↓ Skip to main content

The Motivational Hierarchy between the Personal Self and Close Others in the Chinese Brain: an ERP Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Motivational Hierarchy between the Personal Self and Close Others in the Chinese Brain: an ERP Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01467
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiangru Zhu, Lili Wang, Suyong Yang, Ruolei Gu, Haiyan Wu, Yuejia Luo

Abstract

People base their decisions not only on their own self-interest but also on the interests of close others. Generally, the personal self has primacy in the motivational hierarchy in the Western culture. A recent study found that friends have the same motivational hierarchy as the personal self in the Eastern collectivist culture. Remaining unknown is whether the motivational hierarchy of the personal self and close others can be manifested in the collectivist brain. In the present study, we asked participants to gamble for the personal self, close others (i.e., mother, father, and close friend), and strangers. The positive-going deflection of event-related potentials (ERPs) in response to positive feedback showed the following pattern: personal self = mother = father > friend > stranger. In the loss condition, no significant beneficiary effect was observed. The present results indicate that the personal self and parents are intertwined in the motivational system in the Chinese undergraduate student brain, supporting the view that the personal self and parents have the same motivational primacy at the electrocortical level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 18%
Unspecified 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 32%
Unspecified 4 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Computer Science 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,390,619
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,289
of 30,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,514
of 323,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#385
of 437 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 437 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.