Professional Documents
Culture Documents
State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
Sichuan Research Center of Applied Psychology, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China
c
Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
d
Institute of Affective and Social Neuroscience, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
b
Abstract
To investigate the influence of cognitive reappraisal, one important kind of emotion regulation strategy, on psychological
and electrophysiological responses to gains and losses, a monetary gambling task was performed in two conditions, that
is, spontaneity and regulation. Event-related potentials (ERP) and self-rating emotional experiences to outcome feedback
were recorded during the task. Cognitive reappraisal reduced self-rating emotional experience to both gains and losses
and the amplitudes of the feedback-related negativity (FRN) and the P3 of ERPs. According to these results, we suggest
that the application of cognitive reappraisal strategy significantly modulated the motivational salience of current
outcomes, thus weakening the subjective emotional experience elicited. In addition, cognitive reappraisal might have
changed the allocation of cognitive resources during outcome evaluation. This study extends emotion regulation studies
by applying monetary outcomes as emotional stimuli, and also implicates the significance of emotion regulation in
decision-making processes.
Descriptors: Emotion regulation, Cognitive reappraisal, Gains and losses, Emotional experience, Event-related potential, Feedback-related negativity, P3
bs_bs_banner
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (30930031, 91132704), the Ministry of Science and
Technology (973 Program, 2011CB711000), the Global Research Initiative Program, United States National Institutes of Health grant
(1R01TW007897), and the Scientific Foundation of Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Y2CQ013005). The authors sincerely
thank the editor Dr. Greg Hajcak and two anonymous reviewers for their
contribution in improving the manuscript.
Address correspondence to: Ruolei Gu, Key Laboratory of Behavioral
Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
China, 100101. E-mail: gurl@psych.ac.cn or Yue-jia Luo, e-mail: luoyj@
bnu.edu.cn
1094
1095
In the present study, we asked participants to either respond
spontaneously or employ the strategy of cognitive reappraisal to
calm down when facing the outcome feedback that indicated a gain
or loss. During the task, we asked all participants to evaluate the
level of their emotional experience to different types of outcomes.
We hypothesize that the effect of cognitive reappraisal on the
responses to outcomes would be shown on self-rating scores of
emotional experiences, such that emotional experiences would be
downregulated for both gains and losses. Since the cognitive
reappraisal strategy (see Method section) in the present study was
supposed to reduce the motivational significance and the subjective
weight of individual trial outcomes, the FRN and P3 amplitudes
were hypothesized to be reduced by cognitive reappraisal. Furthermore, we explored the relation between self-rating emotional
experiences and the ERP components.
Method
Participants
Thirty-six right-handed students (24 females; mean = 22.0 years,
SD = 2.2) from Beijing Normal University participated in the
experiment. All participants were free of regular medication use or
other nonmedical substances that might influence the central
nervous system. All participants had normal vision (with or without
correction); none had a history of neurological disease. All participants provided their informed consent prior to the experiment. The
experimental protocol was approved by the local ethics committee
(Beijing Normal University).
Experimental Tasks and Procedure
During the task, the participant sat comfortably in an electrically
shielded room, approximately 100 cm in front of a computer
screen. A single trial entailed the following sequence: initially, a
fixation cross appeared on the screen center, adjoined on either side
by two rectangles for 500 ms. The numbers 5 and 25 (5 jiao and 25
jiao RMB, indicating the amount of bet, approximately 8 and
40 U.S. cents, respectively) were then simultaneously and respectively presented in one of the two rectangles until the participant
had conducted his/her choice by pressing the F or J keys on the
keyboard with their left or right index finger (F for the alternative
on the left and J for the right). The selected alternative was then
emphasized by a thickened red outline of the chosen rectangle for
500 ms. All stimuli then disappeared for a short interval of a
random duration between 1,000 and 1,500 ms; the result of the
participants choice then appeared with the + or symbols,
thus indicating the valence of the outcome (see Figure 1).
There were four possible outcomes: +5, 5, +25, and 25,
indicating that the participant won or lost 5 or 25 jiao RMB,
respectively. The feedback display remained visible for 1,500 ms,
and a black screen was then presented for a short interval that
varied randomly between 800 and 1,200 ms. The formal task consisted of eight blocks of 50 trials. The eight blocks were half-split
and assigned to experimental conditions (i.e., spontaneity and regulation). Each condition consisted of four successive blocks, which
was indicated by an instruction prior to each block. Regarding
economic decisions, an efficient cognitive reappraisal strategy is to
evaluate an outcome in a greater context (Read et al., 1999;
Sokol-Hessner et al., 2009). Therefore, in the cognitive reappraisal
condition, the participants were asked to evaluate the outcome of a
single trial from the perspective of a bigger picture. In addition, the
1096
Q. Yang et al.
Figure 1. The sequence of events within a single trial of the monetary decision-making task. The participant was asked to select a choice of two alternatives.
Their choice was emphasized for 500 ms. After a subsequent interval of 1,0001,500 ms, the outcome feedback was presented for 1,500 ms. After an
additional 8001,200 ms, the participant was presented with the next trial. After every 12 trials, the participant was asked to evaluate his/her emotional
experience to the previous outcome of the proximate trial using a 9-point scale. RT = response time.
participants were also required to consider gains or losses as inevitable in each round of gambling. This type of reinterpretation of the
outcome will increase the level of outcome acceptance, which is
effective to reduce emotional experiences and physiological
responses to emotion stimuli as an emotion regulation strategy
(Levitt, Brown, Orsillo, & Barlow, 2004; Wolgast, Lundh, &
Viborg, 2011). In the spontaneity condition, the translated Chinese
instructions read as follows:
Please pay attention to each outcome, and treat the present outcome as the
final result of this game. You can attempt any strategies to get more rewards.
Gains or losses will induce two different types of corresponding emotions.
When the emotion arises, do not attempt to regulate or control it.
1097
1098
Q. Yang et al.
Figure 3. The relationship between emotional experience to gains (the scores averaged between +25 and +5) and losses (the scores averaged between 25
and 5) in the spontaneity condition (a) and in the regulation condition (b). The relationship between the difference of emotional experience (reduced by
cognitive reappraisal) to gains and losses (c).
1099
Figure 4. The grand-average ERPs at the pooled Fz/FCz site and the scalp distribution of difference waves between losses and gains 320 ms after onset of
the outcome feedback, when the FRN reached its maximum. Gain: collapsing +25 with +5; loss: collapsing 25 with 5.
1100
Q. Yang et al.
Figure 5. The grand-average ERPs evoked by the presentation of outcomes at the CPz recording site and scalp distribution 368 ms after onset of gain
feedback, 400 ms after onset of loss feedback, i.e., the time when the corresponding P3 reached the maximum.
between large and small gains, regardless of the fact that the differences of outcome magnitude were identical in both gain and loss
conditions. This result was consistent with the classic loss aversion phenomenon; that is, losses loom larger than gains (Tversky
& Kahneman, 1981). More importantly, the effect of cognitive
reappraisal on the difference scores was stronger in the loss condition than in the gain condition, indicating that cognitive
reappraisal reduced loss aversion (see also Sokol-Hessner et al.,
2009).
Emotional experiences to gains were strongly correlated with
emotional experiences to losses in both the spontaneity and regulation conditions. We speculate that this correlation was caused by
the between-subject difference in the level of motivation when
outcome magnitude was controlled. If a participant had a stronger
motivation to win and avoid losses than others, he/she would
experience stronger positive emotions for gains and negative emotions for losses. In other words, the stronger the motivation an
individual had for the bet, the stronger the emotional experiences
would be elicited by gains and losses. In addition, emotional
experiences reduced by cognitive reappraisal (measured as the
difference of self-rating scores between the spontaneity and regulation conditions) were strongly correlated between gains and
1101
Figure 6. The relationship between emotional experience to gains and P3 latency in the spontaneity condition (a) and in the regulation condition (b). The
relationship between the emotional experience difference (changed by cognitive reappraisal) to gains and the corresponding P3 latency (delayed by cognitive
reappraisal) (c).
1102
Q. Yang et al.
References
Blair, K., Marsh, A. A., Morton, J., Vythilingam, M., Jones, M., Mondillo,
K., . . . Blair, J. R. (2006). Choosing the lesser of two evils, the better of
two goods: Specifying the roles of ventromedial prefrontal cortex and
dorsal anterior cingulate in object choice. The Journal of Neuroscience,
26, 1137911386.
Bower, G. H. (1991). Mood congruity of social judgments. In J. Forgas
(Ed.), Emotion and social judgments (pp. 3154). Oxford, UK:
Pergamon Press.
Fenton-OCreevy, M., Soane, E., Nicholson, N., & Willman, P. (2011).
Thinking, feeling and deciding: The influence of emotions on the decision making and performance of traders. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 10441061.
Foti, D., Weinberg, A., Dien, J., & Hajcak, G. (2011). Event-related
potential activity in the basal ganglia differentiates rewards from
nonrewards: Temporospatial principal components analysis and source
localization of the feedback negativity. Human Brain Mapping, 32,
22072216.
Gehring, W. J., & Willoughby, A. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and
the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science, 295, 2279
2282.
Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The neural
bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative
emotion. Biological Psychiatry, 63, 577586.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for
off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55, 468484.
Gross, J. J. (1998a). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271299.
Gross, J. J. (1998b). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation:
Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224237.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social
consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281291.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348362.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual
foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp.
324). New York, NY: Guilford Press
Gu, R., Lei, Z., Broster, L., Wu, T., Jiang, Y., & Luo, Y. (2011). Beyond
valence and magnitude: A flexible evaluative coding system in the brain.
Neuropsychologia, 49, 38913897.
Haber, S. N., & Knutson, B. (2009). The reward circuit: Linking primate
anatomy and human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, 426.
Hajcak, G., MacNamara, A., & Olvet, D. M. (2010). Event-related potentials, emotion, and emotion regulation: An integrative review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35, 129155.
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, 148154.
Hajcak, G., Moser, J. S., Holroyd, C. B., & Simons, R. F. (2007). Its worse
than you thought: The feedback negativity and violations of reward
prediction in gambling tasks. Psychophysiology, 44, 905912.
Hajcak, G., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2006). Reappraisal modulates the
electrocortical response to unpleasant pictures. Cognitive Affective &
Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 291297.
Holroyd, C. B., Baker, T. E., Kerns, K. A., & Mller, U. (2008).
Electrophysiological evidence of atypical motivation and reward processing in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Neuropsychologia, 46, 22342242.
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, 679709.
Holroyd, C. B., & Krigolson, O. E. (2007). Reward prediction error signals
associated with a modified time estimation task. Psychophysiology, 44,
913917.
Holroyd, C. B., Larsen, J. T., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Context dependence of
the event-related brain potential associated with reward and punishment. Psychophysiology, 41, 245253.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of
decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society,
47, 263291.
Kim, H., Shimojo, S., & ODoherty, J. P. (2006). Is avoiding an aversive
outcome rewarding? Neural substrates of avoidance learning in the
human brain. PLoS Biology, 4, e233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.
0040233
Knutson, B., Taylor, J., Kaufman, M., Peterson, R., & Glover, G. (2005).
Distributed neural representation of expected value. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 25, 48064812.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and
purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions.
Psychological Science, 15, 337341.
Levitt, J. T., Brown, T. A., Orsillo, S. M., & Barlow, D. H. (2004). The
effects of acceptance versus suppression of emotion on subjective and
psychophysiological response to carbon dioxide challenge in patients
with panic disorder. Behavior Therapy, 35, 747766.
Lust, S. A., & Bartholow, B. D. (2009). Self-reported and P3 event-related
potential evaluations of condoms: Does what we say match how we
feel? Psychophysiology, 46, 420424.
McClure, S. M., York, M. K., & Montague, P. R. (2004). The neural
substrates of reward processing in humans: The modern role of fMRI.
The Neuroscientist, 10, 260268.
McRae, K., Hughes, B., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Gross, J. J., &
Ochsner, K. N. (2010). The neural bases of distraction and reappraisal.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 248262.
McRae, K., Jacobs, S. E., Ray, R. D., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2012).
Individual differences in reappraisal ability: Links to reappraisal frequency, well-being, and cognitive control. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 27.
Molnr, M. (1999). The dimensional complexity of the P3 event-related
potential: Area-specific and task-dependent features. Clinical Neurophysiology, 110, 3138.
Moser, J. S., Hajcak, G., Bukay, E., & Simons, R. F. (2006). Intentional
modulation of emotional responding to unpleasant pictures: An ERP
study. Psychophysiology, 43, 292296.
Nieuwenhuis, S., Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). Decision
making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 510532.
Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002).
Rethinking feelings: An fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of
emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 12151229.
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Cognitive emotion regulation:
Insights from social cognitive and affective neuroscience. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 153158.
Oliveira, F. T. P., McDonald, J. J., & Goodman, D. (2007). Performance
monitoring in the anterior cingulate is not all error related: Expectancy
deviation and the representation of action-outcome associations.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 19942004.
1103
individuals loss aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106, 50355040.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the
psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453458.
Wager, T. D., Davidson, M. L., Hughes, B. L., Lindquist, M. A., & Ochsner,
K. N. (2008). Prefrontal-subcortical pathways mediating successful
emotion regulation. Neuron, 59, 10371050.
Wolgast, M., Lundh, L. G., & Viborg, G. (2011). Cognitive reappraisal
and acceptance: An experimental comparison of two emotion
regulation strategies. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49, 858
866.
Wu, Y., & Zhou, X. L. (2009). The P300 and reward valence, magnitude,
and expectancy in outcome evaluation. Brain Research, 1286, 114
122.
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, 535544.
Yeung, N., & Sanfey, A. G. (2004). Independent coding of reward magnitude and valence in the human brain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24,
62586264.
Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments.
Experimental Economics, 13, 7598.
(Received December 22, 2012; Accepted May 15, 2013)