Cargando…

Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game

In the present study EEG was recorded simultaneously while two participants were playing the three-person ultimatum game (UG). Both participants received different offers from changing proposers about how to split up a certain amount of money between the three players. One of the participants had no...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alexopoulos, Johanna, Pfabigan, Daniela M., Göschl, Florian, Bauer, Herbert, Fischmeister, Florian Ph. S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818878
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00312
_version_ 1782274831837822976
author Alexopoulos, Johanna
Pfabigan, Daniela M.
Göschl, Florian
Bauer, Herbert
Fischmeister, Florian Ph. S.
author_facet Alexopoulos, Johanna
Pfabigan, Daniela M.
Göschl, Florian
Bauer, Herbert
Fischmeister, Florian Ph. S.
author_sort Alexopoulos, Johanna
collection PubMed
description In the present study EEG was recorded simultaneously while two participants were playing the three-person ultimatum game (UG). Both participants received different offers from changing proposers about how to split up a certain amount of money between the three players. One of the participants had no say, whereas the other, the responder, was able to harm the payoff of all other players. The aim of the study was to investigate how the outcomes of the respective other are evaluated by participants who were treated fairly or unfairly themselves and to what extent agency influences concerns for fairness. Analyses were focused on the medial frontal negativity (MFN) as an early index for subjective value assignment. Recipients with veto-power exhibited enhanced, more negative-going, MFN amplitudes following proposals that comprised a low share for both recipients, suggesting that responders favored offers with a fair amount to at least one of the two players. Though, the powerless players cared about the amount assigned to the responder, MFN amplitudes were larger following fair compared to unfair offers assigned to the responder. Similarly, concerns for fairness which determined the amplitude of the MFN, suggested that the powerless players exhibited negative and conversely the responders, positive social preferences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3694219
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36942192013-07-01 Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game Alexopoulos, Johanna Pfabigan, Daniela M. Göschl, Florian Bauer, Herbert Fischmeister, Florian Ph. S. Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience In the present study EEG was recorded simultaneously while two participants were playing the three-person ultimatum game (UG). Both participants received different offers from changing proposers about how to split up a certain amount of money between the three players. One of the participants had no say, whereas the other, the responder, was able to harm the payoff of all other players. The aim of the study was to investigate how the outcomes of the respective other are evaluated by participants who were treated fairly or unfairly themselves and to what extent agency influences concerns for fairness. Analyses were focused on the medial frontal negativity (MFN) as an early index for subjective value assignment. Recipients with veto-power exhibited enhanced, more negative-going, MFN amplitudes following proposals that comprised a low share for both recipients, suggesting that responders favored offers with a fair amount to at least one of the two players. Though, the powerless players cared about the amount assigned to the responder, MFN amplitudes were larger following fair compared to unfair offers assigned to the responder. Similarly, concerns for fairness which determined the amplitude of the MFN, suggested that the powerless players exhibited negative and conversely the responders, positive social preferences. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3694219/ /pubmed/23818878 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00312 Text en Copyright © 2013 Alexopoulos, Pfabigan, Göschl, Bauer and Fischmeister. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Alexopoulos, Johanna
Pfabigan, Daniela M.
Göschl, Florian
Bauer, Herbert
Fischmeister, Florian Ph. S.
Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game
title Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game
title_full Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game
title_fullStr Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game
title_full_unstemmed Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game
title_short Agency matters! Social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game
title_sort agency matters! social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818878
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00312
work_keys_str_mv AT alexopoulosjohanna agencymatterssocialpreferencesinthethreepersonultimatumgame
AT pfabigandanielam agencymatterssocialpreferencesinthethreepersonultimatumgame
AT goschlflorian agencymatterssocialpreferencesinthethreepersonultimatumgame
AT bauerherbert agencymatterssocialpreferencesinthethreepersonultimatumgame
AT fischmeisterflorianphs agencymatterssocialpreferencesinthethreepersonultimatumgame