ArticleScientific reports2024
Prosocial emotions predict individual differences in economic decision-making during ultimatum game with dynamic reciprocal contexts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Affective valence as a computational signal for learning value.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Characterizing Ultimatum Game responders: a scoping review of factors that influence decision-making through an evolutionary lens.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Shifts in task absorption during decision-making episodes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Social decision-making is known to be influenced by predictive emotions or the perceived reciprocity of partners. However, the connection between emotion, decision-making, and contextual reciprocity remains less understood. Moreover, arguments suggest that emotional experiences within a social context can be better conceptualised as prosocial rather than basic emotions, necessitating the inclusion of two social dimensions: focus, the degree of an emotion's relevance to oneself or others, and dominance, the degree to which one feels in control of an emotion. For better representation, these dimensions should be considered alongside the interoceptive dimensions of valence and arousal. In an ultimatum game involving fair, moderate, and unfair offers, this online study measured the emotions of 476 participants using a multidimensional affective rating scale. Using unsupervised classification algorithms, we identified individual differences in decisions and emotional experiences. Certain individuals exhibited consistent levels of acceptance behaviours and emotions, while reciprocal individuals' acceptance behaviours and emotions followed external reward value structures. Furthermore, individuals with distinct emotional responses to partners exhibited unique economic responses to their emotions, with only the reciprocal group exhibiting sensitivity to dominance prediction errors. The study illustrates a context-specific model capable of subtyping populations engaged in social interaction and exhibiting heterogeneous mental states.
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.