conditions – ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.55 28 0.002 .016 
Conditions – ASRT_S Fair 7.44 28 <0.001 .182 
Conditions – ASRT_S PSRT_S 3.75 28 0.002 .027 
Conditions – ASRT_S PSRT_F 5.98 28 <0.001 .077 
Conditions – ASRT_F Fair 4.46 28 <0.001 .090 
Conditions – ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.52 28 0.61 .001 
Conditions – ASRT_F PSRT_F 2.47 28 0.025 .020 
Conditions – Fair PSRT_S −4.65 28 <0.001 .082 
Conditions – Fair PSRT_F −3.52 28 0.002 .037 
Conditions – PSRT_S PSRT_F 2.26 28 0.036 .013 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_S ASRT_F 3.66 28 0.002 .020 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_S Fair 7.24 28 <0.001 .194 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_S PSRT_S 3.77 28 0.002 .032 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_S PSRT_F 6.02 28 <0.001 .094 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_F Fair 4.04 28 0.001 .087 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.46 28 0.67 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT_F PSRT_F 2.38 28 0.035 .023 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz Fair PSRT_S −4.62 28 <0.001 .083 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz Fair PSRT_F −3.00 28 0.010 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz PSRT_S PSRT_F 2.57 28 0.025 .017 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S ASRT_F 4.75 28 <0.001 .023 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S Fair 7.26 28 <0.001 .223 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S PSRT_S 3.32 28 0.005 .029 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_S PSRT_F 4.15 28 0.001 .069 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F Fair 4.87 28 <0.001 .120 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.22 28 0.83 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT_F PSRT_F 1.62 28 0.15 .010 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT_S −5.88 28 <0.001 .126 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT_F −5.25 28 <0.001 .090 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz PSRT_S PSRT_F 1.53 28 0.16 .009 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_S ASRT_F 1.34 28 0.22 .003 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_S Fair 4.85 28 <0.001 .054 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_S PSRT_S 2.66 28 0.021 .010 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_S PSRT_F 4.82 28 <0.001 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_F Fair 3.13 28 0.008 .027 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_F PSRT_S 0.70 28 0.53 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT_F PSRT_F 2.17 28 0.050 .013 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz Fair PSRT_S −2.41 28 0.035 .018 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz Fair PSRT_F −1.09 28 0.32 .003 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz PSRT_S PSRT_F 2.25 28 0.044 .007 

Table A7.

Repeated-measures ANOVA Results for FRN in Decision Conditions

SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Electrodes 56 31.77 <0.001 <0.001 .531 0.547 
Conditions 56 5.39 0.007 0.013 .161 0.780 
Electrodes × Conditions 112 5.05 0.001 0.023 .153 0.325 
SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Electrodes 56 31.77 <0.001 <0.001 .531 0.547 
Conditions 56 5.39 0.007 0.013 .161 0.780 
Electrodes × Conditions 112 5.05 0.001 0.023 .153 0.325 

Table A8.

Pairwise t Tests (Post Hoc) Results for FRN in Decision Conditions

ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – Cz FCz 6.38 28 <0.001 .091 
Electrodes – Cz Fz 5.72 28 <0.001 .190 
Electrodes – FCz Fz 4.25 28 <0.001 .033 
Conditions – ASRT Fair 2.59 28 0.023 .021 
Conditions – ASRT PSRT 0.38 28 0.71 <.001 
Conditions – Fair PSRT −3.77 28 0.002 .018 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT Fair 4.19 28 0.001 .051 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT PSRT 1.17 28 0.38 .003 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT −4.55 28 0.001 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT Fair 2.92 28 0.015 .027 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT PSRT 0.70 28 0.60 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz Fair PSRT −3.12 28 0.013 .019 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT Fair 0.31 28 0.76 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT PSRT −0.63 28 0.60 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz Fair PSRT −1.18 28 0.38 .003 
ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – Cz FCz 6.38 28 <0.001 .091 
Electrodes – Cz Fz 5.72 28 <0.001 .190 
Electrodes – FCz Fz 4.25 28 <0.001 .033 
Conditions – ASRT Fair 2.59 28 0.023 .021 
Conditions – ASRT PSRT 0.38 28 0.71 <.001 
Conditions – Fair PSRT −3.77 28 0.002 .018 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT Fair 4.19 28 0.001 .051 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT PSRT 1.17 28 0.38 .003 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT −4.55 28 0.001 .033 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT Fair 2.92 28 0.015 .027 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz ASRT PSRT 0.70 28 0.60 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions FCz Fair PSRT −3.12 28 0.013 .019 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT Fair 0.31 28 0.76 <.001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz ASRT PSRT −0.63 28 0.60 .001 
Electrodes × Conditions Fz Fair PSRT −1.18 28 0.38 .003 

Table A9.

Repeated-measures ANOVA Results for P300 in Decision Conditions

SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Conditions 56 25.93 <0.001 <0.001 .481 0.836 
Electrodes 56 58.95 <0.001 <0.001 .678 0.539 
Conditions × Electrodes 112 3.11 0.018 0.088 .100 0.256 
SourceDF1DF2Fp-uncp-GG-corrηp2eps
Conditions 56 25.93 <0.001 <0.001 .481 0.836 
Electrodes 56 58.95 <0.001 <0.001 .678 0.539 
Conditions × Electrodes 112 3.11 0.018 0.088 .100 0.256 

Table A10.

Pairwise t Tests (Post Hoc) Results for P300 in Decision Conditions

ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – CPz Cz 8.04 28 <0.001 .211 
Electrodes – CPz Pz −6.89 28 <0.001 .153 
Electrodes – Cz Pz −7.84 28 <0.001 .428 
Conditions – ASRT Fair 5.98 28 <0.001 .135 
Conditions – ASRT PSRT 3.58 28 0.001 .025 
Conditions – Fair PSRT −4.54 28 <0.001 .060 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT Fair 5.69 28 <0.001 .141 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT PSRT 3.46 28 0.003 .029 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz Fair PSRT −4.26 28 <0.001 .060 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT Fair 6.23 28 <0.001 .165 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT PSRT 2.83 28 0.010 .021 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT −6.34 28 <0.001 .105 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT Fair 4.40 28 <0.001 .046 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT PSRT 2.88 28 0.010 .012 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz Fair PSRT −2.27 28 0.031 .012 
ContrastElectrodesABtDFp-corrηp2
Electrodes – CPz Cz 8.04 28 <0.001 .211 
Electrodes – CPz Pz −6.89 28 <0.001 .153 
Electrodes – Cz Pz −7.84 28 <0.001 .428 
Conditions – ASRT Fair 5.98 28 <0.001 .135 
Conditions – ASRT PSRT 3.58 28 0.001 .025 
Conditions – Fair PSRT −4.54 28 <0.001 .060 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT Fair 5.69 28 <0.001 .141 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz ASRT PSRT 3.46 28 0.003 .029 
Electrodes × Conditions CPz Fair PSRT −4.26 28 <0.001 .060 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT Fair 6.23 28 <0.001 .165 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz ASRT PSRT 2.83 28 0.010 .021 
Electrodes × Conditions Cz Fair PSRT −6.34 28 <0.001 .105 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT Fair 4.40 28 <0.001 .046 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz ASRT PSRT 2.88 28 0.010 .012 
Electrodes × Conditions Pz Fair PSRT −2.27 28 0.031 .012 

Figure A1.

Scalp topographies in the response selection and feedback evaluation stages. Scalp topographies of the mean DPN amplitude in a range of −500 to 0 msec before making ASRT, fair, and PSRT choices (A), the mean FRN (B) and P300 (C) amplitude in a range of 220–300 msec, and 300–450 msec after encountering with ASRT_F, ASRT_S, fair, PSRT_F, PSRT_S feedbacks, and the mean FRN (D) and P300 (E) amplitude in a range of 220–300 msec and 300–450 msec after selecting ASRT, fair, and PSRT options.

Figure A1.

Scalp topographies in the response selection and feedback evaluation stages. Scalp topographies of the mean DPN amplitude in a range of −500 to 0 msec before making ASRT, fair, and PSRT choices (A), the mean FRN (B) and P300 (C) amplitude in a range of 220–300 msec, and 300–450 msec after encountering with ASRT_F, ASRT_S, fair, PSRT_F, PSRT_S feedbacks, and the mean FRN (D) and P300 (E) amplitude in a range of 220–300 msec and 300–450 msec after selecting ASRT, fair, and PSRT options.

Close modal
Figure A2.

DPN, FRN, and P300 amplitudes across decision and feedback conditions. Bar charts represent the mean and the standard error of DPN (A), FRN (B, D), and P300 (C, E) amplitudes across decision (A, D, E) and feedback (B, C) conditions at three electrodes (Fz, FCz, and Cz for DPN and FRN; Pz, Cpz, and Cz for P300). The charts are related to the response selection stage (A) and feedback evaluation stage (B, C, D, E).

Figure A2.

DPN, FRN, and P300 amplitudes across decision and feedback conditions. Bar charts represent the mean and the standard error of DPN (A), FRN (B, D), and P300 (C, E) amplitudes across decision (A, D, E) and feedback (B, C) conditions at three electrodes (Fz, FCz, and Cz for DPN and FRN; Pz, Cpz, and Cz for P300). The charts are related to the response selection stage (A) and feedback evaluation stage (B, C, D, E).

Close modal

To examine the effects of gender and age on behavioral outcomes, we conducted two mixed ANCOVAs. The within-subject variable was the option (ASRT, fair, and PSRT), with age and gender included as the covariate. The dependent variables were RT (Table B1) and the number of options selected (Table B2). In case of significant results, pairwise comparisons were also reported (Table B3). In addition, descriptive statistics for RT and the number of options selected, grouped by options and gender, are reported in Table B4.

Table B1.

Mixed ANCOVA Results for RT by Option, Controlling for Age and Gender

EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 0.03 0.16 .006 .694 
Age 1, 26 0.03 0.99 .037 .330 
Options 1.94, 50.55 0.00 2.10 .075 .134 
Gender:Options 1.94, 50.55 0.00 0.71 .026 .494 
Age:Options 1.94, 50.55 0.00 2.00 .071 .148 
EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 0.03 0.16 .006 .694 
Age 1, 26 0.03 0.99 .037 .330 
Options 1.94, 50.55 0.00 2.10 .075 .134 
Gender:Options 1.94, 50.55 0.00 0.71 .026 .494 
Age:Options 1.94, 50.55 0.00 2.00 .071 .148 

MSE = mean squared error; p = Greenhouse–Geisser corrected p values.

Table B2.

Mixed ANCOVA Results for Number of Selections by Option, Controlling for Age and Gender

EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 1.35 0.92 .034 .346 
Age 1, 26 1.35 0.29 .011 .597 
Options 1.79, 46.55 1179.16 4.96* .160 .014 
Gender:Options 1.79, 46.55 1179.16 2.16 .077 .132 
Age:Options 1.79, 46.55 1179.16 0.79 .030 .445 
EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 1.35 0.92 .034 .346 
Age 1, 26 1.35 0.29 .011 .597 
Options 1.79, 46.55 1179.16 4.96* .160 .014 
Gender:Options 1.79, 46.55 1179.16 2.16 .077 .132 
Age:Options 1.79, 46.55 1179.16 0.79 .030 .445 
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table B3.

Pairwise Comparison of Options Based on Number of Selections, Controlling for Age and Gender

ContrastβSEdftp
ASRT - fair 6.749 9.490 26 0.711 .759 
ASRT - PSRT 25.909 6.974 26 3.715** .003 
Fair - PSRT 19.160 8.941 26 2.143 .101 
ContrastβSEdftp
ASRT - fair 6.749 9.490 26 0.711 .759 
ASRT - PSRT 25.909 6.974 26 3.715** .003 
Fair - PSRT 19.160 8.941 26 2.143 .101 
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table B4.

The Descriptive Statistics for RT and the Number of Selections Grouped by Options and Gender

OptionsGenderRTNumber of Selections
MeanSDMSD
ASRT Female 0.48 0.27 81.29 25.97 
ASRT Male 0.51 0.30 99.27 24.38 
Fair Female 0.50 0.28 85.43 32.92 
Fair Male 0.50 0.30 81.60 27.41 
PSRT Female 0.51 0.25 71.79 27.31 
PSRT Male 0.53 0.32 56.87 19.29 
OptionsGenderRTNumber of Selections
MeanSDMSD
ASRT Female 0.48 0.27 81.29 25.97 
ASRT Male 0.51 0.30 99.27 24.38 
Fair Female 0.50 0.28 85.43 32.92 
Fair Male 0.50 0.30 81.60 27.41 
PSRT Female 0.51 0.25 71.79 27.31 
PSRT Male 0.53 0.32 56.87 19.29 

SD = standard deviation.

For each component (DPN, FRN, and P300), a 3 (decisions: ASRT, PSRT, and fair) × 3 (Fz, FCz, and Cz for DPN and FRN; Pz, Cpz, and Cz for P300) × 2 (gender: female, male) mixed ANCOVA was conducted with age as a covariate (Tables C1C5). When the interaction effect of age and conditions was significant, pairwise comparisons (Tables C6C7) and interaction plots (Figures C1 and C2) were reported. Descriptive statistics, grouped by gender, conditions, and electrodes, are reported in Table C8.

Table C1.

Mixed ANCOVA Results for DPN in Response Selection Stage, Controlling for Age and Gender

EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 23.41 0.44 .017 .513 
Age 1, 26 23.41 0.16 .006 .692 
Conditions 1.91, 49.76 1.58 6.17** .192 .005 
Gender:Conditions 1.91, 49.76 1.58 0.66 .025 .516 
Age:Conditions 1.91, 49.76 1.58 2.29 .081 .114 
Electrodes 1.11, 28.89 6.53 9.33** .264 .004 
Gender:Electrodes 1.11, 28.89 6.53 0.69 .026 .428 
Age:Electrodes 1.11, 28.89 6.53 2.03 .072 .164 
Conditions:Electrodes 2.28, 59.31 0.47 0.63 .024 .556 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 2.28, 59.31 0.47 0.16 .006 .875 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 2.28, 59.31 0.47 0.42 .016 .687 
EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 23.41 0.44 .017 .513 
Age 1, 26 23.41 0.16 .006 .692 
Conditions 1.91, 49.76 1.58 6.17** .192 .005 
Gender:Conditions 1.91, 49.76 1.58 0.66 .025 .516 
Age:Conditions 1.91, 49.76 1.58 2.29 .081 .114 
Electrodes 1.11, 28.89 6.53 9.33** .264 .004 
Gender:Electrodes 1.11, 28.89 6.53 0.69 .026 .428 
Age:Electrodes 1.11, 28.89 6.53 2.03 .072 .164 
Conditions:Electrodes 2.28, 59.31 0.47 0.63 .024 .556 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 2.28, 59.31 0.47 0.16 .006 .875 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 2.28, 59.31 0.47 0.42 .016 .687 
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table C2.

Mixed ANCOVA Results for FRN in Feedback Conditions, Controlling for Age and Gender

EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 82.67 0.07 .003 .797 
Age 1, 26 82.67 2.13 .076 .156 
Conditions 3.24, 84.28 4.77 4.28** .141 .006 
Gender:Conditions 3.24, 84.28 4.77 0.92 .034 .439 
Age:Conditions 3.24, 84.28 4.77 2.69* .094 .047 
Electrodes 1.08, 28.09 15.22 30.51*** .540 <.001 
Gender:Electrodes 1.08, 28.09 15.22 0.08 .003 .795 
Age:Electrodes 1.08, 28.09 15.22 0.40 .015 .547 
Conditions:Electrodes 3.64, 94.59 1.26 3.11* .107 .022 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 3.64, 94.59 1.26 1.80 .065 .141 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 3.64, 94.59 1.26 0.89 .033 .467 
EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 82.67 0.07 .003 .797 
Age 1, 26 82.67 2.13 .076 .156 
Conditions 3.24, 84.28 4.77 4.28** .141 .006 
Gender:Conditions 3.24, 84.28 4.77 0.92 .034 .439 
Age:Conditions 3.24, 84.28 4.77 2.69* .094 .047 
Electrodes 1.08, 28.09 15.22 30.51*** .540 <.001 
Gender:Electrodes 1.08, 28.09 15.22 0.08 .003 .795 
Age:Electrodes 1.08, 28.09 15.22 0.40 .015 .547 
Conditions:Electrodes 3.64, 94.59 1.26 3.11* .107 .022 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 3.64, 94.59 1.26 1.80 .065 .141 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 3.64, 94.59 1.26 0.89 .033 .467 
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table C3.

Mixed ANCOVA Results for P300 in Feedback Conditions, Controlling for Age and Gender

EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 114.22 0.50 .019 .484 
Age 1, 26 114.22 0.70 .026 .411 
Conditions 2.99, 77.77 6.23 17.92*** .408 <.001 
Gender:Conditions 2.99, 77.77 6.23 0.80 .030 .500 
Age:Conditions 2.99, 77.77 6.23 0.55 .021 .647 
Electrodes 1.09, 28.45 32.69 59.40*** .696 <.001 
Gender:Electrodes 1.09, 28.45 32.69 1.69 .061 .205 
Age:Electrodes 1.09, 28.45 32.69 2.68 .093 .110 
Conditions:Electrodes 3.62, 94.19 1.63 2.64* .092 .044 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 3.62, 94.19 1.63 0.35 .013 .822 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 3.62, 94.19 1.63 1.45 .053 .227 
EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 114.22 0.50 .019 .484 
Age 1, 26 114.22 0.70 .026 .411 
Conditions 2.99, 77.77 6.23 17.92*** .408 <.001 
Gender:Conditions 2.99, 77.77 6.23 0.80 .030 .500 
Age:Conditions 2.99, 77.77 6.23 0.55 .021 .647 
Electrodes 1.09, 28.45 32.69 59.40*** .696 <.001 
Gender:Electrodes 1.09, 28.45 32.69 1.69 .061 .205 
Age:Electrodes 1.09, 28.45 32.69 2.68 .093 .110 
Conditions:Electrodes 3.62, 94.19 1.63 2.64* .092 .044 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 3.62, 94.19 1.63 0.35 .013 .822 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 3.62, 94.19 1.63 1.45 .053 .227 
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table C4.

Mixed ANCOVA Results for FRN in Decision Conditions, Controlling for Age and Gender

EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 48.99 0.07 .003 .797 
Age 1, 26 48.99 1.78 .064 .194 
Conditions 1.68, 43.78 2.61 6.23** .193 .006 
Gender:Conditions 1.68, 43.78 2.61 0.54 .020 .559 
Age:Conditions 1.68, 43.78 2.61 5.11* .164 .014 
Electrodes 1.09, 28.23 8.47 29.96*** .535 <.001 
Gender:Electrodes 1.09, 28.23 8.47 0.00 <.001 .965 
Age:Electrodes 1.09, 28.23 8.47 0.43 .016 .536 
Conditions:Electrodes 2.30, 59.88 0.70 5.26** .168 .006 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 2.30, 59.88 0.70 4.28* .141 .014 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 2.30, 59.88 0.70 0.39 .015 .706 
EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 48.99 0.07 .003 .797 
Age 1, 26 48.99 1.78 .064 .194 
Conditions 1.68, 43.78 2.61 6.23** .193 .006 
Gender:Conditions 1.68, 43.78 2.61 0.54 .020 .559 
Age:Conditions 1.68, 43.78 2.61 5.11* .164 .014 
Electrodes 1.09, 28.23 8.47 29.96*** .535 <.001 
Gender:Electrodes 1.09, 28.23 8.47 0.00 <.001 .965 
Age:Electrodes 1.09, 28.23 8.47 0.43 .016 .536 
Conditions:Electrodes 2.30, 59.88 0.70 5.26** .168 .006 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 2.30, 59.88 0.70 4.28* .141 .014 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 2.30, 59.88 0.70 0.39 .015 .706 
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table C5.

Mixed ANCOVA Results for P300 in Decision Conditions

EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 63.79 0.34 .013 .565 
Age 1, 26 63.79 0.57 .022 .456 
Conditions 1.72, 44.76 4.75 25.92*** .499 <.001 
Gender:Conditions 1.72, 44.76 4.75 1.56 .057 .222 
Age:Conditions 1.72, 44.76 4.75 1.21 .044 .302 
Electrodes 1.09, 28.38 18.73 64.01*** .711 <.001 
Gender:Electrodes 1.09, 28.38 18.73 1.65 .060 .210 
Age:Electrodes 1.09, 28.38 18.73 2.60 .091 .115 
Conditions:Electrodes 2.35, 60.99 0.96 3.14* .108 .043 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 2.35, 60.99 0.96 0.33 .013 .753 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 2.35, 60.99 0.96 1.38 .050 .259 
EffectdfMSEFηp2p
Gender 1, 26 63.79 0.34 .013 .565 
Age 1, 26 63.79 0.57 .022 .456 
Conditions 1.72, 44.76 4.75 25.92*** .499 <.001 
Gender:Conditions 1.72, 44.76 4.75 1.56 .057 .222 
Age:Conditions 1.72, 44.76 4.75 1.21 .044 .302 
Electrodes 1.09, 28.38 18.73 64.01*** .711 <.001 
Gender:Electrodes 1.09, 28.38 18.73 1.65 .060 .210 
Age:Electrodes 1.09, 28.38 18.73 2.60 .091 .115 
Conditions:Electrodes 2.35, 60.99 0.96 3.14* .108 .043 
Gender:Conditions:Electrodes 2.35, 60.99 0.96 0.33 .013 .753 
Age:Conditions:Electrodes 2.35, 60.99 0.96 1.38 .050 .259 
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table C6.

Pairwise Results for Conditions by Age Trend for FRN in Feedback Conditions

ContrastβSEdftp
ASRT_F - ASRT_S −.195 0.128 26 −1.516 .562 
ASRT_F - fair .208 0.153 26 1.361 .657 
ASRT_F - PSRT_F .151 0.159 26 0.948 .875 
ASRT_F - PSRT_S .132 0.104 26 1.259 .718 
ASRT_S - fair .403 0.153 26 2.630 .094 
ASRT_S - PSRT_F .346 0.169 26 2.042 .275 
ASRT_S - PSRT_S .326 0.131 26 2.493 .123 
Fair - PSRT_F −.057 0.131 26 −0.435 .992 
Fair - PSRT_S −.076 0.123 26 −0.621 .970 
PSRT_F - PSRT_S −.019 0.124 26 −0.156 1.000 
ContrastβSEdftp
ASRT_F - ASRT_S −.195 0.128 26 −1.516 .562 
ASRT_F - fair .208 0.153 26 1.361 .657 
ASRT_F - PSRT_F .151 0.159 26 0.948 .875 
ASRT_F - PSRT_S .132 0.104 26 1.259 .718 
ASRT_S - fair .403 0.153 26 2.630 .094 
ASRT_S - PSRT_F .346 0.169 26 2.042 .275 
ASRT_S - PSRT_S .326 0.131 26 2.493 .123 
Fair - PSRT_F −.057 0.131 26 −0.435 .992 
Fair - PSRT_S −.076 0.123 26 −0.621 .970 
PSRT_F - PSRT_S −.019 0.124 26 −0.156 1.000 

p Values are adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method. Age is mean-centered.

Table C7.

Pairwise Results for Conditions by Age Trend for FRN in Decision Conditions

ContrastβSEdftp
ASRT - fair .323 0.118 26 2.745* .028 
ASRT - PSRT .239 0.113 26 2.105 .108 
Fair - PSRT −.085 0.079 26 −1.070 .540 
ContrastβSEdftp
ASRT - fair .323 0.118 26 2.745* .028 
ASRT - PSRT .239 0.113 26 2.105 .108 
Fair - PSRT −.085 0.079 26 −1.070 .540 

p Values are adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method. Age is mean-centered.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table C8.

The Descriptive Statistics Grouped by Gender, Conditions, and Electrodes

ConditionsElectrodesGenderMeanSD
ASRT Cz −2.12 2.93 
ASRT Cz −2.52 2.72 
ASRT FCz −3.65 2.91 
ASRT FCz −4.32 2.70 
ASRT Fz −4.79 2.68 
ASRT Fz −5.87 3.71 
Fair Cz −3.11 2.42 
Fair Cz −3.90 2.22 
Fair FCz −4.80 2.56 
Fair FCz −4.95 2.51 
Fair Fz −5.67 2.55 
Fair Fz −5.26 2.96 
PSRT Cz −2.60 2.83 
PSRT Cz −2.64 2.33 
PSRT FCz −4.15 2.51 
PSRT FCz −4.24 2.48 
PSRT Fz −4.95 2.31 
PSRT Fz −5.33 3.02 
ConditionsElectrodesGenderMeanSD
ASRT Cz −2.12 2.93 
ASRT Cz −2.52 2.72 
ASRT FCz −3.65 2.91 
ASRT FCz −4.32 2.70 
ASRT Fz −4.79 2.68 
ASRT Fz −5.87 3.71 
Fair Cz −3.11 2.42 
Fair Cz −3.90 2.22 
Fair FCz −4.80 2.56 
Fair FCz −4.95 2.51 
Fair Fz −5.67 2.55 
Fair Fz −5.26 2.96 
PSRT Cz −2.60 2.83 
PSRT Cz −2.64 2.33 
PSRT FCz −4.15 2.51 
PSRT FCz −4.24 2.48 
PSRT Fz −4.95 2.31 
PSRT Fz −5.33 3.02 

F = female; M = male.

Figure C1.

The interaction of conditions and age trend for FRN in feedback conditions. The line chart depicts the mean amplitude of FRN regarding the mean-centered age of the participants across feedback conditions.

Figure C1.

The interaction of conditions and age trend for FRN in feedback conditions. The line chart depicts the mean amplitude of FRN regarding the mean-centered age of the participants across feedback conditions.

Close modal
Figure C2.

The interaction of conditions and age trend for FRN in decision conditions. The line chart represents the mean amplitude of FRN regarding the mean-centered age of the participants across decision conditions.

Figure C2.

The interaction of conditions and age trend for FRN in decision conditions. The line chart represents the mean amplitude of FRN regarding the mean-centered age of the participants across decision conditions.

Close modal

To investigate whether facial stimuli influenced participants' decisions, we conducted four 1-way ANOVAs with faces (the person they were playing with) as the independent variable. Because boys played with male receivers and girls played with female receivers, two separate ANOVAs were performed for each gender. The two dependent variables examined were RT and number of option selections). As shown in Tables D1D2, facial stimuli did not significantly affect females' decisions, and the same absence of significant effect was observed for males (Tables D3D4). In addition, to account for the random effects of facial stimuli, two linear mixed-effects models, with option (ASRT, Fair, and PSRT) as the main predictor and gender and age as covariates, were employed. Both RT and the number of option selections were treated as outcome variables (Table D5).

Table D1.

ANOVA Results for RT in Females

EffectdfMSEFpesp Value
Facial stimulus 3.31, 42.98 0.00 0.50 .037 .704 
EffectdfMSEFpesp Value
Facial stimulus 3.31, 42.98 0.00 0.50 .037 .704 

p value = Greenhouse–Geisser-corrected p value; pes = partial eta squared.

Table D2.

ANOVA Results for Number of Selections in Females

EffectdfMSEFpesp Value
Facial stimulus 3.49, 45.31 0.02 2.07 .138 .108 
EffectdfMSEFpesp Value
Facial stimulus 3.49, 45.31 0.02 2.07 .138 .108 

p value = Greenhouse–Geisser-corrected p value; pes = partial eta squared.

Table D3.

ANOVA Results for RT in Males

EffectdfMSEFpesp Value
Facial stimulus 3.05, 42.74 0.00 1.30 .085 .288 
EffectdfMSEFpesp Value
Facial stimulus 3.05, 42.74 0.00 1.30 .085 .288 

p value = Greenhouse–Geisser-corrected p value; pes = partial eta squared.

Table D4.

ANOVA Results for Number of Selections in Males

EffectdfMSEFpesp Value
Facial stimulus 3.77, 52.74 0.03 0.32 .022 .854 
EffectdfMSEFpesp Value
Facial stimulus 3.77, 52.74 0.03 0.32 .022 .854 

p value = Greenhouse–Geisser-corrected p value; pes = partial eta squared.

Table D5.

Random Effects Models Predicting RT and Number of Selections Based on Option, Age, And Gender, with Facial Stimuli and Participant ID as Random Variables

Fixed EffectsRTNumber of Selections
EstimatesCIpEstimatesCIp
(Intercept) 0.49 0.43, 0.55 <.001 13.93 12.72, 15.14 <.001 
Option [ASRT, Ref. fair] 0.01 −0.01, 0.02 .484 1.19 −0.28, 2.66 .112 
Option [PSRT, Ref. fair] 0.02 0.00, 0.04 .027 −3.23 −4.70, −1.76 <.001 
Option [PSRT, Ref. ASRT] 0.01 −0.00, 0.03 .107 −4.42 −5.89, −2.95 <.001 
Gender [male, Ref. female] 0.02 −0.06, 0.09 .669 −0.04 −1.25, 1.17 .948 
Age 0.01 −0.01, 0.03 .317 0.01 −0.27, 0.28 .971 
Random EffectsVarianceSDVarianceSD
Participants intercept 0.010 0.102 0.000 0.000 
Facial stimulus intercept 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 
Residual 0.742 0.272 48.540 6.967 
Fixed EffectsRTNumber of Selections
EstimatesCIpEstimatesCIp
(Intercept) 0.49 0.43, 0.55 <.001 13.93 12.72, 15.14 <.001 
Option [ASRT, Ref. fair] 0.01 −0.01, 0.02 .484 1.19 −0.28, 2.66 .112 
Option [PSRT, Ref. fair] 0.02 0.00, 0.04 .027 −3.23 −4.70, −1.76 <.001 
Option [PSRT, Ref. ASRT] 0.01 −0.00, 0.03 .107 −4.42 −5.89, −2.95 <.001 
Gender [male, Ref. female] 0.02 −0.06, 0.09 .669 −0.04 −1.25, 1.17 .948 
Age 0.01 −0.01, 0.03 .317 0.01 −0.27, 0.28 .971 
Random EffectsVarianceSDVarianceSD
Participants intercept 0.010 0.102 0.000 0.000 
Facial stimulus intercept 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 
Residual 0.742 0.272 48.540 6.967 

The reference for the option variable representing decisions is the fair option for intercept estimation. Significant effects are presented in bold.

The authors wish to thank the participants and the National Brain Mapping Laboratory, where the EEG data were collected.

Corresponding authors: Khatereh Borhani, Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Velenjak, 1983969411 Tehran, Iran, e-mail: [email protected] or Soroosh Golbabei, Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Velenjak, 1983969411 Tehran, Iran, e-mail: [email protected].

EEG raw data, behavioral comma-separated values files, and other data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Morteza Erfani Haromi: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Software; Visualization; Writing—Original draft; Writing—Review & editing. Soroosh Golbabaei: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Software; Supervision; Writing—Original draft; Writing—Review & editing. Khatereh Borhani: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Writing—Original draft; Writing—Review & editing.

This study received a grant from the Cognitive Sciences and Technologies Council (https://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012330) in support of master's of science thesis projects.

Retrospective analysis of the citations in every article published in this journal from 2010 to 2021 reveals a persistent pattern of gender imbalance: Although the proportions of authorship teams (categorized by estimated gender identification of first author/last author) publishing in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (JoCN) during this period were M(an)/M = .407, W(oman)/M = .32, M/W = .115, and W/W = .159, the comparable proportions for the articles that these authorship teams cited were M/M = .549, W/M = .257, M/W = .109, and W/W = .085 (Postle and Fulvio, JoCN, 34:1, pp. 1–3). Consequently, JoCN encourages all authors to consider gender balance explicitly when selecting which articles to cite and gives them the opportunity to report their article's gender citation balance.

Aklin
,
W. M.
,
Lejuez
,
C. W.
,
Zvolensky
,
M. J.
,
Kahler
,
C. W.
, &
Gwadz
,
M.
(
2005
).
Evaluation of behavioral measures of risk taking propensity with inner city adolescents
.
Behaviour Research and Therapy
,
43
,
215
228
. ,
[PubMed]
Andreoni
,
J.
, &
Petrie
,
R.
(
2008
).
Beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments
.
Journal of Economic Psychology
,
29
,
73
93
.
Baumeister
,
R. F.
, &
Lobbestael
,
J.
(
2011
).
Emotions and antisocial behavior
.
Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology
,
22
,
635
649
.
Benjamini
,
Y.
, &
Hochberg
,
Y.
(
1995
).
Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing
.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)
,
57
,
289
300
.
Berridge
,
K. C.
,
Robinson
,
T. E.
, &
Aldridge
,
J. W.
(
2009
).
Dissecting components of reward: ‘liking,’ ‘wanting,’ and learning
.
Current Opinion in Pharmacology
,
9
,
65
73
. ,
[PubMed]
Bianchin
,
M.
, &
Angrilli
,
A.
(
2011
).
Decision preceding negativity in the Iowa gambling task: An ERP study
.
Brain and Cognition
,
75
,
273
280
. ,
[PubMed]
Blakemore
,
S.-J.
, &
Mills
,
K. L.
(
2014
).
Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing?
Annual Review of Psychology
,
65
,
187
207
. ,
[PubMed]
Blonigen
,
D. M.
(
2010
).
Explaining the relationship between age and crime: Contributions from the developmental literature on personality
.
Clinical Psychology Review
,
30
,
89
100
. ,
[PubMed]
Böcker
,
K. B.
,
Baas
,
J. M.
,
Kenemans
,
J. L.
, &
Verbaten
,
M. N.
(
2001
).
Stimulus-preceding negativity induced by fear: A manifestation of affective anticipation
.
International Journal of Psychophysiology
,
43
,
77
90
. ,
[PubMed]
Brindle
,
K. A.
,
Bowles
,
T. V.
, &
Freeman
,
E.
(
2019
).
A retrospective examination of antisocial and risk-taking behaviours
.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law
,
26
,
644
658
. ,
[PubMed]
Byrd
,
A. L.
,
Loeber
,
R.
, &
Pardini
,
D. A.
(
2014
).
Antisocial behavior, psychopathic features and abnormalities in reward and punishment processing in youth
.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
,
17
,
125
156
. ,
[PubMed]
Byrnes
,
J. P.
,
Miller
,
D. C.
, &
Schafer
,
W. D.
(
1999
).
Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis
.
Psychological Bulletin
,
125
,
367
383
.
Calkins
,
S. D.
, &
Keane
,
S. P.
(
2009
).
Developmental origins of early antisocial behavior
.
Development and Psychopathology
,
21
,
1095
1109
. ,
[PubMed]
Carlson
,
R. W.
,
Aknin
,
L. B.
, &
Liotti
,
M.
(
2016
).
When is giving an impulse? An ERP investigation of intuitive prosocial behavior
.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
,
11
,
1121
1129
. ,
[PubMed]
Carlson
,
S. M.
,
Zayas
,
V.
, &
Guthormsen
,
A.
(
2009
).
Neural correlates of decision making on a gambling task
.
Child Development
,
80
,
1076
1096
. ,
[PubMed]
Casey
,
B. J.
,
Getz
,
S.
, &
Galvan
,
A.
(
2008
).
The adolescent brain
.
Developmental Review
,
28
,
62
77
. ,
[PubMed]
Catena
,
A.
,
Perales
,
J. C.
,
Megías
,
A.
,
Cándido
,
A.
,
Jara
,
E.
, &
Maldonado
,
A.
(
2012
).
The brain network of expectancy and uncertainty processing
.
PLoS One
,
7
,
e40252
. ,
[PubMed]
Christie
,
G. J.
, &
Tata
,
M. S.
(
2009
).
Right frontal cortex generates reward-related theta-band oscillatory activity
.
Neuroimage
,
48
,
415
422
. ,
[PubMed]
Crone
,
E. A.
(
2013
).
Considerations of fairness in the adolescent brain
.
Child Development Perspectives
,
7
,
97
103
.
Crone
,
E. A.
, &
Achterberg
,
M.
(
2022
).
Prosocial development in adolescence
.
Current Opinion in Psychology
,
44
,
220
225
. ,
[PubMed]
Cui
,
J.-F.
,
Chen
,
Y.-H.
,
Wang
,
Y.
,
Shum
,
D. H. K.
, &
Chan
,
R. C. K.
(
2013
).
Neural correlates of uncertain decision making: ERP evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task
.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
,
7
,
776
. ,
[PubMed]
Delorme
,
A.
, &
Makeig
,
S.
(
2004
).
EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis
.
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
,
134
,
9
21
. ,
[PubMed]
Denham
,
S. A.
(
1986
).
Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers: Contextual validation
.
Child Development
,
57
,
194
201
.
Do
,
K. T.
,
McCormick
,
E. M.
, &
Telzer
,
E. H.
(
2019
).
The neural development of prosocial behavior from childhood to adolescence
.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
,
14
,
129
139
. ,
[PubMed]
Do
,
K. T.
,
Moreira
,
J. F. G.
, &
Telzer
,
E. H.
(
2017
).
But is helping you worth the risk? Defining Prosocial risk taking in adolescence
.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
,
25
,
260
271
. ,
[PubMed]
Donchin
,
E.
(
1981
).
Surprise! … Surprise?
Psychophysiology
,
18
,
493
513
. ,
[PubMed]
Dong
,
X.
,
Du
,
X.
, &
Qi
,
B.
(
2016
).
Conceptual knowledge influences decision making differently in individuals with high or low cognitive flexibility: An ERP study
.
PLoS One
,
11
,
e0158875
. ,
[PubMed]
Egan
,
V.
, &
Bull
,
S.
(
2020
).
Social support does not moderate the relationship between personality and risk-taking/antisocial behaviour
.
Personality and Individual Differences
,
163
,
110053
.
Eisenberg
,
N.
,
Cumberland
,
A.
,
Guthrie
,
I. K.
,
Murphy
,
B. C.
, &
Shepard
,
S. A.
(
2005
).
Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning in adolescence and early adulthood
.
Journal of Research on Adolescence
,
15
,
235
260
. ,
[PubMed]
Ernst
,
M.
,
Nelson
,
E. E.
,
Jazbec
,
S.
,
McClure
,
E. B.
,
Monk
,
C. S.
,
Leibenluft
,
E.
, et al
(
2005
).
Amygdala and nucleus accumbens in responses to receipt and omission of gains in adults and adolescents
.
Neuroimage
,
25
,
1279
1291
. ,
[PubMed]
Ernst
,
M.
, &
Paulus
,
M. P.
(
2005
).
Neurobiology of decision making: A selective review from a neurocognitive and clinical perspective
.
Biological Psychiatry
,
58
,
597
604
. ,
[PubMed]
Faul
,
F.
,
Erdfelder
,
E.
,
Lang
,
A.-G.
, &
Buchner
,
A.
(
2007
).
G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences
.
Behavior Research Methods
,
39
,
175
191
. ,
[PubMed]
Feng
,
C.
,
Luo
,
Y.-J.
, &
Krueger
,
F.
(
2015
).
Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game: A coordinate-based meta-analysis
.
Human Brain Mapping
,
36
,
591
602
. ,
[PubMed]
Galvan
,
A.
,
Hare
,
T. A.
,
Parra
,
C. E.
,
Penn
,
J.
,
Voss
,
H.
,
Glover
,
G.
, et al
(
2006
).
Earlier development of the accumbens relative to orbitofrontal cortex might underlie risk-taking behavior in adolescents
.
Journal of Neuroscience
,
26
,
6885
6892
. ,
[PubMed]
Gardner
,
M.
, &
Steinberg
,
L.
(
2005
).
Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study
.
Developmental Psychology
,
41
,
625
635
. ,
[PubMed]
Gehring
,
W. J.
, &
Willoughby
,
A. R.
(
2002
).
The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses
.
Science
,
295
,
2279
2282
. ,
[PubMed]
Giustiniani
,
J.
,
Gabriel
,
D.
,
Nicolier
,
M.
,
Monnin
,
J.
, &
Haffen
,
E.
(
2015
).
Neural correlates of successful and unsuccessful strategical mechanisms involved in uncertain decision-making
.
PLoS One
,
10
,
e0130871
. ,
[PubMed]
Giustiniani
,
J.
,
Nicolier
,
M.
,
Mayer
,
J. T.
,
Chabin
,
T.
,
Masse
,
C.
,
Galmès
,
N.
, et al
(
2020
).
Event-related potentials (ERP) indices of motivation during the effort expenditure for reward task
.
Brain Sciences
,
10
,
283
. ,
[PubMed]
Gross
,
J.
,
Faber
,
N. S.
,
Kappes
,
A.
,
Nussberger
,
A.-M.
,
Cowen
,
P. J.
,
Browning
,
M.
, et al
(
2021
).
When helping is risky: The behavioral and neurobiological trade-off of social and risk preferences
.
Psychological Science
,
32
,
1842
1855
. ,
[PubMed]
Guo
,
H.
,
Song
,
H.
,
Liu
,
Y.
,
Xu
,
K.
, &
Shen
,
H.
(
2019
).
Social distance modulates the process of uncertain decision-making: Evidence from event-related potentials
.
Psychology Research and Behavior Management
,
12
,
701
714
. ,
[PubMed]
Güroğlu
,
B.
,
van den Bos
,
W.
, &
Crone
,
E. A.
(
2014
).
Sharing and giving across adolescence: An experimental study examining the development of prosocial behavior
.
Frontiers in Psychology
,
5
,
291
. ,
[PubMed]
Hajcak
,
G.
,
Moser
,
J. S.
,
Holroyd
,
C. B.
, &
Simons
,
R. F.
(
2006
).
The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes
.
Biological Psychology
,
71
,
148
154
. ,
[PubMed]
He
,
F.
,
Guan
,
H.
,
Zhao
,
Z.
, &
Cao
,
R.
(
2013
).
Neural mechanisms of risky decision making in monetary gain and loss situations
.
Social Behavior and Personality
,
41
,
1725
1736
.
Heydari
,
F.
,
Sheybani
,
S.
, &
Yoonessi
,
A.
(
2023
).
Iranian emotional face database: Acquisition and validation of a stimulus set of basic facial expressions
.
Behavior Research Methods
,
55
,
143
150
. ,
[PubMed]
Holroyd
,
C. B.
, &
Coles
,
M. G. H.
(
2002
).
The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity
.
Psychological Review
,
109
,
679
709
. ,
[PubMed]
Kamarajan
,
C.
,
Rangaswamy
,
M.
,
Tang
,
Y.
,
Chorlian
,
D. B.
,
Pandey
,
A. K.
,
Roopesh
,
B. N.
, et al
(
2010
).
Dysfunctional reward processing in male alcoholics: An ERP study during a gambling task
.
Journal of Psychiatric Research
,
44
,
576
590
. ,
[PubMed]
Kardos
,
Z.
,
Tóth
,
B.
,
Boha
,
R.
,
File
,
B.
, &
Molnár
,
M.
(
2017
).
Age-dependent characteristics of feedback evaluation related to monetary gains and losses
.
International Journal of Psychophysiology
,
122
,
42
49
. ,
[PubMed]
Kilford
,
E. J.
,
Garrett
,
E.
, &
Blakemore
,
S.-J.
(
2016
).
The development of social cognition in adolescence: An integrated perspective
.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
,
70
,
106
120
. ,
[PubMed]
Kleinhans
,
C.
, &
Nicholls
,
N.
(
2023
).
Beautiful inside and out? The role of physical attractiveness in predicting altruistic behaviour
.
International Social Science Journal
,
73
,
613
626
.
Kwak
,
Y.
, &
Huettel
,
S. A.
(
2016
).
Prosocial reward learning in children and adolescents
.
Frontiers in Psychology
,
7
,
1539
. ,
[PubMed]
Lebel
,
C.
,
Walker
,
L.
,
Leemans
,
A.
,
Phillips
,
L.
, &
Beaulieu
,
C.
(
2008
).
Microstructural maturation of the human brain from childhood to adulthood
.
Neuroimage
,
40
,
1044
1055
. ,
[PubMed]
Leng
,
Y.
, &
Zhou
,
X.
(
2014
).
Interpersonal relationship modulates brain responses to outcome evaluation when gambling for/against others: An electrophysiological analysis
.
Neuropsychologia
,
63
,
205
214
. ,
[PubMed]
Li
,
J.
,
Sun
,
Y.
,
Li
,
M.
,
Li
,
H.
,
Fan
,
W.
, &
Zhong
,
Y.
(
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
. ,
[PubMed]
Liu
,
C.
,
Xiao
,
X.
,
Pi
,
Q.
,
Tan
,
Q.
, &
Zhan
,
Y.
(
2023
).
Are you more risk-seeking when helping others? Effects of situational urgency and peer presence on prosocial risky behavior
.
Frontiers in Psychology
,
14
,
1036624
. ,
[PubMed]
Liu
,
X.
,
Hu
,
X.
,
Shi
,
K.
, &
Mai
,
X.
(
2020
).
Your losses are mine: The influence of empathic concern on evaluative processing of others' outcomes
.
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
,
20
,
481
492
. ,
[PubMed]
Lu
,
J.
,
Li
,
W.
,
Li
,
J.
, &
Li
,
H.
(
2023
).
Hope for the best when the result is uncertain: High uncertainty induces greater SPN amplitudes than low uncertainty
.
Current Psychology
,
42
,
22857
22865
.
Lucas
,
M.
, &
Koff
,
E.
(
2013
).
How conception risk affects competition and cooperation with attractive women and men
.
Evolution and Human Behavior
,
34
,
16
22
.
Luo
,
J.
(
2018
).
The neural basis of and a common neural circuitry in different types of pro-social behavior
.
Frontiers in Psychology
,
9
,
859
. ,
[PubMed]
Luu
,
P.
,
Shane
,
M.
,
Pratt
,
N. L.
, &
Tucker
,
D. M.
(
2009
).
Corticolimbic mechanisms in the control of trial and error learning
.
Brain Research
,
1247
,
100
113
. ,
[PubMed]
Miltner
,
W. H.
,
Braun
,
C. H.
, &
Coles
,
M. G.
(
1997
).
Event-related brain potentials following incorrect feedback in a time-estimation task: Evidence for a “generic” neural system for error detection
.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
,
9
,
788
798
. ,
[PubMed]
Miraghaie
,
A. M.
,
Pouretemad
,
H.
,
Villa
,
A. E. P.
,
Mazaheri
,
M. A.
,
Khosrowabadi
,
R.
, &
Lintas
,
A.
(
2022
).
Electrophysiological markers of fairness and selfishness revealed by a combination of dictator and ultimatum games
.
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
,
16
,
765720
. ,
[PubMed]
Moffitt
,
T. E.
(
1993
).
Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy
.
Psychological Review
,
100
,
674
701
. ,
[PubMed]
Moffitt
,
T. E.
(
2007
).
A review of research on the taxonomy of life-course persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior
. In
D. J.
Flannery
,
A. T.
Vazsonyi
, &
I. D.
Waldman
(Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression
(pp.
49
74
).
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Moll
,
J.
,
Krueger
,
F.
,
Zahn
,
R.
,
Pardini
,
M.
,
de Oliveira-Souza
,
R.
, &
Grafman
,
J.
(
2006
).
Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
,
103
,
15623
15628
. ,
[PubMed]
Morgado
,
A. M.
, &
da Luz Vale-Dias
,
M.
(
2016
).
Antisocial behaviour in adolescence: Understanding risk factors and mediators through a structural equations model
.
International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology
,
1
,
381
392
.
Nieuwenhuis
,
S.
,
Aston-Jones
,
G.
, &
Cohen
,
J. D.
(
2005
).
Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus–norepinephrine system
.
Psychological Bulletin
,
131
,
510
532
. ,
[PubMed]
Oberg
,
S. A. K.
,
Christie
,
G. J.
, &
Tata
,
M. S.
(
2011
).
Problem gamblers exhibit reward hypersensitivity in medial frontal cortex during gambling
.
Neuropsychologia
,
49
,
3768
3775
. ,
[PubMed]
Oumeziane
,
B. A.
,
Schryer-Praga
,
J.
, &
Foti
,
D.
(
2017
).
“Why don't they ‘like’ me more?”: Comparing the time courses of social and monetary reward processing
.
Neuropsychologia
,
107
,
48
59
. ,
[PubMed]
Paulus
,
M. P.
(
2005
).
Neurobiology of decision-making: Quo vadis?
Cognitive Brain Research
,
23
,
2
10
. ,
[PubMed]
Penner
,
L. A.
,
Dovidio
,
J. F.
,
Piliavin
,
J. A.
, &
Schroeder
,
D. A.
(
2005
).
Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives
.
Annual Review of Psychology
,
56
,
365
392
. ,
[PubMed]
Pernet
,
C. R.
,
Martínez-Cancino
,
R.
,
Truong
,
D.
,
Makeig
,
S.
, &
Delorme
,
A.
(
2021
).
From BIDS-formatted EEG data to sensor-space group results: A fully reproducible workflow with EEGLAB and LIMO EEG
.
Frontiers in Neuroscience
,
14
,
610388
. ,
[PubMed]
Peterburs
,
J.
,
Kobza
,
S.
, &
Bellebaum
,
C.
(
2016
).
Feedback delay gradually affects amplitude and valence specificity of the feedback-related negativity (FRN)
.
Psychophysiology
,
53
,
209
215
. ,
[PubMed]
Peterburs
,
J.
,
Voegler
,
R.
,
Liepelt
,
R.
,
Schulze
,
A.
,
Wilhelm
,
S.
,
Ocklenburg
,
S.
, et al
(
2017
).
Processing of fair and unfair offers in the ultimatum game under social observation
.
Scientific Reports
,
7
,
44062
. ,
[PubMed]
Pfabigan
,
D. M.
,
Alexopoulos
,
J.
,
Bauer
,
H.
, &
Sailer
,
U.
(
2010
).
Manipulation of feedback expectancy and valence induces negative and positive reward prediction error signals manifest in event-related brain potentials
.
Psychophysiology
,
48
,
656
664
. ,
[PubMed]
Pfeifer
,
J. H.
, &
Peake
,
S. J.
(
2012
).
Self-development: Integrating cognitive, socioemotional, and neuroimaging perspectives
.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
,
2
,
55
69
. ,
[PubMed]
Picton
,
T. W.
(
1992
).
The P300 wave of the human event-related potential
.
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology
,
9
,
456
479
. ,
[PubMed]
Polezzi
,
D.
,
Sartori
,
G.
,
Rumiati
,
R.
,
Vidotto
,
G.
, &
Daum
,
I.
(
2010
).
Brain correlates of risky decision-making
.
Neuroimage
,
49
,
1886
1894
. ,
[PubMed]
Polich
,
J.
(
2007
).
Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b
.
Clinical Neurophysiology
,
118
,
2128
2148
. ,
[PubMed]
Pursell
,
G. R.
,
Laursen
,
B.
,
Rubin
,
K. H.
,
Booth-LaForce
,
C.
, &
Rose-Krasnor
,
L.
(
2008
).
Gender differences in patterns of association between prosocial behavior, personality, and externalizing problems
.
Journal of Research in Personality
,
42
,
472
481
. ,
[PubMed]
Quay
,
H. C.
(
1993
).
The psychobiology of undersocialized aggressive conduct disorder: A theoretical perspective
.
Development and Psychopathology
,
5
,
165
180
.
Rosenblat
,
T. S.
(
2008
).
The beauty premium: Physical attractiveness and gender in dictator games
.
Negotiation Journal
,
24
,
465
481
.
Russell
,
M. A.
,
Robins
,
S. J.
, &
Odgers
,
C. L.
(
2014
).
Developmental perspectives: Sex differences in antisocial behavior from childhood to adulthood
. In
R.
Gartner
&
B.
McCarthy
(Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of gender, sex, and crime
(pp.
286
303
).
Oxford University Press
.
Sato
,
A.
,
Yasuda
,
A.
,
Ohira
,
H.
,
Miyawaki
,
K.
,
Nishikawa
,
M.
,
Kumano
,
H.
, et al
(
2005
).
Effects of value and reward magnitude on feedback negativity and P300
.
NeuroReport
,
16
,
407
411
. ,
[PubMed]
Schuermann
,
B.
,
Endrass
,
T.
, &
Kathmann
,
N.
(
2012
).
Neural correlates of feedback processing in decision-making under risk
.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
,
6
,
204
. ,
[PubMed]
Schuermann
,
B.
,
Kathmann
,
N.
,
Stiglmayr
,
C.
,
Renneberg
,
B.
, &
Endrass
,
T.
(
2011
).
Impaired decision making and feedback evaluation in borderline personality disorder
.
Psychological Medicine
,
41
,
1917
1927
. ,
[PubMed]
Schurger
,
A.
,
Hu
,
P.
,
Pak
,
J.
, &
Roskies
,
A. L.
(
2021
).
What is the readiness potential?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
,
25
,
558
570
. ,
[PubMed]
Tanovic
,
E.
, &
Joormann
,
J.
(
2019
).
Anticipating the unknown: The stimulus-preceding negativity is enhanced by uncertain threat
.
International Journal of Psychophysiology
,
139
,
68
73
. ,
[PubMed]
Telzer
,
E. H.
(
2016
).
Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: A new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation
.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
,
17
,
57
67
. ,
[PubMed]
Tieskens
,
J. M.
,
Buil
,
J. M.
,
Koot
,
S.
,
Krabbendam
,
L.
, &
van Lier
,
P. A. C.
(
2018
).
Elementary school children's associations of antisocial behaviour with risk-taking across 7–11 years
.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
,
59
,
1052
1060
. ,
[PubMed]
van den Bos
,
W.
,
Vahl
,
P.
,
Güroğlu
,
B.
,
van Nunspeet
,
F.
,
Colins
,
O.
,
Markus
,
M.
, et al
(
2014
).
Neural correlates of social decision-making in severely antisocial adolescents
.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
,
9
,
2059
2066
. ,
[PubMed]
van den Bos
,
W.
,
van Dijk
,
E.
,
Westenberg
,
M.
,
Rombouts
,
S. A. R. B.
, &
Crone
,
E. A.
(
2011
).
Changing brains, changing perspectives: The neurocognitive development of reciprocity
.
Psychological Science
,
22
,
60
70
. ,
[PubMed]
van der Molen
,
M. J. W.
,
Dekkers
,
L. M. S.
,
Westenberg
,
P. M.
,
van der Veen
,
F. M.
, &
van der Molen
,
M. W.
(
2017
).
Why don't you like me? Midfrontal theta power in response to unexpected peer rejection feedback
.
Neuroimage
,
146
,
474
483
. ,
[PubMed]
van der Molen
,
M. J. W.
,
Harrewijn
,
A.
, &
Westenberg
,
P. M.
(
2018
).
Will they like me? Neural and behavioral responses to social-evaluative peer feedback in socially and non-socially anxious females
.
Biological Psychology
,
135
,
18
28
. ,
[PubMed]
van der Molen
,
M. J. W.
,
Poppelaars
,
E. S.
,
Van Hartingsveldt
,
C. T. A.
,
Harrewijn
,
A.
,
Moor
,
B. G.
, &
Westenberg
,
P. M.
(
2014
).
Fear of negative evaluation modulates electrocortical and behavioral responses when anticipating social evaluative feedback
.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
,
7
,
936
. ,
[PubMed]
Van Leijenhorst
,
L.
,
Moor
,
B. G.
,
de Macks
,
Z. A. O.
,
Rombouts
,
S. A. R. B.
,
Westenberg
,
P. M.
, &
Crone
,
E. A.
(
2010
).
Adolescent risky decision-making: Neurocognitive development of reward and control regions
.
Neuroimage
,
51
,
345
355
. ,
[PubMed]
Willoughby
,
T.
,
Good
,
M.
,
Adachi
,
P. J. C.
,
Hamza
,
C.
, &
Tavernier
,
R.
(
2013
).
Examining the link between adolescent brain development and risk taking from a social-developmental perspective
.
Brain and Cognition
,
83
,
315
323
. ,
[PubMed]
Wu
,
Y.
, &
Zhou
,
X.
(
2009
).
The P300 and reward valence, magnitude, and expectancy in outcome evaluation
.
Brain Research
,
1286
,
114
122
. ,
[PubMed]
Wu
,
Y.
,
Zhou
,
Y.
,
van Dijk
,
E.
,
Leliveld
,
M. C.
, &
Zhou
,
X.
(
2011
).
Social comparison affects brain responses to fairness in asset division: An ERP study with the ultimatum game
.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
,
5
,
131
. ,
[PubMed]
Yeung
,
N.
,
Holroyd
,
C. B.
, &
Cohen
,
J. D.
(
2005
).
ERP correlates of feedback and reward processing in the presence and absence of response choice
.
Cerebral Cortex
,
15
,
535
544
. ,
[PubMed]
Yi
,
W.
,
Mei
,
S.
,
Li
,
Q.
,
Liu
,
X.
, &
Zheng
,
Y.
(
2018
).
How choice influences risk processing: An ERP study
.
Biological Psychology
,
138
,
223
230
. ,
[PubMed]
Zhang
,
D.
,
Gu
,
R.
,
Wu
,
T.
,
Broster
,
L. S.
,
Luo
,
Y.
,
Jiang
,
Y.
, et al
(
2013
).
An electrophysiological index of changes in risk decision-making strategies
.
Neuropsychologia
,
51
,
1397
1407
. ,
[PubMed]
Zhong
,
N.
,
Chen
,
T.
,
Zhu
,
Y.
,
Su
,
H.
,
Ruan
,
X.
,
Li
,
X.
, et al
(
2020
).
Smaller feedback-related negativity (FRN) reflects the risky decision-making deficits of methamphetamine dependent individuals
.
Frontiers in Psychiatry
,
11
,
320
. ,
[PubMed]