The price of racial bias: intergroup negotiations in the ultimatum game

How Likely Is it that I Would Act the Same Way: Modeling Moral Judgment During Uncertainty

Moral rules come with exceptions, and moral judgments come with uncertainty. For instance, stealing is wrong and generally punished. Yet, it could be the case that the thief is stealing food for their family. Such information about the thief's context could flip admonishment to praise. To varying degrees, this type of uncertainty regarding the context of another person's behavior is ever-present in moral judgment. Hence, we propose a model of how people evaluate others' behavior: We argue that individuals principally judge the righteousness of another person's behavior by assessing the likelihood that they would act the same way if they were in the person's shoes. That is, if you see another person steal, you will consider the contexts where you too would steal and assess the likelihood that any of these contexts are true, given the available information. This idea can be formalized as a Bayesian model that treats moral judgment as probabilistic reasoning. We tested this model across four studies (N = 601) involving either fictional moral vignettes or economic games. The studies yielded converging evidence showing that the proposed model better predicts moral judgment under uncertainty than traditional theories that emphasize social norms or perceived harm/utility. Overall, the present studies support a new model of moral judgment with the potential to unite research on social judgment, decision-making, and probabilistic reasoning. Beyond this specific model, the present studies also more generally speak to how individuals parse uncertainty by integrating across different possibilities.

The impact of group membership on punishment versus partner rejection

People often display ingroup bias in punishment, punishing outgroup members more harshly than ingroup members. However, the impact of group membership may be less pronounced when people are choosing whether to stop interacting with someone (i.e., partner rejection). In two studies (N = 1667), we investigate the impact of group membership on both response types. Participants were assigned to groups based on a "minimal" groups paradigm (Study 1) or their self-reported political positions (Study 2) and played an incentivized economic game with other players. In this game, participants (Responders) responded to other players (Deciders). In the Punishment condition, participants could decrease the Decider's bonus pay. In the Partner Rejection condition, participants could reject future interactions with the Decider. Participants played once with an ingroup member and once with an outgroup member. To control for the effects of intent and outcome, scenarios also differed based on the Decider's Intent (selfish versus fair) and the Outcome (equal versus unequal distribution of resources). Participants punished outgroup members more than ingroup members, however group membership did not influence decisions to reject partners. These results highlight partner rejection as a boundary condition for the impact of group on responses to transgressions.

On the neural networks of self and other bias and their role in emergent social interactions

Extensive research has documented the brain networks that play an integral role in bias, or the alteration and filtration of information processing in a manner that fundamentally favors an individual. The roots of bias, whether self- or other-oriented, are a complex constellation of neural and psychological processes that start at the most fundamental levels of sensory processing. From the millisecond information is received in the brain it is filtered at various levels and through various brain networks in relation to extant intrinsic activity to provide individuals with a perception of reality that complements and satisfies the conscious perceptions they have for themselves and the cultures in which they were reared. The products of these interactions, in turn, are dynamically altered by the introduction of others, be they friends or strangers who are similar or different in socially meaningful ways. While much is known about the various ways that basic biases alter specific aspects of neural function to support various forms of bias, the breadth and scope of the phenomenon remains entirely unclear. The purpose of this review is to examine the brain networks that shape (i.e., bias) the self-concept and how interactions with similar (ingroup) compared to dissimilar (outgroup) others alter these network (and subsequent interpersonal) interactions in fundamental ways. Throughout, focus is placed on an emerging understanding of the brain as a complex system, which suggests that many of these network interactions likely occur on a non-linear scale that blurs the lines between network hierarchies.

Children cooperate more with in-group members than with out-group members in an iterated face-to-face Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Adults are more likely to cooperate with in-group members than with out-group members in the context of social dilemmas, situations in which self-interest is in conflict with collective interest. This bias has the potential to profoundly shape human cooperation, and therefore it is important to understand when it emerges in development. Here we asked whether 6- to 9-year-old children (N = 146) preferentially cooperate with in-group members in the context of a well-studied social dilemma, the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game. We assigned children to minimal groups and paired them with unfamiliar same-age and same-gender peers. Consistent with our predictions, children were more likely to cooperate with in-group members than with out-group members in this minimal group context. This finding adds to the current literature on group bias in children's prosocial behavior by showing that it affects decision making in a context that calls on strategic cooperation. In addition, our analyses revealed an effect of gender, with girls more likely to cooperate than boys regardless of the group membership of their partner. Exploring this gender effect further, we found an interaction between gender and age across condition, with older girls showing less sensitivity to the group membership of their partner than younger girls and with older boys showing more sensitivity to the group membership of the partner than younger boys. Our findings suggest that risky cooperation in the face of social dilemmas is shaped by group bias during childhood, highlighting the potentially deeply rooted ties between cooperation and parochialism in humans.

A psycholinguistic study of intergroup bias and its cultural propagation

Intergroup bias is the tendency for people to inflate positive regard for their in-group and derogate the out-group. Across two online experiments (N = 922) this study revisits the methodological premises of research on language as a window into intergroup bias. Experiment 1 examined (i) whether the valence (positivity) of language production differs when communicating about an in- vs. out-group, and (ii) whether the extent of this bias is influenced by the positivity of input descriptors that were initially presented to participants as examples of how an in-group or out-group characterize themselves. Experiment 2 used the linear diffusion chain method to examine how biases are transmitted through cultural generations. Valence of verbal descriptions were quantified using ratings obtained from a large-scale psycholinguistic database. The findings from Experiment 1 indicated a bias towards employing positive language in describing the in-group (exhibiting in-group favoritism), particularly in cases where the input descriptors were negative. However, there was weak evidence for increased negativity aimed at the out-group (i.e., out-group derogation). The findings from Experiment 2 demonstrated that in-group positivity bias propagated across cultural generations at a higher rate than out-group derogation. The results shed light on the formation and cultural transmission of intergroup bias.

Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19

Disturbingly realistic triage scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity for studying discrimination in moral reasoning. Biases and favoritism do not need to be explicit and overt, but can remain implicit and covert. In addition to assessing laypeople's propensity for engaging in overt discrimination, the present study examines whether they reveal implicit biases through seemingly fair random allocations. We present a cross-sectional online study comprising 6 timepoints and a total of 2296 participants. Each individual evaluated 19 hypothetical scenarios that provide an allocation dilemma between two patients who are in need of ventilation and differ only in one focal feature. Participants could either allocate the last ventilator to a patient, or opt for random allocation to express impartiality. Overall, participants exhibited clear biases for the patient who was expected to be favored based on health factors, previous ethical or caretaking behaviors, and in-group favoritism. If one patient had been pre-allocated care, a higher probability of keeping the ventilator for the favored patient indicates persistent favoritism. Surprisingly, the absence of an asymmetry in random allocations indicates the absence of covert discrimination. Our results demonstrate that laypeople's hypothetical triage decisions discriminate overtly and show explicit biases.

Biracial Faces Offer Visual Cues of Successful Intergroup Contact: Genetic Admixture and Coalition Detection

This research explores how biracial facial cues affect racial perception and social judgment. We tested a coalition-signaling hypothesis of biracial cues in two studies conducted in the United States (n = 227) and China (n = 116). From the perspective of intergroup and interpersonal relations theories in social psychology, biracial features would likely be perceived as cues of threat or resource competition. In contrast, we propose an evolutionary hypothesis that biracial facial cues reveal the ancestral history of intergroup alliances between members of two races or ethnic groups. When racial cues are mixed, we predict that biracial individuals may be viewed more positively than other-race or even own-race members who often compete for limited ingroup resources. The participants observed facial images that ranged from 100% Asian to 100% Caucasian, including morphed biracial composites of 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, and 70% Caucasian or Asian. The participants evaluated each image regarding perceived Caucasianness (Asianness), attractiveness, trustworthiness, health, intelligence, and career prospects. The US and Chinese samples yielded a similar pattern of own-race bias in racial perception and biracial favoritism in social judgment. The social judgment ratings were not correlated with the racial perception scores and were independent of the sex of the participants or biracial images, indicating a coalitional motive, instead of a mating motive, underlying social perception of biracial individuals. Overall, the results suggest that biracial facial features signal a successful genetic admixture and coalition in parental generations and thus increase the trustworthiness and cooperative potential of a biracial person.

Teenagers' but not young adults' beliefs about intrinsic interpersonal obligations for group members

Previous research has indicated that children perceive social category members as having intrinsic obligations toward each other, which shape their expectations for social interactions. However, it is unclear whether teenagers (aged 13 to 15) and young adults (aged 19 to 21) continue to hold such beliefs, given their increased experience with group dynamics and external social rules. To explore this question, three experiments were conducted with a total of 360 participants (N = 180 for each age group). Experiment 1 examined negative social interactions using different methods in two sub-experiments, while Experiment 2 focused on positive social interactions to examine whether participants viewed social category members as intrinsically obligated to avoid harming each other and to offer assistance. Results revealed that teenagers evaluated within-group harm and non-help as unacceptable, regardless of external rules, whereas they viewed between-group harm and non-help as both acceptable and unacceptable, depending on the presence of external rules. Conversely, young adults considered both within-group and between-group harm/non-help as more acceptable if an external rule permitted such behavior. These findings suggest that teenagers believe that members of a social category are intrinsically obligated to help and not harm each other, whereas young adults believe that individual social interactions are constrained mainly by external rules. That is, teenagers hold stronger beliefs than young adults about intrinsic interpersonal obligations to group members. Thus, in-group moral obligations and external rules contribute differently to the evaluation and interpretation of social interactions at different developmental stages.

Which is More Important, Proposer Identity or Allocation Motive? Event-Related Potential in Economic Decision-Making

Purpose

Most studies have supported the view that individuals prefer to reward the in-group and discriminate against the out-group in response to unfair offers in the Ultimatum Game. However, the current study advanced a different view, that is, the "black sheep effect", in which in-group members were punished more severely compared with out-group members. This study aimed to incorporate proposer identity and allocation motive as possible explanations for offer rejection.

Methods

In the current study, the in-group and out-group identities were distinguished by their health condition, and the allocation motive was defined according to its benefit maximization. With a total of 89 healthy college student participants, a mixed design of 2 (proposer identity: out-group vs in-group) × 2 (allocation motive: selfish vs random) × 2 (offer type: unfair vs fair) was used in the Ultimatum Game. Event-related potential (ERP) technology was used, and ERPs were recorded while participants processed the task.

Results

The behavioral result showed that the "black sheep effect" was found on the fair offer when a random allocation motive was used. Our ERP result suggested that feedback-related negativity (FRN) and P300 were modulated by proposer identity but not by allocation motive. However, the allocation motive interacted with proposer identity affecting FRN and P300 when the fair offer was proposed.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrated that the "black sheep effect" was related to the experience of the out-group member, such as disadvantage or distress, but it was also modulated by allocation motive. Meanwhile, the out-group (depressed college students) captured more attention because they violated individual expectations, according to the P300. This finding plays an integral role in understanding the mechanism of response to the "black sheep effect".

Social Expectations are Primarily Rooted in Reciprocity: An Investigation of Fairness, Cooperation, and Trustworthiness

Social expectations guide people's evaluations of others' behaviors, but the origins of these expectations remain unclear. It is traditionally thought that people's expectations depend on their past observations of others' behavior, and people harshly judge atypical behavior. Here, we considered that social expectations are also influenced by a drive for reciprocity, and people evaluate others' actions by reflecting on their own decisions. To compare these views, we performed four studies. Study 1 used an Ultimatum Game task where participants alternated Responder and Proposer roles. Modeling participants' expectations suggested they evaluated the fairness of received offers via comparisons to their own offers. Study 2 replicated these findings and showed that observing selfish behavior (lowball offers) only promoted acceptance of selfishness if observers started acting selfishly themselves. Study 3 generalized the findings, demonstrating that they also arise in the Public Goods Game, emerge cross-culturally, and apply to antisocial punishment whereby selfish players punish generosity. Finally, Study 4 introduced the Trust Game and showed that participants trusted players who reciprocated their behavior, even if it was selfish, as much as they trusted generous players. Overall, this research shows that social expectations and evaluations are rooted in drives for reciprocity. This carries theoretical implications, speaking to a parallel in the mechanisms driving both decision-making and social evaluations, along with practical importance for understanding and promoting cooperation.

Distrust as a form of inequality

Navigating social hierarchies is a ubiquitous aspect of human life. Social status shapes our thoughts, feelings, and actions toward others in various ways. However, it remains unclear how trust is conferred within hierarchies and how status-related cues are used when resources are on the line. This research fills this knowledge gap by examining how ascribed, consensus-based status appearance, and perceived status appearance impact investment decisions for high- and low-status partners during a Trust Game. In a series of pre-registered experiments, we examined the degree to which participants trusted unfamiliar others with financial investments when the only available information about that person was their socioeconomic status (SES). In Study 1, SES was ascribed. Studies 2 and 3 conveyed SES with visual antecedents (clothing). Across all three experiments, participants trusted high SES partners more than low SES partners. In addition, subjective perceptions of status based on visual cues were a stronger predictor of trust than consensus-based status judgments. This work highlights a high status-trust bias for decisions where an individual's money is on the line. In addition, high-status trust bias may occur simply because of an individual's subjective assumptions about another's rank.

Moral transgression modulates fairness considerations in the ultimatum game: Evidence from ERP and EEG data

People tend to dislike and punish unfair behaviors in social interactions, and this disposition may be moderated by the characteristics of their interaction partner. We used a modified ultimatum game (UG) to investigate players' responses to fair and unfair offers from proposers described as having performed either a moral transgression or a neutral behavior, and recorded an electroencephalogram. The participants' behavior in the UG suggests that people quickly demand more fairness from proposers who have committed moral transgressions rather than neutral behavior. Event-related potentials (ERPs) revealed a significant effect of offer type and of proposer type on P300 activity. The prestimulus α-oscillation power in the neutral behavior condition was significantly lower than that in the moral transgression condition. The post-stimulus β-event-related synchronization (β-ERS) was larger for the moral transgression condition than the neutral behavior condition in response to the least fair offers, and larger for neutral behavior than the moral transgression condition in response to the fairest offers. In summary, β-ERS was influenced by both proposer type and offer type, which revealed different neural responses to the offer from either a morally transgressive or a neutral behavior proposer.

Embracing Complexity: A Review of Negotiation Research

In this review, we identify emerging trends in negotiation scholarship that embrace complexity, finding moderators of effects that were initially described as monolithic, examining the nuances of social interaction, and studying negotiation as it occurs in the real world. We also identify areas in which research is lacking and call for scholarship that offers practical advice. All told, the existing research highlights negotiation as an exciting context for examining human behavior, characterized by features such as strong emotions, an intriguing blend of cooperation and competition, the presence of fundamental issues such as power and group identity, and outcomes that deeply affect the trajectory of people's personal and professional lives.

Effects of Ingroup Identification on Ingroup Favouritism during Fairness Norm Enforcement

People tend to voluntarily sacrifice their own interests to reject unfair proposals, and this behaviour is affected by group affiliation. While group bias is a well-established phenomenon, its direction is still unclear, and little attention has been given to possible moderating factors. In two studies, we manipulate participants' ingroup identification and investigate whether and how individuals with various levels of ingroup identification react differently to unfairness from ingroups and outgroups during an incentivized (Study 1, N = 46) and hypothetical (Study 2, N = 332) ultimatum game. The results show that participants display a strong preference for their own group. High identifiers tend to accept unfair proposals from ingroups compared to outgroups, whereas this effect is nonsignificant for low identifiers, especially for moderately unfair treatment (offer 7:3). Moreover, higher identification tends to be accompanied by higher ingroup positive expectation, which then leads to greater ingroup favouritism for an offer of 7:3. These results imply that ingroup identification can enhance group favouritism during fairness norm enforcement through ingroup positive expectation.

Hormonal contraceptives as disruptors of competitive behavior: Theoretical framing and review

Emerging evidence suggests that hormonal contraceptives (HCs) impact psychological outcomes through alterations in neurophysiology. In this review, we first introduce a theoretical framework for HCs as disruptors of steroid hormone modulation of socially competitive attitudes and behaviors. Then, we comprehensively examine prior research comparing HC users and non-users in outcomes related to competition for reproductive, social, and financial resources. Synthesis of 46 studies (n = 16,290) led to several key conclusions: HC users do not show the same menstrual cycle-related fluctuations in self-perceived attractiveness and some intrasexual competition seen in naturally-cycling women and, further, may show relatively reduced status- or achievement-oriented competitive motivation. However, there a lack of consistent or compelling evidence that HC users and non-users differ in competitive behavior or attitudes for mates or financial resources. These conclusions are tentative given the notable methodological limitations of the studies reviewed. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Group Membership Modulates Fairness Consideration Among Deaf College Students-An Event-Related Potential Study

Group interaction is an essential way of social interaction and plays an important role in our social development. It has been found that when individuals participate in group interactions, the group identity of the interaction partner affects the mental processing and behavioral decision-making of subjects. However, little is known about how deaf college students, who are labeled distinctly different from normal hearing college students, will react when facing proposers from different groups in the ultimatum game (UG) and its time course. In this study, we recruited 29 deaf college students who played the UG in which they received extremely unfair, moderately unfair, or fair offers from either outgroup members (normal hearing college students) or ingroup members (deaf college students), while their brain potentials were recorded. The behavioral results showed that group membership did not impact the acceptance rate of deaf college students. But, event-related potential (ERP) analysis demonstrated an enhanced feedback-related negativity (FRN) elicited by ingroup members compared to outgroup members. Importantly, we found that under fairness conditions, deaf college students induced more positive P2 and P3 facing ingroup members compared to outgroup members. Our results demonstrated that group membership may modulate the performance of deaf college students in the UG and the existence of ingroup bias among deaf college students. This provides some evidence for the fairness characteristics of special populations, so that to improve the educational integration of colleges and universities.

What Bias Management Can Learn From Change Management? Utilizing Change Framework to Review and Explore Bias Strategies

This paper conducted a preliminary study of reviewing and exploring bias strategies using a framework of a different discipline: change management. The hypothesis here is: If the major problem of implicit bias strategies is that they do not translate into actual changes in behaviors, then it could be helpful to learn from studies that have contributed to successful change interventions such as reward management, social neuroscience, health behavioral change, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The result of this integrated approach is: (1) current bias strategies can be improved and new ones can be developed with insight from adjunct study fields in change management; (2) it could be more sustainable to invest in a holistic and proactive bias strategy approach that targets the social environment, eliminating the very condition under which biases arise; and (3) while implicit biases are automatic, future studies should invest more on strategies that empower people as "change agents" who can act proactively to regulate the very environment that gives rise to their biased thoughts and behaviors.

Victim Sensitivity and Proposal Size Modulate the Ingroup Favoritism During Fairness Norm Enforcement

People show a strong aversion to inequality and are willing to sacrifice their own interests to punish violations of fairness norms. Empirical research has found that group membership could influence the fairness judgment and norm enforcement of the individuals but has shown inconsistent findings and has not focused much on the potential moderators. Here, the two studies aimed to investigate whether victim sensitivity and proposal size moderate the impact of group membership on reactions to unfair proposals. In both studies, the participants with different victim sensitivity (low vs. high group) played the hypothetical (Study 1) and incentivized (Study 2) ultimatum game under the intragroup and intergroup condition and indicated their responses to the different proposals. Results showed that, regardless of the victim sensitivity, ingroup member is often given preferential and positive treatment. Low victim sensitive persons are more likely to accept unfair offers from the ingroup than the outgroup, while this effect was attenuated for those with high victim sensitivity, especially for highly ambiguous unfair offers (offer 6:4 in Study 1 and 8:2 in Study 2). Moreover, the ingroup favoritism score for ambiguous unfair offers was smaller for high compared with the victim sensitivity group. Taken together, the victim sensitivity, and proposal size could moderate the ingroup favoritism on responses to unfairness.

Cognitive and neural bases of decision-making causing civilian casualties during intergroup conflict

Civilian casualties occur during military attacks. Such 'collateral damage' is prohibited by international laws but increases with substantial consequences when intergroup conflict escalates. Here, we investigate cognitive and neural bases of decision-making processes resulting in civilian harm, using a task that simulates punishment decision-making during intergroup conflict. We test two groups of Chinese participants in a laboratory setting, and members of two ethnic groups (Jewish and Palestinian) in Israel. The results dissociate two psychological constructs, harm preference and harm avoidance, which respectively characterize punishment decision-making related to outgroup combatants and outgroup noncombatants during intergroup conflict. In particular, individuals show decreased avoidance of harming outgroup noncombatants when conflict escalates. Brain imaging (functional magnetic resonance imaging) reveals that decreased harm avoidance is predicted by inhibition of the left middle frontal activity during selection of punishment decisions. Our findings provide insight into the cognitive and neural bases of decision-making involving civilian harm during intergroup conflict.

Mindfulness and intergroup bias: A systematic review

People’s proclivity for favoring their ingroups over outgroups has negative consequences for individuals, groups, and societies. Social psychologists have explored a variety of techniques to reduce these intergroup biases. Emerging research suggests that mindfulness may be effective for this purpose. Mindfulness is defined as present-moment attention and awareness with an accepting attitude, and it is often cultivated through meditation. Our systematic review of the mindfulness-intergroup literature suggests that, across the heterogeneity of paradigms, mindfulness attenuates intergroup bias. Supporting this supposition, for all studies in the current review, regardless of operationalization of mindfulness (i.e., mindfulness-based intervention, brief mindfulness induction, expert meditators, dispositional mindfulness), the overall effect size was g = +.29 ( k-number of studies = 36; 95% CI [0.20, 0.39]; Z = 5.94, p < .0001), suggesting a small but significant effect of mindfulness on improved levels of intergroup bias. In the current work, we review the eligible studies and their findings in detail and conclude by discussing critical issues and implications for future research.

Reframing social categorization as latent structure learning for understanding political behaviour

Affiliating with political parties, voting and building coalitions all contribute to the functioning of our political systems. One core component of this is social categorization-being able to recognize others as fellow in-group members or members of the out-group. Without this capacity, we would be unable to coordinate with in-group members or avoid out-group members. Past research in social psychology and cognitive neuroscience examining social categorization has suggested that one way to identify in-group members may be to directly compute the similarity between oneself and the target (dyadic similarity). This model, however, does not account for the fact that the group membership brought to bear is context-dependent. This review argues that a more comprehensive understanding of how we build representations of social categories (and the subsequent impact on our behaviours) must first expand our conceptualization of social categorization beyond simple dyadic similarity. Furthermore, a generalizable account of social categorization must also provide domain-general, quantitative predictions for us to test hypotheses about social categorization. Here, we introduce an alternative model-one in which we infer latent groups of people through latent structure learning. We examine experimental evidence for this account and discuss potential implications for understanding the political mind. This article is part of the theme issue 'The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms'.

A Comparison of Online Medical Crowdfunding in Canada, the UK, and the US

IMPORTANCE

Despite major differences in their health care systems, medical crowdfunding is increasingly used to finance personal health care costs in Canada, the UK, and the US. However, little is known about the campaigns designed to raise monetary donations for medical expenses, the individuals who turn to crowdfunding, and their fundraising intent.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the demographic characteristics of medical crowdfunding beneficiaries, campaign characteristics, and their association with funding success in Canada, the UK, and the US.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study extracted and manually reviewed data from GoFundMe campaigns discoverable between February 2018 and March 2019. All available campaigns on each country domain's GoFundMe medical discovery webpage that benefitted a unique patient(s) were included from Canada, the UK, and the US. Data analysis was performed from March to December 2019.

EXPOSURES

Campaign and beneficiary characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Log-transformed amount raised in US dollars.

RESULTS

This study examined 3396 campaigns including 1091 in Canada, 1082 in the UK, and 1223 in the US. Campaigns in the US (median [IQR], $38 204 [$31 200 to $52 123]) raised more funds than campaigns in Canada ($12 662 [$9377 to $19 251]) and the UK ($6285 [$4028 to $12 348]). In the overall cohort per campaign, Black individuals raised 11.5% less (95% CI, -19.0% to -3.2%; P = .006) than non-Black individuals, and male individuals raised 5.9% more (95% CI, 2.2% to 9.7%; P = .002) than female individuals. Female (39.4% of campaigns vs 50.8% of US population; difference, 11.3%; 95% CI, 8.6% to 14.1%; P < .001) and Black (5.3% of campaigns vs 13.4% of US population; difference, 8.1%; 95% CI, 6.8% to 9.3%; P < .001) beneficiaries were underrepresented among US campaigns. Campaigns primarily for routine treatment expenses were approximately 3 times more common in the US (77.9% [272 of 349 campaigns]) than in Canada (21.9% [55 of 251 campaigns]; difference, 56.0%; 95% CI, 49.3-62.7%; P < .001) or the UK (26.6% [127 of 478 campaigns]; difference, 51.4%; 95% CI, 45.5%-57.3%; P < .001). However, campaigns for routine care were less successful overall. Approved, inaccessible care and experimental care raised 35.7% (95% CI, 25.6% to 46.7%; P < .001) and 20.9% (95% CI, 13.3% to 29.1%; P < .001), respectively, more per campaign than routine care. Campaigns primarily for alternative treatment expenses (16.1% [174 of 1079 campaigns]) were nearly 4-fold more common for cancer (23.5% [144 of 614 campaigns]) vs noncancer (6.5% [30 of 465 campaigns]) diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Important differences were observed in the reasons individuals turn to medical crowdfunding in the 3 countries examined that suggest racial and gender disparities in fundraising success. More work is needed to understand the underpinnings of these findings and their implications on health care provision in the countries examined.

“Do the right thing” for whom? An experiment on ingroup favouritism, group assorting and moral suasion

In this paper we investigate the effect of moral suasion on ingroup favouritism. We report a well-powered, pre-registered, two-stage 2x2 mixed-design experiment. In the first stage, groups are formed on the basis of how participants answer a set of questions, concerning non-morally relevant issues in one treatment (assorting on non-moral preferences), and morally relevant issues in another treatment (assorting on moral preferences). In the second stage, participants choose how to split a given amount of money between participants of their own group and participants of the other group, first in the baseline setting and then in a setting where they are told to do what they believe to be morally right (moral suasion). Our main results are: (i) in the baseline, participants tend to favour their own group to a greater extent when groups are assorted according to moral preferences, compared to when they are assorted according to non-moral preferences; (ii) the net effect of moral suasion is to decrease ingroup favouritism, but there is also a non-negligible proportion of participants for whom moral suasion increases ingroup favouritism; (iii) the effect of moral suasion is substantially stable across group assorting and four pre-registered individual characteristics (gender, political orientation, religiosity, pro-life vs pro-choice ethical convictions).

Punishing the individual or the group for norm violation

Background: It has recently been proposed that a key motivation for joining groups is the protection from consequences of negative behaviours, such as norm violations. Here we empirically test this claim by investigating whether cooperative decisions and the punishment of associated fairness-based norm violations are different in individuals vs. collectives in economic games. Methods: In the ultimatum game, participants made or received offers that they could reject at a cost to their outcome, a form of social punishment. In the dictator game with third-party punishment, participants made offers to a receiver while being observed by a punisher, or could themselves punish unfair offers. Results: Participants made lower offers when making their decision as part of a group as compared to alone. This difference correlated with participants' overall mean offers: those who were generally less generous were even less so in a group, suggesting that the collective structure was compatible with their intention. Participants were slower when punishing vs not punishing an unfair offer. Importantly here, they were slower when deciding whether to punish or not to punish groups as compared to individuals, only when the offer concerned them directly in second party punishment. Participants thus take more time to punish others, and to make their mind on whether to punish or not when facing a group of proposers. Conclusions: Together, these results show that people behave differently in a group, both in their willingness to share with others and in their punishment of norm violations. This could be explained by the fact that being in a collective structure allows to share responsibility with others, thereby protecting from negative consequences of norm violations.

Theta resting EEG in the right TPJ is associated with individual differences in implicit intergroup bias

Why are some people more biased than others in their implicit evaluations during social interaction? The dispositional determinants of individual differences in implicit intergroup bias are poorly understood. Here, we explored whether such variability might be explained by stable neural traits. For that purpose, we used the source-localized resting electroencephalograms of 83 members of naturalistic social groups to explain their bias in an in-/outgroup implicit association test. Lower levels of resting theta current density in the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) were associated with stronger implicit intergroup bias and explained unique variability in bias beyond relevant personality questionnaires. These findings demonstrate the added value of the neural trait approach in predicting inter-individual differences in implicit social cognition. Given that low levels of resting theta current density during wakefulness likely reflect increased cortical activation, our results suggest that individuals with an efficiently working right TPJ possess capacities to mediate specific cognitive processes that predispose them towards stronger implicit intergroup bias. As the human species has evolved living in distinct social groups, the capacity to quickly differentiate friend from foe became highly adaptive and might thus constitute an essential part of human nature.

The value of a real face: Differences between affective faces and emojis in neural processing and their social influence on decision-making

Emotional feedback is a crucial part of social interaction, since it may indicate motivations, intentions, and thus, the future behavior of interaction partners. Nowadays, social interaction has been enriched by artificial emotional feedback provided by emojis, which are the means of transporting emotions in mobile messengers. In this study, we examined the influence of emotional feedback by emojis compared to real faces on decision-making and neural processing. We modified the ultimatum game by including proposers represented both by emojis and human faces who reacted specifically toward acceptance or rejection of an offer. We show that proposers who reward acceptance with a smile cause the highest acceptance rates. Interestingly, acceptance rates did not differ between proposers represented by humans compared to emojis. Regarding electrophysiology, emojis evoked more negative N170 and N2 brain potentials compared to human faces both during a mere presentation and as feedback stimuli. Proposers that showed emotional facial expressions evoked larger N170 amplitudes as compared to neutral expressions. Especially the proposers represented by emojis evoked larger P3 amplitudes as feedback stimuli compared to human facial expressions. The comparison of emoji proposers with real-face proposers provides new insight into how relevant social cues influence behavior and its neural underpinnings.

Punishing the individual or the group for norm violation

Background: It has recently been proposed that a key motivation for joining groups is the protection from consequences of negative behaviours, such as norm violations. Here we empirically test this claim by investigating whether cooperative decisions and the punishment of associated fairness-based norm violations are different in individuals vs. collectives in economic games. Methods: In the ultimatum game, participants made or received offers that they could reject at a cost to their outcome, a form of social punishment. In the dictator game with third-party punishment, participants made offers to a receiver while being observed by a punisher, or could themselves punish unfair offers. Results: Participants made lower offers when making a collective rather than an individual decision. This difference correlated with participants' overall mean offers: those who were generally less generous were even less so in a group, suggesting that the collective structure was compatible with their intention. Participants were slower when punishing vs not punishing an unfair offer. Importantly here, they were slower when deciding whether to punish groups as compared to individuals, only when the offer concerned them directly in second party punishment. Participants thus seem reluctant to punish others, and even more so when facing a group of proposers. Conclusions: Together, these results show that people behave differently in a group, both in their willingness to share with others and in their punishment of norm violations. This could be explained by the fact that being in a collective structure allows to share responsibility with others, thereby protecting from negative consequences of norm violations.

Black "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" task: The development of a task assessing mentalizing from black faces

Researchers investigating various facets of theory of mind, sometimes referred to as mentalizing, are increasingly exploring how social group membership influences this process. To facilitate this research, we introduce the Black Reading the Mind in The Eyes task, a freely available 36-item Black RME task with an array of norming data about these stimuli. Stimuli have been created and equated to match the original Reading the Mind in the Eyes (RME) task which included only White faces. Norming data were collected in three waves that characterized the physical properties of the stimuli and also participants’ subjective ratings of the stimuli. Between each round of ratings, stimuli that did not equate with the original RME task or were not distinctly recognized as Black were removed and new stimuli were incorporated in the next round until we obtained 36 distinctive Black RME targets that matched the 36 mental states used in the original RME stimulus set. Both stimulus sets were similarly difficult and subsequent testing showed that neither Black nor White participants’ mentalizing accuracy varied as a function of target race. We provide instructions for obtaining the database and stimulus ratings.

Endogenous testosterone correlates with parochial altruism in relation to costly punishment in different social settings

Testosterone plays a key role in shaping human social behavior. Recent findings have linked testosterone to altruistic behavior in economic decision tasks depending on group membership and intergroup competition. The preferential treatment of ingroup members, while aggression and discrimination is directed towards outgroup members, has been referred to as parochial altruism. Here we investigated in two consecutive studies, whether testosterone is associated with parochial altruism depending on individual tendency for costly punishment. In the first study, 61 men performed a single-shot ultimatum game (UG) in a minimal group context, in which they interacted with members of an ingroup and outgroup. In the second study, 34 men performed a single-shot UG in a more realistic group context, in which they responded to the proposals of supporters of six political parties during the German election year 2017. Political parties varied in their social distance to the participants’ favorite party as indicated by an individual ranking. Participants of study 2 also performed a cued recall task, in which they had to decide whether they had already encountered a face during the previous UG (old-new decision). In order to make the UG data of study 2 most comparable to the data of study 1, the rejection rates of several parties were combined according to the social distance ranking they achieved. Parties ranked 1 to 3 formed the relatively close and favored ‘ingroup’ that shared similar political values with the participant (e.g., left wing parties), while the ‘outgroup’ consisted of parties ranked from 4 to 6 with more distant or even antagonistic political views (e.g., conservative to right wing parties). In both studies, results showed a parochial pattern with higher rejection rates made in response to outgroup compared to ingroup offers. Interestingly, across studies higher salivary testosterone was associated with higher rejection rates related to unfair outgroup offers in comparison to the unfair offers made by ingroup members. The present findings suggest that latent intergroup biases during decision-making may be positively related to endogenous testosterone. Similar to previous evidence that already indicated a role of testosterone in shaping male parochial altruism in male soccer fans, these data underscore the general, yet rather subtle role of male testosterone also in other social settings.

Race influences professional investors' financial judgments

Of the $69.1 trillion global financial assets under management across mutual funds, hedge funds, real estate, and private equity, fewer than 1.3% are managed by women and people of color. Why is this powerful, elite industry so racially homogenous? We conducted an online experiment with actual asset allocators to determine whether there are biases in their evaluations of funds led by people of color, and, if so, how these biases manifest. We asked asset allocators to rate venture capital funds based on their evaluation of a 1-page summary of the fund's performance history, in which we manipulated the race of the managing partner (White or Black) and the strength of the fund's credentials (stronger or weaker). Asset allocators favored the White-led, racially homogenous team when credentials were stronger, but the Black-led, racially diverse team when credentials were weaker. Moreover, asset allocators' judgments of the team's competence were more strongly correlated with predictions about future performance (e.g., money raised) for racially homogenous teams than for racially diverse teams. Despite the apparent preference for racially diverse teams at weaker performance levels, asset allocators did not express a high likelihood of investing in these teams. These results suggest first that underrepresentation of people of color in the realm of investing is not only a pipeline problem, and second, that funds led by people of color might paradoxically face the most barriers to advancement after they have established themselves as strong performers.

Differential developmental courses of implicit and explicit biases for different other-race classes

We investigated the developmental courses of both implicit and explicit racial biases in relation to the perceived social status of outgroups. We did so by assessing these biases among Chinese participants (N = 200, age range from 4- to 19-year-olds) toward 2 different other-race groups that differ in terms of perceived social status (i.e., Whites and Blacks). At the youngest age, children showed both implicit anti-White and anti-Black bias at similar levels. However, these biases had different patterns of age-related change: implicit anti-Black bias remained strong and stable over time, whereas implicit anti-White bias declined after age 10. For explicit bias, children showed a decline in anti-Black and anti-White bias. Implicit and explicit biases were uncorrelated at all ages. The observed age-related changes demonstrate that it is possible for patterns of biases toward different races to diverge with age, and that perceived social status may contribute to the differential developmental patterns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Variations in the oxytocin receptor gene and prosocial behavior: moderating effects of situational factors

Humans are the most prosocial primate species and they often exhibit high levels of prosocial behavior toward genetically unrelated individuals. Traditional evolutionary theories are not sufficient to explain the individual differences and mechanisms related to prosociality. In this study, we focused on the gene-situation interaction in prosocial behaviors, and the patterns of genotype variance related to cooperation and comforting in different situations. We explored the interaction between the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene and situations, and the genotype variance under low and high prosociality situations between outgroup and ingroup recipients in a sample of 422 Chinese males. Prosociality was tested by measuring the prosocial tendencies, and prosocial behaviors were tested in cooperation and comforting tasks. OXTR single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped using polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis. The results suggested that the relationship between OXTR SNPs (specifically rs13316193, rs1042778 and rs237887) and prosocial behavior varied across different situations, and that the associations were moderated by the recipient's identity and the prosocial cost. Our findings indicate the action of a moderating mechanism between the OXTR gene and prosocial behaviors according to situational factors.

Behavioral and Physiological Responses to Computers in the Ultimatum Game

This article describes how studies in the area of decision-making suggest clear differences in behavioral responses to humans versus computers. The current objective was to investigate decision-making in an economic game played only with computer partners. In Experiment 1, participants were engaged in the ultimatum game with computer agents and regular computers while their physiological responses were recorded. In Experiment 2, an identical setup of the game was used, but the ethnicity of the computer agents was manipulated. As expected, almost all equitable monetary splits offered by the computer were accepted. The acceptance rates gradually decreased when the splits became less fair. Although the obtained behavioral pattern implied a reaction to violation of the rule of fairness by the computer in the game, no evidence was found for participants' corresponding emotional involvement. The findings contribute to the body of research on human-computer interaction and suggest that social effects of computers can be attenuated.

Viewing Adaptive Social Choice Through the Lens of Associative Learning

Because humans live in a dynamic and evolving social world, modeling the factors that guide social behavior has remained a challenge for psychology. In contrast, much progress has been made on understanding some of the more basic elements of human behavior, such as associative learning and memory, which has been successfully modeled in other species. Here we argue that applying an associative learning approach to social behavior can offer valuable insights into the human moral experience. We propose that the basic principles of associative learning-conserved across a range of species-can, in many situations, help to explain seemingly complex human behaviors, including altruistic, cooperative, and selfish acts. We describe examples from the social decision-making literature using Pavlovian learning phenomena (e.g., extinction, cue competition, stimulus generalization) to detail how a history of positive or negative social outcomes influences cognitive and affective mechanisms that shape moral choice. Examining how we might understand social behaviors and their likely reliance on domain-general mechanisms can help to generate testable hypotheses to further understand how social value is learned, represented, and expressed behaviorally.

Not on my team: Medial prefrontal cortex responses to ingroup fusion and unfair monetary divisions

OBJECTIVE

People are highly attuned to fairness, with people willingly suffering personal costs to prevent others benefitting from unfair acts. Are fairness judgments influenced by group alignments? A new theory posits that we favor ingroups and denigrate members of rival outgroups when our personal identity is fused to a group. Although the mPFC has been separately implicated in group membership and fairness processing, it is unclear whether group alignments affect medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) activity in response to fairness. Here, we examine the contribution of different regions of the mPFC to processing from ingroup and outgroup members and test whether its response differs depending on how fused we are to an ingroup.

METHODS

Subjects performed rounds of the Ultimatum Game, being offered fair or unfair divisions of money from supporters of the same soccer team (ingroup), the fiercest rival (outgroup) or neutral individuals whilst undergoing functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI).

RESULTS

Strikingly, people willingly suffered personal costs to prevent outgroup members benefitting from both unfair and fair offers. Activity across dorsal and ventral (VMPFC) portions of the mPFC reflected an interaction between fairness and group membership. VMPFC activity in particular was consistent with it coding one's fusion to a group, with the fairness by group membership interaction correlating with the extent that the responder's identity was fused to the ingroup.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of fusion on social behavior therefore seems to be linked to processing in the VMPFC.

Inflexible daily behaviour is associated with the ability to control an automatic reaction in autism spectrum disorder

Inflexible behaviours in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) broadly obstruct social communication. Meanwhile, flexibility implicates cognitive control to resolve socially conflicting situations; however, it remains unclear how people with ASD behave in the face of these conflicts in this respect. We used the ultimatum game (UG) and the implicit-association test (IAT) to examine goal-directed/economic flexibility, both of which involve conflict and cognitive control. In addition, we used the Detail and Flexibility Questionnaire (DFlex) to measure inflexible everyday behaviour with diminished cognitive control and attention shifting. We observed the decreased flexibility in participants with ASD (DFlex and IAT); further, their IAT scores positively correlated with DFlex. However, in the UG, contrary to our prediction, participants with ASD accepted unfair offers more frequently than TD. These results suggest that assessing the automatic/attention processing level with the IAT could be a useful approach to study behavioural flexibility among ASD compared with the UG, which might comprise multiple response strategies besides economic rationality. Overall, the severity of inflexible daily behaviours in people with ASD may be associated with a reduced flexible attitude at an automatic level, altered attention processing and decreased cognitive control.

Right-wing authoritarianism and stereotype-driven expectations interact in shaping intergroup trust in one-shot vs multiple-round social interactions

Trust towards unrelated individuals is often conditioned by information about previous social interactions that can be derived from either personal or vicarious experience (e.g., reputation). Intergroup stereotypes can be operationalized as expectations about other groups' traits/attitudes/behaviors that heavily influence our behavioral predictions when interacting with them. In this study we investigated the role of perceived social dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model (SCM)-Warmth (W) and Competence (C)-in affecting trusting behavior towards different European national group members during the Trust Game. Given the well-known role of ideological attitudes in regulating stereotypes, we also measured individual differences in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). In Experiment 1, we designed an online survey to study one-shot intergroup trust decisions by employing putative members of the European Union states which were also rated along SCM dimensions. We found that low-RWA participants' trusting behavior was driven by perceived warmth (i.e., the dimension signaling the benevolence of social intentions) when interacting with low-C groups. In Experiment 2, we investigated the dynamics of trust in a multiple-round version of the European Trust Game. We found that in low-RWA participants trusting behavior decreased over time when interacting with high-W groups (i.e., expected to reciprocate trust), but did not change when interacting with low-W groups (i.e., expected not to reciprocate trust). Moreover, we found that high-RWA participants' trusting behavior decreased when facing low-W groups but not high-W ones. This suggests that low-RWA individuals employ reputational priors but are also permeable to external evidence when learning about others' trustworthiness. In contrast, high-RWA individuals kept relying on stereotypes despite contextual information. These results confirm the pivotal role played by reputational priors triggered by perceived warmth in shaping social interactions.

Individual differences in pain sensitivity predict the experience of unfairness

Pain has shaped our evolutionary history, and pain-free experiences are critical for our health. There are, however, enormous individual differences in pain sensitivity, and the psychological consequences of this heterogeneity are only poorly understood. Here, we investigated whether individual differences in pain sensitivity predicted the experience of unfairness. We found that the magnitude of pain sensitivity correlated with the extent to which participants experienced unfairness. This association was due to the shared human alarm system of unfairness and pain sensitivity. This finding may elucidate mechanisms for producing a new and positive cycle of a healthy experience between fairness and feeling pain-free.

Configural face processing impacts race disparities in humanization and trust

The dehumanization of Black Americans is an ongoing societal problem. Reducing configural face processing, a well-studied aspect of typical face encoding, decreases the activation of human-related concepts to White faces, suggesting that the extent that faces are configurally processed contributes to dehumanization. Because Black individuals are more dehumanized relative to White individuals, the current work examined how configural processing might contribute to their greater dehumanization. Study 1 showed that inverting faces (which reduces configural processing) reduced the activation of human-related concepts toward Black more than White faces. Studies 2a and 2b showed that reducing configural processing affects dehumanization by decreasing trust and increasing homogeneity among Black versus White faces. Studies 3a-d showed that configural processing effects emerge in racial outgroups for whom untrustworthiness may be a more salient group stereotype (i.e., Black, but not Asian, faces). Study 4 provided evidence that these effects are specific to reduced configural processing versus more general perceptual disfluency. Reduced configural processing may thus contribute to the greater dehumanization of Black relative to White individuals.

Profit Versus Prejudice

We examine the possibility that self-interest, typically thought to undermine social welfare, might reduce in-group bias. We compared the dictator game (DG), where participants unilaterally divide money between themselves and a recipient, and the ultimatum game (UG), where the recipient can reject these offers. Unlike the DG, there is a self-interested motive for UG giving: If participants expect the rejection of unfair offers, they have a monetary incentive to be fair even to out-group members. Thus, we predicted substantial bias in the DG but little bias in the UG. We tested this hypothesis in two studies ( N = 3,546) employing a 2 (in-group/out-group, based on abortion position) × 2 (DG/UG) design. We observed the predicted significant group by game interaction, such that the substantial in-group favoritism observed in the DG was almost entirely eliminated in the UG: Giving the recipient bargaining power reduced the premium offered to in-group members by 77.5%.

Ingroup/outgroup membership modulates fairness consideration: neural signatures from ERPs and EEG oscillations

Previous studies have shown that ingroup/outgroup membership influences individual’s fairness considerations. However, it is not clear yet how group membership influences brain activity when a recipient evaluates the fairness of asset distribution. In this study, subjects participated as recipients in an Ultimatum Game with alleged members of both an experimentally induced ingroup and outgroup. They either received extremely unequal, moderately unequal, or equal offers from proposers while electroencephalogram was recorded. Behavioral results showed that the acceptance rates for unequal offers were higher when interacting with ingroup partners than with outgroup partners. Analyses of event related potentials revealed that proposers’ group membership modulated offer evaluation at earlier processing stages. Feedback-related negativity was more negative for extremely and moderately unequal offers compared to equal offers in the ingroup interaction whereas it did not show differential responses to different offers in the outgroup interaction. Analyses of event related oscillations revealed that the theta power (4–6 Hz) was larger for moderately unequal offers than equal offers in the ingroup interaction whereas it did not show differential responses to different offers in the outgroup interaction. Thus, early mechanisms of fairness evaluation are strongly modulated by the ingroup/outgroup membership of the interaction partner.

Mortality salience reduces the discrimination between in-group and out-group interactions: A functional MRI investigation using multi-voxel pattern analysis

As a fundamental concern of human beings, mortality salience impacts various human social behaviors including intergroup interactions; however, the underlying neural signature remains obscure. Here, we examined the neural signatures underlying the impact of mortality reminders on in-group bias in costly punishment combining a second-party punishment task with multivariate pattern analysis of fMRI data. After mortality salience (MS) priming or general negative affect priming, participants received offers from racial in-group and out-group proposers and decided how to punish proposers by reducing their payoffs. We revealed that MS priming attenuated in-group bias and dampened the discriminated activation patterns pertaining to group identities in regions previously implicated in costly punishment, including dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, temporo-parietal junction, anterior cingulate cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The group identity represented in multivariate patterns of activity of these regions predicted in-group bias for the control condition, i.e., the stronger discriminative representations of group identities in these regions; the larger was the in-group bias. Furthermore, the in-group bias was reliably decoded by distributed activation patterns in the punishment-related networks but only in the control condition and not in the MS condition. These findings elucidate the neural underpinnings of the effects of mortality reminders on intergroup interaction. Hum Brain Mapp 38:1281-1298, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.