RESUMEN
Costly third-party punishment (TPP) is an effective way to enforce fairness norms and promote cooperation. Recent studies have shown that the third party considers not only the proposer's suggested allocation but also the receiver's response to the allocation, which was typically ignored in traditional TPP studies when making punishment decisions. However, it remains unclear whether and how the varying unfair allocations and receivers' responses are integrated into third-party punishment. The current study addressed these issues at behavioral and electrophysiological levels by employing a modified third-party punishment task involving proposers' highly or moderately unfair allocations and the receivers' acceptance or rejection responses. At the behavioral level, participants punished proposers more often when receivers rejected relative to accepted unfair allocations. This effect was further modulated by the unfairness degree of allocations, indicated by a more pronounced rejection-sensitive effect when participants observed the moderately unfair offers. Electrophysiologically, when the receiver rejected the moderately unfair allocations, a stronger late-stage component P300/LPP, which was considered to be involved in allocations of attention resources, was found. Meanwhile, separated from the P300/LPP, the P200 associated with early attention capture demonstrated a rejection-sensitive effect that was independent of the unfairness degree of allocations. Together, in the costly TPP studies, the receiver is typically designated as passive and silent, and her/his responses to unfairness are conventionally ignored. However, our results indicate that except for the proposer's distribution behavior, the receiver's response does have an impact on third-party punishment in a way that interacts with the unfairness of allocations.
RESUMEN
Addiction researchers are interested in the ability of neural signals, like the P3 component of the ERP, to index individual differences in liability factors like motivational reactivity to alcohol/drug cues. The reliability of these measures directly impacts their ability to index individual differences, yet little attention has been paid to their psychometric properties. The present study fills this gap by examining within-session internal consistency reliability (ICR) and between-session test-retest reliability (TRR) of the P3 amplitude elicited by images of alcoholic beverages (Alcohol Cue P3) and non-alcoholic drinks (NADrink Cue P3) as well as the difference between them, which isolates alcohol cue-specific reactivity in the P3 (ACR-P3). Analyses drew on data from a large sample of alcohol-experienced emerging adults (session 1 N = 211, 55% female, aged 18-20 yr; session 2 N = 98, 66% female, aged 19-21 yr). Evaluated against domain-general thresholds, ICR was excellent (M ± SD; r= 0.902 ± 0.030) and TRR was fair (r = 0.706 ± 0.020) for Alcohol Cue P3 and NADrink Cue P3, whereas for ACR-P3, ICR and TRR were poor (r = 0.370 ± 0.071; r = 0.201 ± 0.042). These findings indicate that individual differences in the P3 elicited by cues for ingested liquid rewards are highly reliable and substantially stable over 8-10 months. Individual differences in alcohol cue-specific P3 reactivity were less reliable and less stable. The conditions under which alcohol/drug cue-specific reactivity in neural signals is adequately reliable and stable remain to be discovered.