## 4 Experimental Setup and Results
### Ablation Experiment Results  
In the 40 valid datasets, each group (positive emotion experimental, positive emotion control, negative emotion experimental, negative emotion control) had 10 participants. The \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **PE (n = 13)** & **NE (n = 13)** & **Control (n = 14)** & **F** & \(p\) \\ \hline BR (Mean \(\pm\) SD) (\%) & 60.38 \(\pm\) 14.60 & 35.76 \(\pm\) 14.79 & 51.43 \(\pm\) 13.40 & 9.42 & 0.000 *** \\ \hline
95\% Confidence Interval & (0.5120, 0.6957) & (0.2647, 0.4507) & (0.4371, 0.5914) & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{***\(p<0.001\).} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Risk-taking ratios analysis among three groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **PE and NE** & **PE and Control** & **NE and Control** & \(\eta^{2}\) & **Cohen’s f** \\ \hline Cohen’s d & 1.67 & 0.65 & 1.13 & 0.34 & 0.71 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Effect sizes between three groups of risk-taking ratios. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **PE (n = 13)** & **NE (n = 13)** & **Control (n = 14)** & **F** & \(p\) \\ \hline CR (Mean \(\pm\) SD) (\%) & 35.77 \(\pm\) 14.79 & 60.00 \(\pm\) 16.98 & 48.93 \(\pm\) 10.89 & 8.57 & 0.000 *** \\ \hline
95\% Confidence Interval & (0.2647, 0.4507) & (0.4932, 0.7068) & (0.4240, 0.5546) & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{***\(p<0.001\).} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Cooperation ratios analysis among three groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **PE and NE** & **PE and Control** & **NE and Control** & \(\eta^{2}\) & **[PERSON]’s f** \\ \hline \hline [PERSON]’s d & 1.52 & 1.01 & 0.78 & 0.32 & 0.68 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Cooperation but not acceptance ratios analysis among three groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **PE and NE** & **PE and Control** & **NE and Control** & \(\eta^{2}\) & **[PERSON]’s f** \\ \hline \hline [PERSON]’s d & 1.00 & 0.66 & 0.62 & 0.18 & 0.47 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Effect sizes between three groups of CNAR. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **PE and NE** & **PE and Control** & **NE and Control** & \(\eta^{2}\) & **[PERSON]’s f** \\ \hline \hline [PERSON]’s d & 1.00 & 0.66 & 0.62 & 0.18 & 0.47 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Risk-taking ratios analysis among three groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **PE and NE** & **PE and Control** & **NE and Control** & \(\eta^{2}\) & **[PERSON]’s f** \\ \hline \hline [PERSON]’s d & 1.67 & 0.65 & 1.13 & 0.34 & 0.71 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Cooperation ratios analysis among three groups. PANAS scores before and after the experiment for the positive emotion group and the negative emotion group are summarized in Tables 12 and 13. To further validate the differences between the experimental and control groups, we first conducted an independent samples \(t\)-test on the preexperimental emotion scores of the two groups. The results of the experiment are shown in Tables 14 and 15. We then conducted an independent samples \(t\)-test on the emotion scores of the two groups after the experiment. The results of the experiment are shown in Tables 16 and 17. After that, we conducted independent samples \(t\)-tests on the emotion scores before and after the experiment for the experimental and control groups in the positive emotion \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **Category (Mean \(\pm\) SD)** & **t** & \(\mathbf{p}\) \\ \hline Experimental Group (n = 10) & 3.90 \(\pm\) 0.31 & & \\ Control Group (n = 10) & 3.37 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 4.36 & 0.000 *** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: Results of \(t\)-test for PE group after experiment.