Social exclusion modulates fairness consideration in the ultimatum game: an ERP study

Abstract

Previous neuroimaging research has identified brain regions activated when people’s fairness consideration changes under conditions of social exclusion. The current study used EEG data to examine the temporal process of changes in fairness consideration under social exclusion. In this study, a Cyberball game was administered to manipulate participants’ social exclusion or inclusion. Then, in the following Ultimatum game (UG), participants’ brain potentials were recorded while they received fair/unfair offers from someone who previously excluded them, someone who previously included them, or a stranger. Results showed that feedback-related negativity (FRN) after onset of distribution outcome was more pronounced for unfair offers compared to fair offers. Moreover, the FRN was more negative-going in response to unfair offers from people who previously excluded them than from the includer and the stranger. Fair offers elicited a larger P300 than unfair offers. In addition, P300 was more positive-going for unfair offers from the stranger than from the excluder and the includer. This study reveals a temporal process in which the effects of social exclusion on fair consideration are reflected in FRN in the early stage of outcome evaluation. These data also suggest that the FRN is modulated by the subjective evaluation of outcome events in a social context.

Sex and the money – How gender stereotypes modulate economic decision-making: An ERP study

“…To this extent, Wu et al (2012) proposed that non-equal offers (i.e., inferior or superior to the half-share) in the ultimatum game may constitute a particular case of social norm violation (i.e., equality expectancy violation) associated with a greater FRN effect compared to when the fairness norm is applied (i.e., a major negativity for non-equal shares than for equal shares). Two studies also found a greater P300 amplitude in response to fair offers compared to unfair offers (Wu et al, 2012;Qu et al, 2013). The authors interpreted this effect to reflect the greater motivational significance to fair shares than to unfair shares.…”

“…Several studies recently investigated fairness consideration and the associated neural correlates using the ultimatum game paradigm (Polezzi et al, 2008;Campanhã et al, 2011;Wu et al, 2011Wu et al, , 2012Alexopoulos et al, 2012Alexopoulos et al, , 2013Qu et al, 2013). Overall, a greater negativity of the FRN component was found in response to unfair offers than to fair offers (Polezzi et al, 2008;Wu et al, 2011Wu et al, , 2012Alexopoulos et al, 2012Alexopoulos et al, , 2013Qu et al, 2013); and more interestingly, also in response to extra-fair offers (i.e., shares superior to half the amount of money to split) compared to fair offers (Wu et al, 2012).…”

“…Overall, a greater negativity of the FRN component was found in response to unfair offers than to fair offers (Polezzi et al, 2008;Wu et al, 2011Wu et al, , 2012Alexopoulos et al, 2012Alexopoulos et al, , 2013Qu et al, 2013); and more interestingly, also in response to extra-fair offers (i.e., shares superior to half the amount of money to split) compared to fair offers (Wu et al, 2012). The FRN has been shown to be sensitive to social expectancy and social norms violation in social paradigms (Boksem and DeCremer, 2010;Wu et al, 2012).…”

“…A recent study showed that when the proposer was a friend rather than an unknown person, the FRN typically associated with unfair offers was reversed to positive polarity (Campanhã et al, 2011). In another study, unfair shares were found to elicit a greater negativity of the FRN when offered by proposers who previously socially excluded the responder (i.e., Cyberball game manipulation) than unfair shares offered by proposers that included the responders (Qu et al, 2013).…”

“…Features such as humaneness (e.g., Van't Wout et al, 2006), physical attractiveness (e.g., Solnick and Schweitzer, 1999;Marchetti et al, 2011), intentionality (e.g., Sutter, 2007, possession of positive versus negative traits (e.g., Ruz et al, 2011;Marchetti et al, 2011;Gaertig et al, 2012;Qu et al, 2013), social ties (e.g., Campanhã et al, 2011), social comparison (Wu et al, 2011) or initial ownership (Wu et al, 2012) contribute importantly to modulate the responders' rejection behavior. Various studies investigated the impact of proposers' gender on the responder's behavior.…”