Being the chosen one: social inclusion modulates decisions in the ultimatum game. An ERP study

Abstract

In the present study, participants played a modified ultimatum game simulating a situation of inclusion/exclusion, in which either the participant or a rival could be selected to play as the responder. This selection was made either randomly by a computer (i.e. random pairing mode) or by the proposer (i.e. choice mode), based on physical appearance. Being chosen by the proposer triggered positive reciprocal behavior in participants, who accepted unfair offers more frequently than when they had been selected by the computer. Independently of selection mode, greater P200 amplitudes were found when participants received fair offers than when they received unfair offers and when unfair shares were offered to their rivals rather than to them, suggesting that receiving fair offers or observing a rival’s misfortune was rewarding for participants. While participants generally showed more interest in the offers they themselves received (i.e. greater P300 responses to these offers), observing their rivals receive fair shares after the latter had been chosen by the proposer triggered an increase in P300 amplitude likely to reflect a feeling of envy. This study provides new insights into both the cognitive and affective processes underpinning economic decision making in a context of social inclusion/exclusion.

The Dilemma Of Disobedience: An ERP study

“…The N100 and the P300 components were measured in terms of mean amplitude at Fz, Cz, and Pz electrodes, respectively in the 90-130 ms and the 300–430 ms time windows (e.g., Berlad, & Pratt, 1995). Due to the important amplitude differences observed before the occurrence of the P200 and N200 components, the latter were assessed in terms of peak-to-peak amplitudes at Fz, Cz and Pz electrodes (e.g., Alexopoulos et al, 2012; Falco et al 2019). Peak-to-peak amplitudes were calculated by subtracting 1) the peak amplitudes measured in the 80–180 ms (negative peak) and the in 200–240 ms (positive peak) time windows for the P200 component (Caravaglios, et al, 2008; Falco et al, 2019; Hansch, et al 1982); and 2) the peak amplitudes measured in the 200–240 ms (positive peak) and the 260–300 ms (negative peak) time windows for the N200 (e.g., Falco et al, 2019; Pfabigan, et al, 2011).…”

Do Competitive Contexts Affect Mindreading Performance?

“…Consistently, Falco et al (2019), found than participants playing the Ultimatum Game made different decisions when they thought their opponents were making an offer because they included and attributed to them higher social rank, then when they considered the offer of the others as generated by devaluing. In other words, when moved by competition participants accepted fewer unfair offers motivated by a negative view of a rival.…”

Investigating the Impact of Offer Frame Manipulations On Responders Playing The Ultimatum Game

“…This component was found to underpin the allocation of attentional resources to the decision-making process (e.g. Gray et al, 2004; Falco et al, 2019) and to reflect the decision maker’s motivational state (Yeung & Sanfey, 2004; Nieuwenhuis et al, 2005). In line with literature, we predicted to observe 1) greater FRN amplitudes in response to non-fair offers compared to fair offers; and 2) greater P300 amplitudes in response to fair offers than to unfair offers, reflecting responders’ greater motivation to accept fair offers than unfair offers (in line with Qu et al, 2013; Wu et al, 2012).…”

“…The FRN and the P300 components were assessed in terms of mean amplitude at Fz, Cz and Pz electrodes respectively in the 220 – 300 ms and 300 – 380 ms time windows (Fabre et al, 2015). Due to the important amplitude differences observed before the occurrence of the N400 and the P600 components, these two components were assessed in terms of peak-to-peak amplitudes (Falco et al, 2019). For the N400 component, peak-to-peak amplitudes were calculated by subtracting the peak amplitudes measured in the 300 – 380 ms (positive peak) and 370 – 430 ms (negative peak) time windows.…”