Influence of biases in numerical magnitude allocation on human prosocial decision making.

Over the past decade neuroscientific research has attempted to probe the neurobiological underpinnings of human prosocial decision making. Such research has almost ubiquitously employed tasks such as the dictator game or similar variations (i.e., ultimatum game). Considering the explicit numerical nature of such tasks, it is surprising that the influence of numerical cognition on decision making during task performance remains unknown. While performing these tasks, participants typically tend to anchor on a 50:50 split that necessitates an explicit numerical judgement (i.e., number-pair bisection). Accordingly, we hypothesize that the decision-making process during the dictator game recruits overlapping cognitive processes to those known to be engaged during number-pair bisection. We observed that biases in numerical magnitude allocation correlated with the formulation of decisions during the dictator game. That is, intrinsic biases toward smaller numerical magnitudes were associated with the formulation of less favorable decisions, whereas biases toward larger magnitudes were associated with more favorable choices. We proceeded to corroborate this relationship by subliminally and systematically inducing biases in numerical magnitude toward either higher or lower numbers using a visuo-vestibular stimulation paradigm. Such subliminal alterations in numerical magnitude allocation led to proportional and corresponding changes to an individual's decision making during the dictator game. Critically, no relationship was observed between neither intrinsic nor induced biases in numerical magnitude on decision making when assessed using a nonnumerical-based prosocial questionnaire. Our findings demonstrate numerical influences on decisions formulated during the dictator game and highlight the necessity to control for confounds associated with numerical cognition in human decision-making paradigms.