Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39199481›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2024

Are Deaf College Students More Sensitive to Unfair Information? Evidence from an ERP Study.

Le Sun, Qi Dong, Xue Du, Dongtao Wei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Le SunCollege of Educational Science, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing 401331, China.
Qi DongCollege of Educational Science, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing 401331, China.
Xue DuCollege of Educational Science, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing 401331, China.
Dongtao WeiKey Laboratory of Cognition and Personality, Ministry of Education, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China.

Funding

Chongqing Social Science Planning and Cultivation Project 2020PY61General Project of Humanities and Social Sciences Research of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission 22SKGH109Scientific and Technological Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission KJQN202000508The 72nd Batch of General Financial Grant from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2022M720597The Humanities and Social Science Youth Project of the Ministry of Education 19YJC190006Venture & Innovation Support Program for Chongqing Overseas Returnees cx2018107Youth Project of the Chongqing Education Science Planning K22YY205692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To better understand the individual differences in fairness, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to explore the fairness characteristics of deaf college students through the ultimatum game task. Behaviorally, the significant main effect of the proposal type was found, which meant both deaf and hearing college students showed a lower acceptance rate for the more unfair proposal. Interestingly, we found a significant interaction between group and proposal type in the early stage (N1). Moreover, in the deaf college group, N1 (induced by moderately and very unfair proposals) was significantly larger than that of fair proposals. However, we found that deaf college students had smaller amplitudes on P2 and P3 than hearing college students. These results suggested that deaf college students might pursue more equity strongly so they are more sensitive to unfair information in the early stage. In a word, we should provide more fair allocations for deaf college students in our harmonious society.

Indexed as

deaf college studentsERPfairness decisionultimatum gameunfair information

Identifiers

PMID39199481
PMCPMC11352934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.