一种新的基于脑电图的衡量群体间亲社会性的范式:卢旺达针对图西人的种族灭绝后的代际研究。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1037/xge0001480
Guillaume P Pech, Darius Gishoma, Emilie A Caspar
{"title":"一种新的基于脑电图的衡量群体间亲社会性的范式:卢旺达针对图西人的种族灭绝后的代际研究。","authors":"Guillaume P Pech, Darius Gishoma, Emilie A Caspar","doi":"10.1037/xge0001480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studying how intergroup prosociality evolves in war-torn societies is critical for gaining a better understanding of conflict perpetuation. Rwanda provides a unique example of how two groups must reconcile and manage their intergroup biases following a genocidal process. In this study, we employed a novel intended behavior task to measure intergroup prosociality among former genocide perpetrators, genocide survivors, and their children in Rwanda. Participants were required to choose between various individuals representing their own in-group or their out-group as recipients of their prosocial intentions. We measured how frequently they selected in-group or out-group individuals and to what extent choosing each individual induced cognitive conflict, as measured by reaction times (RTs) and midfrontal theta (FMθ) activity. The results indicated that survivors and their children selected former perpetrators and their offspring less frequently. Furthermore, selecting them involved a higher cognitive conflict, as evidenced by longer RT and a higher FMθ, compared to choosing their own in-group. For the group composed of former perpetrators and their children, we observed a dissociation. They selected out-group individuals more frequently, perhaps as a compensatory behavior for their past wrongdoings. Nonetheless, selecting the out-group individuals involved a higher cognitive conflict than selecting their own in-group. Importantly, we observed a similar intergroup prosociality bias in the children of both survivors and former perpetrators, mirroring that of their parents. These results are important for understanding how past conflicts influence intergroup prosociality bias and the extent to which this bias is transmitted to the next generation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"241-254"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A novel electroencephalography-based paradigm to measure intergroup prosociality: An intergenerational study in the aftermath of the genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda.\",\"authors\":\"Guillaume P Pech, Darius Gishoma, Emilie A Caspar\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Studying how intergroup prosociality evolves in war-torn societies is critical for gaining a better understanding of conflict perpetuation. Rwanda provides a unique example of how two groups must reconcile and manage their intergroup biases following a genocidal process. In this study, we employed a novel intended behavior task to measure intergroup prosociality among former genocide perpetrators, genocide survivors, and their children in Rwanda. Participants were required to choose between various individuals representing their own in-group or their out-group as recipients of their prosocial intentions. We measured how frequently they selected in-group or out-group individuals and to what extent choosing each individual induced cognitive conflict, as measured by reaction times (RTs) and midfrontal theta (FMθ) activity. The results indicated that survivors and their children selected former perpetrators and their offspring less frequently. Furthermore, selecting them involved a higher cognitive conflict, as evidenced by longer RT and a higher FMθ, compared to choosing their own in-group. For the group composed of former perpetrators and their children, we observed a dissociation. They selected out-group individuals more frequently, perhaps as a compensatory behavior for their past wrongdoings. Nonetheless, selecting the out-group individuals involved a higher cognitive conflict than selecting their own in-group. Importantly, we observed a similar intergroup prosociality bias in the children of both survivors and former perpetrators, mirroring that of their parents. These results are important for understanding how past conflicts influence intergroup prosociality bias and the extent to which this bias is transmitted to the next generation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"241-254\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001480\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001480","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究群体间亲社会性在饱受战争蹂躏的社会中是如何演变的,对于更好地理解冲突的持久性至关重要。卢旺达提供了一个独特的例子,说明在种族灭绝过程之后,两个群体必须如何调和和管理他们的群体间偏见。在这项研究中,我们采用了一项新颖的意向行为任务来衡量卢旺达前种族灭绝罪犯、种族灭绝幸存者及其子女的群体间亲社会性。参与者被要求在代表他们自己的组内或组外的不同个人之间进行选择,作为他们亲社会意图的接受者。我们测量了他们选择组内或组外个体的频率,以及选择每个个体在多大程度上引发认知冲突,通过反应时间(RT)和额中部θ(FMθ)活动来测量。结果表明,幸存者及其子女选择前肇事者及其后代的频率较低。此外,与在组中选择自己的人相比,选择他们涉及更高的认知冲突,如更长的RT和更高的FMθ所证明的。对于由前犯罪者及其子女组成的群体,我们观察到一种分离。他们更频繁地挑选群体个体,也许是为了补偿他们过去的错误行为。尽管如此,选择组外个体比选择自己的组内个体涉及更高的认知冲突。重要的是,我们在幸存者和前施暴者的孩子身上观察到了类似的群体间亲社会偏见,反映了他们父母的偏见。这些结果对于理解过去的冲突如何影响群体间的亲社会偏见以及这种偏见在多大程度上传递给下一代很重要。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A novel electroencephalography-based paradigm to measure intergroup prosociality: An intergenerational study in the aftermath of the genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda.

Studying how intergroup prosociality evolves in war-torn societies is critical for gaining a better understanding of conflict perpetuation. Rwanda provides a unique example of how two groups must reconcile and manage their intergroup biases following a genocidal process. In this study, we employed a novel intended behavior task to measure intergroup prosociality among former genocide perpetrators, genocide survivors, and their children in Rwanda. Participants were required to choose between various individuals representing their own in-group or their out-group as recipients of their prosocial intentions. We measured how frequently they selected in-group or out-group individuals and to what extent choosing each individual induced cognitive conflict, as measured by reaction times (RTs) and midfrontal theta (FMθ) activity. The results indicated that survivors and their children selected former perpetrators and their offspring less frequently. Furthermore, selecting them involved a higher cognitive conflict, as evidenced by longer RT and a higher FMθ, compared to choosing their own in-group. For the group composed of former perpetrators and their children, we observed a dissociation. They selected out-group individuals more frequently, perhaps as a compensatory behavior for their past wrongdoings. Nonetheless, selecting the out-group individuals involved a higher cognitive conflict than selecting their own in-group. Importantly, we observed a similar intergroup prosociality bias in the children of both survivors and former perpetrators, mirroring that of their parents. These results are important for understanding how past conflicts influence intergroup prosociality bias and the extent to which this bias is transmitted to the next generation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes. Risky hybrid foraging: The impact of risk, reward value, and prevalence on foraging behavior in hybrid visual search. Shortcuts to insincerity: Texting abbreviations seem insincere and not worth answering. Confidence regulates feedback processing during human probabilistic learning. Does affective processing require awareness? On the use of the Perceptual Awareness Scale in response priming research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1