ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2016
Behavioral and neuronal determinants of negative reciprocity in the ultimatum game.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Processing of fair and unfair offers in the ultimatum game under social observation.Scientific reports · 2017Trial
- Social value orientation modulates fairness processing during social decision-making: evidence from behavior and brain potentials.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2021Article
- The Benefit of Gratitude: Trait Gratitude Is Associated With Effective Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Late Frontal Negativity Discriminates Outcomes and Intentions in Trust-Repayment Behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Give Me a Chance! Sense of Opportunity Inequality Affects Brain Responses to Outcome Evaluation in a Social Competitive Context: An Event-Related Potential Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- No Robust Association between Static Markers of Testosterone and Facets of Socio-Economic Decision Making.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2017Article
- Differences in Social Decision-Making between Proposers and Responders during the Ultimatum Game: An EEG Study.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game (UG) indicates negative reciprocity. The model of strong reciprocity claims that negative reciprocity reflects prosociality because the rejecting individual is sacrificing resources in order to punish unfair behavior. However, a recent study found that the rejection rate of unfair offers is linked to assertiveness (status defense model). To pursue the question what drives negative reciprocity, the present study investigated individual differences in the rejection of unfair offers along with their behavioral and neuronal determinants. We measured fairness preferences and event-related potentials (ERP) in 200 healthy participants playing a computerized version of the UG with pictures of unfair and fair proposers. Structural equation modeling (SEM) on the behavioral data corroborated both the strong reciprocity and the status defense models of human cooperation: Not only more prosocial but also more assertive individuals were more likely to show negative reciprocity by rejecting unfair offers. Experimental ERP results confirmed the feedback negativity (FN) as a neural signature of fairness processing. Multilevel SEM of brain-behavior relationships revealed that negative reciprocity was significantly associated with individual differences in FN amplitudes in response to proposers. Our results confirm stable individual differences in fairness processing at the behavioral and neuronal level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.