There's something about a fair split: intentionality moderates context-based fairness considerations in social decision-making

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

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.

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.

Ire and punishment: Incidental anger and costly punishment in children, adolescents, and adults

Why do children, adolescents, and adults engage in costly punishment to sanction fairness violations? Two studies investigated the differential impact of incidental anger on the costly punishment of 8-year-olds, 13-year-olds, and adults. Focusing on experimentally manipulated incidental anger allows for a causal investigation as to whether and how anger affects costly punishment in these age groups in addition to other motives such as inequity aversion. Study 1 (N = 210) assessed the effect of incidental anger (vs. a neutral emotion) on second-party punishment, where punishers were direct victims of fairness violations. Study 2 (N = 208) examined third-party punishment, where the punisher was an observer unaffected by the violation. Across ages, incidental anger increased the second-party punishment of unequal offers but not equal offers. Thus, anger seems to play a causal role in the punishment of unfairness when fairness violations are self-relevant. As predicted, adults' third-party punishment of unequal offers was higher in the incidental anger condition than in the neutral emotion condition. Children's third-party punishment of unfairness was not affected by the emotion condition, but incidental anger increased adolescents' third-party punishment across offers. Overall, our data suggest that the association between anger and costly punishment is based on the self-relevance of the violation. In third-party situations, where unfairness does not affect the self, social-cognitive processes that develop well into adulthood, such as emotional appraisals, might be necessary for third parties to engage in costly punishment.

Sex differences in economic decision-making: Exogenous estradiol has opposing effects on fairness framing in women and men

Burgeoning evidence indicates that women are more sensitive to the context of an offer and show a stronger propensity to adjust their behavior with changing fairness frames. We evaluated whether the sex hormone estradiol and associated stereotypical beliefs contribute to fairness framings by administering topical estradiol (2 mg) to 108 healthy women and 104 heathy men in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled between-subject study design. Participants played the role of the responder in a modified version of the Ultimatum Game (UG), in which identical offers for the division of a given amount of money were framed as either fair or unfair. Furthermore, participants completed an unframed UG and a delayed discounting task to probe possible effects of estradiol on altruistic preferences and delay gratification. Our results show that women were more sensitive to fairness frames than men. Intriguingly, however, estradiol had sex-specific effects on fairness sensitivity by increasing the acceptance rate of proposals with a fair frame in men and reducing it in women. Furthermore, the mere belief of receiving estradiol treatment significantly increased the acceptance of unfair-framed offers in both sexes, but estradiol did not significantly alter the response to unframed offers and impulsive decision-making. Collectively, our findings indicate that estradiol has opposing effects on the sensitivity to the perceived fairness of economic offers in women and men. The profound effects of estradiol treatment and stereotypical beliefs provide support for the notion that sex differences in fairness framing are rooted in both biological and environmental factors.

Oxytocin modulates responsibility attribution and hypothetical Resource allocation during cooperation

Reasonable responsibility attribution and resource allocation in intragroup contexts benefit the evolution of group cooperation. Oxytocin (OT) has been shown to promote prosocial behavior; however, it remains unclear whether OT affects responsibility attribution and hypothetical resource allocation. In the present study, participants were intranasally administered OT or placebo (PLC) before a response task with a partner. The participant could win a certain amount of money depending on the group's performance, which was determined by the faster player. The contribution was manipulated to be similar in the first phase, while the participants could individually contribute more in the second phase. Our results show that both groups attributed more credit to the player who performed better in a trial. Moreover, reward magnitude only enhanced effort-based attribution in the OT group. Although both groups proposed to distribute money based on individual efforts, the PLC group increased their effort-based allocation when they contributed more, regardless of the fact that the money was eventually equally distributed. Our study demonstrates that OT modulates responsibility attribution and hypothetical resource allocation in different manners, suggesting that OT has different effects on a participant's perception of individual contribution and fairness when allocating a reward during social cooperation in a real effort task.

Outcomes versus intentions in fairness-related decision making: School-aged children's decisions are just like those of adults

The notion of what constitutes fairness has been assumed to change during childhood, in line with a marked shift from outcome-based to intention-based moral reasoning. However, the precise developmental profile of such a shift is still subject to debate. This study sought to determine the age at which the perceived intentions of others begin to influence fairness-related decision making in children (aged 6-8 and 9-11 years) and adolescents (aged 14 and 15 years) in the context of the mini-ultimatum game. The mini-ultimatum game has a forced-choice design, whereby a proposer needs to select one of two predetermined offers that a responder can either accept or reject. Due to these constraints, the procedure measures sensitivity to unfair intentions in addition to unfair outcomes. Participants needed to make judgments about how likely they would be to reject various offers, how fair they judged these offers to be, and the emotion they experienced when thinking about the offers. Contrary to previous published reports, we found that even 6- to 8-year-olds employed a sophisticated notion of fairness that took into account the alternatives the proposer had available. Crucially, decision making did not differ as a function of age. A further, and novel, aim was to trace the developmental origins of temporal asymmetries in judgments ab out fairness by testing the implications of adopting a past or future temporal perspective. Across all ages, we found no evidence that fairness-based decision making varies as a function of temporal location.

Behavioral and electrophysiological responses to fairness norm violations in antisocial offenders

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a stable, lifelong pattern of disregard for and violation of others' rights. Disruptions in the representation of fairness norms may represent a key mechanism in the development and maintenance of this disorder. Here, we investigated fairness norm considerations and reactions to their violations. To examine electrophysiological correlates, we assessed the medial frontal negativity (MFN), an event-related potential previously linked to violations of social expectancy and norms. Incarcerated antisocial violent offenders (AVOs, n = 25) and healthy controls (CTLs, n = 24) acted as proposers in the dictator game (DG) and ultimatum game (UG) and received fair vs. unfair UG offers from either another human (social context) or a computer (non-social context). Results showed that AVOs made lower offers in the DG but not the UG, indicating more rational and strategic behavior. Most importantly, when acting as recipients in the UG, acceptance rates were modulated by social context in CTLs, while AVOs generally accepted more offers. Correspondingly, ERP data indicated pronounced MFN amplitudes following human offers in CTLs, whereas MFN amplitudes in AVOs were generally reduced. The current data suggest intact fairness norm representations but altered reactions to their violation in antisocial personality disorder.

Both Rewards and Moral Praise Can Increase the Prosocial Decisions: Revealed in a Modified Ultimatum Game Task

Unlike other creatures, humans developed the ability to cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers and a tendency to comply with social norms. However, humans deviate from social norms in various situations. This study used the modified ultimatum game to explore why humans deviate from social norms and how their prosocial behavior can be promoted. In Study 1, participants were asked to imagine working with an anonymous counterpart to complete a task and obtain a certain amount of money (e.g., ¥10). The computer divided the money randomly in favor of the participant (e.g., 9:1 or 8:2). Participants should decide whether to accept or reject such a self-benefiting division. In the non-risk condition, an absolutely fair redivision of money would take place if participants reject self-benefiting division (e.g., 5:5 or 6:4). By contrast, in the risk condition, other-benefiting redivision of money (e.g., 1:9 or 2:8) would take place if participants rejected the self-benefiting division. Results involving 40 college students showed the main effect of condition. The frequency of accepting self-benefiting division in the risk condition was higher than that in the non-risk condition. As such, compliance with social norms is based on the preservation of material resources. In Study 2, we used economic or moral rewards to compensate for economic loss following compliance with the norm. Results involving 28 college students revealed a significant effect of compensation. The rewards, including moral praise, effectively decreased selfish choices. These findings extend previous studies on social norm compliance by emphasizing the importance of internal, fairness-based balance between material and moral needs, as well as the role of moral praise in promoting prosocial behavior.

The Influence of Emotion on Fairness-Related Decision Making: A Critical Review of Theories and Evidence

Fairness-related decision making is an important issue in the field of decision making. Traditional theories emphasize the roles of inequity aversion and reciprocity, whereas recent research increasingly shows that emotion plays a critical role in this type of decision making. In this review, we summarize the influences of three types of emotions (i.e., the integral emotion experienced at the time of decision making, the incidental emotion aroused by a task-unrelated dispositional or situational source, and the interaction of emotion and cognition) on fairness-related decision making. Specifically, we first introduce three dominant theories that describe how emotion may influence fairness-related decision making (i.e., the wounded pride/spite model, affect infusion model, and dual-process model). Next, we collect behavioral and neural evidence for and against these theories. Finally, we propose that future research on fairness-related decision making should focus on inducing incidental social emotion, avoiding irrelevant emotion when regulating, exploring the individual differences in emotional dispositions, and strengthening the ecological validity of the paradigm.

Intention Modulates the Effect of Punishment Threat in Norm Enforcement via the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex

Although economic theories suggest that punishment threat is crucial for maintaining social norms, counterexamples are noted in which punishment threat hinders norm compliance. Such discrepancy may arise from the intention behind the threat: unintentionally introduced punishment threat facilitates, whereas intentionally introduced punishment threat hinders, norm compliance. Here, we combined a dictator game and fMRI to investigate how intention modulates the effect of punishment threat on norm compliance and the neural substrates of this modulation. We also investigated whether this modulation can be influenced by brain stimulation. Human participants divided an amount of money between themselves and a partner. The partner (intentionally) or a computer program (unintentionally) decided to retain or waive the right to punish the participant upon selfish distribution. Compared with the unintentional condition, participants allocated more when the partner intentionally waived the power of punishment, but less when the partner retained such power. The right lateral orbitofrontal cortex (rLOFC) showed higher activation when the partner waived compared with when the computer waived or when the partner retained the power. The functional connectivity between the rLOFC and the brain network associated with intention/mentalizing processing was predictive of the allocation difference induced by intention. Moreover, inhibition or activation of the rLOFC by brain stimulation decreased or increased, respectively, the participants' reliance on the partner's intention during monetary allocation. These findings demonstrate that the perceived intention of punishment threat plays a crucial role in norm compliance and that the LOFC is casually involved in the implementation of intention-based cooperative decisions.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Does punishment threat facilitate or hinder norm enforcement? So far, cognitive neuroscience research offers equivocal evidence. By directly manipulating the intention behind punishment threat, we demonstrate that intention modulates the effectiveness of punishment threat. Moreover, we show that inhibition or activation of the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex (rLOFC) decreased or increased the effect of punishment threat in the intentional context, but not in the unintentional context, suggesting the casual involvement of the rLOFC in intention-based cooperative decisions.

Differences in Social Decision-Making between Proposers and Responders during the Ultimatum Game: An EEG Study

The Ultimatum Game (UG) is a typical paradigm to investigate social decision-making. Although the behavior of humans in this task is already well established, the underlying brain processes remain poorly understood. Previous investigations using event-related potentials (ERPs) revealed three major components related to cognitive processes in participants engaged in the responder condition, the early ERP component P2, the feedback-related negativity (FRN) and a late positive wave (late positive component, LPC). However, the comparison of the ERP waveforms between the responder and proposer conditions has never been studied. Therefore, to investigate condition-related electrophysiological changes, we applied the UG paradigm and compared parameters of the P2, LPC and FRN components in twenty healthy participants. For the responder condition, we found a significantly decreased amplitude and delayed latency for the P2 component, whereas the mean amplitudes of the LPC and FRN increased compared to the proposer condition. Additionally, the proposer condition elicited an early component consisting of a negative deflection around 190 ms, in the upward slope of the P2, probably as a result of early conflict-related processing. Using independent component analysis (ICA), we extracted one functional component time-locked to this deflection, and with source reconstruction (LAURA) we found the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) as one of the underlying sources. Overall, our findings indicate that intensity and time-course of neuronal systems engaged in the decision-making processes diverge between both UG conditions, suggesting differential cognitive processes. Understanding the electrophysiological bases of decision-making and social interactions in controls could be useful to further detect which steps are impaired in psychiatric patients in their ability to attribute mental states (such as beliefs, intents, or desires) to oneself and others. This ability is called mentalizing (also known as theory of mind).

The Influence of Counterfactual Comparison on Fairness in Gain-Loss Contexts

Fairness perceptions may be affected by counterfactual comparisons. Although certain studies using a two-player ultimatum game (UG) have shown that comparison with the proposers influences the responders' fairness perceptions in a gain context, the effect of counterfactual comparison in a UG with multiple responders or proposers remains unclear, especially in a loss context. To resolve these issues, this study used a modified three-player UG with multiple responders in Experiment 1 and multiple proposers in Experiment 2 to examine the influence of counterfactual comparison on fairness-related decision-making in gain and loss contexts. The two experiments consistently showed that regardless of the gain or loss context, the level of inequality of the offer and counterfactual comparison influenced acceptance rates (ARs), response times (RTs), and fairness ratings (FRs). If the offers that were received were better than the counterfactual offers, unequal offers were more likely to be accepted than equal offers, and participants were more likely to report higher FRs and to make decisions more quickly. In contrast, when the offers they received were worse than the counterfactual offers, participants were more likely to reject unequal offers than equal offers, reported lower FRs, and made decisions more slowly. These results demonstrate that responders' fairness perceptions are influenced by not only comparisons of the absolute amount of money that they would receive but also specific counterfactuals from other proposers or responders. These findings improve our understanding of fairness perceptions.

Theory of mind deficits partly mediate impaired social decision-making in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Using paradigms from game theory, researchers have reported abnormal decision-making in social context in patients with schizophrenia. However, less is known about the underpinnings of the impairment. This study aimed to test whether theory of mind (ToM) deficits and/or neurocognitive dysfunctions mediate impaired social decision-making in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

We compared thirty-five patients with schizophrenia to thirty-eight matched healthy controls with regard to social decision-making using the mini Ultimatum Game (mini UG), a paradigm from game theory. Additionally, we assessed ToM using the Theory of Mind Picture Stories Task, a mental state attribution task, and assessed neurocognition using the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia. Mediation analyses were performed on the data.

RESULTS

In contrast to the behavioral pattern of healthy controls in the mini UG, the patients with schizophrenia significantly accepted more disadvantageous offers and rejected more advantageous offers, and showed reduced sensitivity to the fairness-related context changes in the mini UG. Impaired ToM and neurocognition were also found in the patients. Mediation analyses indicated that ToM but not neurocognition partially mediated the group differences on the disadvantageous and advantageous offers in the mini UG.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with schizophrenia exhibited impaired social decision-making. This impairment can be partly explained by their ToM deficits rather than neurocognitive deficits. However, the exact nature of the ToM deficits that mediate impaired social decision-making needs to be identified in future.

Ingroup favoritism or the black sheep effect: Perceived intentions modulate subjective responses to aggressive interactions

Social categorization plays an important role in provoking the victim's responses to aggressive interactions. Pioneering studies suggested that uncertainty in the perpetrator's hostile intention influences whether ingroup favoritism or the black sheep effect (ingroup strictness) will be manifested to a greater extent. However, when the hostile intention is ambiguous, subjective perception of the perpetrator's intention may still be quite different due to the inherent information gap between participants, and this discrepancy in perceived intentions may further modulate subjective responses to social aggression. In the present study, subjects played as responders of the Ultimatum Game, and received varied offers proposed by either ingroup or outgroup members. Electrophysiological results showed that, when proposers were perceived to be intentional, unfair offers from ingroups elicited significantly larger Feedback-related Negativity (FRN) than those from outgroups, potentially providing neural evidence for the black sheep effect. The opposite FRN pattern was observed when proposers were perceived to be unintentional, which might suggest ingroup favoritism. Interestingly, despite contrary neural patterns, perceived intentions did not modulate behavioral response to aggressive interactions. Thus, converging results suggested that, when the perpetrator's hostile intention remained ambiguous, perceived intentions modulated the victim's electrophysiological response while not the rational behavioral response to aggressive interactions.

Rejection in Bargaining Situations: An Event-Related Potential Study in Adolescents and Adults

The neural correlates of rejection in bargaining situations when proposing a fair or unfair offer are not yet well understood. We measured neural responses to rejection and acceptance of monetary offers with event-related potentials (ERPs) in mid-adolescents (14-17 years) and early adults (19-24 years). Participants played multiple rounds of the Ultimatum Game as proposers, dividing coins between themselves and a second player (responder) by making a choice between an unfair distribution (7 coins for proposer and 3 for responder; 7/3) and one of two alternatives: a fair distribution (5/5) or a hyperfair distribution (3/7). Participants mostly made fair offers (5/5) when the alternative was unfair (7/3), but made mostly unfair offers (7/3) when the alternative was hyperfair (3/7). When participants' fair offers (5/5; alternative was 7/3) were rejected this was associated with a larger Medial Frontal Negativity (MFN) compared to acceptance of fair offers and rejection of unfair offers (7/3; alternative was 3/7). Also, the MFN was smaller after acceptance of unfair offers (7/3) compared to rejection. These neural responses did not differ between adults and mid-adolescents, suggesting that the MFN reacts as a neural alarm system to social prediction errors which is already prevalent during adolescence.

Abnormal emotion processing, but intact fairness and intentionality considerations during social decision-making in schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder that is highly characterized by social cognitive impairments. Most studies investigating these impairments focus on one specific social domain such as emotion recognition. However, in daily life, processing complex social situations relies on the combination of several social cognitive and affective processes simultaneously rather than one process alone. A modified version of the economically based Ultimatum Game was used to measure the interplay between fairness, intentionality, and emotion considerations during social decision-making. In this task, participants accept or reject fair and unfair monetary offers proposed intentionally or unintentionally by either angry, happy, neutral, or sad proposers. Behavioral data was collected from a group of schizophrenia patients (N = 35) and a group of healthy individuals (N = 30). Like healthy participants, schizophrenia patients differentiated between fair and unfair offers by rejecting unfair offers more compared to fair offers. However, overall patients did reject more fair offers, indicating that their construct of fairness operates within different margins. In both groups, intentional unfair offers were rejected more compared to unintentional ones, indicating a normal integration of intentionality considerations in schizophrenia. Importantly, healthy subjects also differentiated between proposers' emotion when rejecting unfair offers (more rejections from proposers depicting angry faces compared to proposers depicting, happy, neutral, or sad faces). Schizophrenia patients' decision behavior on the other hand, was not affected by the proposers' emotions. The current study thus shows that schizophrenia patients have specific problems with processing and integrating emotional information. Importantly, the finding that patients display normal fairness and intentionality considerations emphasizes preservation of central social cognitive processes in schizophrenia.

Social status modulates the neural response to unfairness

In human society, which is organized by social hierarchies, resources are usually allocated unequally and based on social status. In this study, we analyze how being endowed with different social statuses in a math competition affects the perception of fairness during asset allocation in a subsequent Ultimatum Game (UG). Behavioral data showed that when participants were in high status, they were more likely to reject unfair UG offers than in low status. This effect of social status correlated with activity in the right anterior insula (rAI) and with the functional connectivity between the rAI and a region in the anterior middle cingulate cortex, indicating that these two brain regions are crucial for integrating contextual factors and social norms during fairness perception. Additionally, there was an interaction between social status and UG offer fairness in the amygdala and thalamus, implicating the role of these regions in the modulation of social status on fairness perception. These results demonstrate the effect of social status on fairness perception and the potential neural underpinnings for this effect.

You did not mean it: Perceived good intentions alleviate sense of unfairness

Previous research has reported that feedback-related negativity (FRN) may represent the degree of perceived unfairness in the ultimatum game (UG). However, few studies have incorporated intention-related consideration in examining the neural correlates of fairness perception. To address this issue, the present study introduced an intentional UG paradigm to disentangle the effect of perceived intention from fairness concerns, using an event-related potential (ERP) analysis. Consistent with the hypothesis, the behavioral results indicated that good intention could markedly reduce rejection rates, and this intention effect was modulated by the degree of fairness, which was more prominent under unfair scenarios. Further electrophysiological results showed that, for the unfair division schemes, FRN and P300 amplitudes were significantly different between offers proposed with good intention and those with bad intention, while such discrepancies were not observed for the fair condition. In summary, converging results demonstrated that perceived intention can modulate the effect of fairness in social decision-making.

Counterfactual comparison modulates fairness consideration in the mini-ultimatum game: an event-related potentials study

Existing literature on the mini-ultimatum game indicates that counterfactual comparison between chosen and unchosen alternatives is of great importance for individual's fairness consideration. However, it is still unclear how counterfactual comparison influences the electrophysiological responses to unfair chosen offers. In conjunction with event-related potentials' (ERPs) technique, the current study aimed to explore the issue by employing a modified version of the mini-ultimatum game where a fixed set of two alternatives (unfair offer vs. fair alternative, unfair vs. hyperfair alternative, unfair offer vs. hyperunfair alternative) was presented before the chosen offer. The behavioral results showed that participants were more likely to accept unfair chosen offers when the unchosen alternative was hyperunfair than when the unchosen alternative was fair or hyperfair. The ERPs results showed that the feedback-related negativity (FRN) elicited by unfair chosen offers was insensitive to the type of unchosen alternative when correcting for possible overlap with other components. In contrast, unfair chosen offers elicited larger P300 amplitudes when the unchosen alternative was hyperunfair than when the unchosen alternative was fair or hyperfair. These findings suggest that counterfactual comparison may take effect at later stages of fairness consideration as reflected by the P300.

Money talks: neural substrate of modulation of fairness by monetary incentives

A unique feature of the human species is compliance with social norms, e.g., fairness, even though this normative decision means curbing self-interest. However, sometimes people prefer to pursue wealth at the expense of moral goodness. Specifically, deviations from a fairness-related normative choice have been observed in the presence of a high monetary incentive. The neural mechanism underlying this deviation from the fairness-related normative choice has yet to be determined. In order to address this issue, using functional magnetic resonance imaging we employed an ultimatum game (UG) paradigm in which fairness and a proposed monetary amount were orthogonally varied. We found evidence for a significant modulation by the proposed amount on fairness in the right lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) and the bilateral insular cortices. Additionally, the insular subregions showed dissociable modulation patterns. Inter-individual differences in the modulation effects in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) accounted for inter-individual differences in the behavioral modulation effect as measured by the rejection rate, supporting the concept that the PFC plays a critical role in making fairness-related normative decisions in a social interaction condition. Our findings provide neural evidence for the modulation of fairness by monetary incentives as well as accounting for inter-individual differences.

Sharing and giving across adolescence: an experimental study examining the development of prosocial behavior

In this study we use economic exchange games to examine the development of prosocial behavior in the form of sharing and giving in social interactions with peers across adolescence. Participants from four age groups (9-, 12-, 15-, and 18-year-olds, total N = 119) played three types of distribution games and the Trust game with four different interaction partners: friends, antagonists, neutral classmates, and anonymous peers. Nine- and 12-year-olds showed similar levels of prosocial behavior to all interaction partners, whereas older adolescents showed increasing differentiation in prosocial behavior depending on the relation with peers, with most prosocial behavior toward friends. The age related increase in non-costly prosocial behavior toward friends was mediated by self-reported perspective-taking skills. Current findings extend existing evidence on the developmental patterns of fairness considerations from childhood into late adolescence. Together, we show that adolescents are increasingly better at incorporating social context into decision-making. Our findings further highlight the role of friendships as a significant social context for the development of prosocial behavior in early adolescence.

Impaired social decision making in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Abnormal decision-making processes have been observed in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). However, it is unresolved whether MDD patients show abnormalities in decision making in a social interaction context, in which decisions have actual influences on both the self-interests of the decision makers per se and those of their partners.

METHODS

Using a well-studied ultimatum game (UG), which is frequently used to investigate social interaction behavior, we examined whether MDD can be associated with abnormalities in social decision-making behavior by comparing the acceptance rates of MDD patients (N = 14) with those of normal controls (N = 19).

RESULTS

The acceptance rates of the patients were lower than those of the normal controls. Additionally, unfair proposals were accepted at similar rates from computer partners and human partners in the MDD patients, unlike the acceptance rates in the normal controls, who were able to discriminatively treat unfair proposals from computer partners and human partners.

CONCLUSIONS

Depressed patients show abnormal decision-making behavior in a social interaction context. Several possible explanations, such as increased sensitivity to fairness, negative emotional state and disturbed affective cognition, have been proposed to account for the abnormal social decision-making behavior in patients with MDD. This aberrant social decision-making behavior may provide a new perspective in the search to find biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of MDD.

Do different fairness contexts and facial emotions motivate 'irrational' social decision-making in major depression? An exploratory patient study

Although 'irrational' decision-making has been linked to depression, the contribution of biases in information processing to these findings remains unknown. To investigate the impact of cognitive biases and aberrant processing of facial emotions on social decision-making, we manipulated both context-related and emotion-related information in a modified Ultimatum Game. Unfair offers were (1) paired with different unselected alternatives, establishing the context in which an offer was made, and (2) accompanied by emotional facial expressions of proposers. Responder behavior was assessed in patients with major depressive disorder and healthy controls. In both groups alike, rejection rates were highest following unambiguous signals of unfairness, i.e. an angry proposer face or when an unfair distribution had deliberately been chosen over an equal split. However, depressed patients showed overall higher rejection rates than healthy volunteers, without exhibiting differential processing biases. This suggests that depressed patients were, as healthy individuals, basing their decisions on informative, salient features and differentiating between (i) fair and unfair offers, (ii) alternatives to unfair offers and (iii) proposers' facial emotions. Although more fundamental processes, e.g. reduced reward sensitivity, might underlie increased rejection in depression, the current study provides insight into mechanisms that shape fairness considerations in both depressed and healthy individuals.

Acute nicotine improves social decision-making in non-smoking but not in smoking schizophrenia patients

Schizophrenia patients are characterized by severe social impairments. Recently, social cognition has been put forward as an important mediator in schizophrenia between the often-reported neurocognitive deficits and functional outcome and is thus an important target for treatments. Nicotine has been reported to improve neurocognitive processes in schizophrenia patients but no studies have investigated possible nicotine-induced facilitation of social cognition. The current placebo-controlled crossover study aimed at bridging this gap by investigating whether the administration of active (1 mg or 2 mg) or placebo oromucosal nicotine spray resulted in improved social decision-making in non-smoking (N = 15) and smoking (N = 16) schizophrenia patients. All patients played the role of responder in a variant of the ultimatum game that allowed detailed measurements of fairness and intentionality considerations. The results showed impaired social decision-making in the non-smoking patients under placebo, but not in the smoking patients. Interestingly, this impairment normalized after administration of 1 mg of nicotine, but not after 2 mg of nicotine. Nicotine had no effect on performance in the smoking patients. The present study indicates that nicotine improves social decision-making in non-smoking patients. The present results suggest that acute nicotine effects may result in a facilitation of proactive control through improved attentional processes. However, the efficacy seems limited and although nicotine may thus be an interesting target for (social) cognitive enhancement in the subset of patients that do not smoke, more research is needed on the long-lasting effects of nicotine-based treatments.

Unfair offers, unfair offenders? Fairness considerations in incarcerated individuals with and without psychopathy

Offenders with psychopathy have often committed crimes violating social norms, which may suggest a biased moral reasoning in psychopathy. Yet, as findings on utilitarian decisions remain conflicting, the current study investigated different aspects of fairness considerations in offenders with psychopathy, offenders without psychopathy and healthy individuals (N = 18/14/18, respectively). Unfair offers in a modified Ultimatum Game (UG) were paired with different unselected alternatives, thereby establishing the context of a proposal, and made under opposing intentionality constraints (intentional vs. unintentional). As in previous studies, unfair offers were most often rejected when the alternative was fair and when the offer was made intentionally. Importantly, however, offenders with psychopathy demonstrated a similar rejection pattern to that of healthy individuals, i.e., taking the unselected alternative into account. In contrast, delinquents without psychopathy did not adjust their decision behavior to the alternatives to an offer, suggesting stronger impairments in social decision-making. Crucially, the mechanisms and processes underlying rejection decisions might differ, particularly with regard to cognitive vs. emotional competencies. While preserved cognitive perspective-taking could drive seemingly intact decision patterns in psychopathy, emotional empathy is likely to be compromised.

Is it all about the self? The effect of self-control depletion on ultimatum game proposers

In the ultimatum-game, as in many real-life social exchange situations, the selfish motive to maximize own gains conflicts with fairness preferences. In the present study we manipulated the availability of cognitive-control resources for ultimatum-game proposers to test whether preference for fairness is a deliberative cognitive-controlled act or an automatic act. In two experiments we found that a shortage of cognitive control (ego depletion) led proposers in the ultimatum game (UG) to propose significantly more equal split offers than non-depleted proposers. These results can be interpreted as resulting from an automatic concern for fairness, or from a greater fear of rejection, which would be in line with a purely self-interested response. To separate these competing explanations, in Experiment 2 we conducted a dictator-game in which the responder cannot reject the offer. In contrast to the increased fairness behavior demonstrated by depleted ultimatum-game proposers, we found that depleted dictator-game allocators chose the equal split significantly less often than non-depleted allocators. These results indicate that fairness preferences are automatically driven among UG proposers. The automatic fair behavior, however, at least partially reflects concern about self-interest gain. We discuss different explanations for these results.

Corpus-based intention recognition in cooperation dilemmas

Intention recognition is ubiquitous in most social interactions among humans and other primates. Despite this, the role of intention recognition in the emergence of cooperative actions remains elusive. Resorting to the tools of evolutionary game theory, herein we describe a computational model showing how intention recognition coevolves with cooperation in populations of self-regarding individuals. By equipping some individuals with the capacity of assessing the intentions of others in the course of a prototypical dilemma of cooperation-the repeated prisoner's dilemma-we show how intention recognition is favored by natural selection, opening a window of opportunity for cooperation to thrive. We introduce a new strategy (IR) that is able to assign an intention to the actions of opponents, on the basis of an acquired corpus consisting of possible plans achieving that intention, as well as to then make decisions on the basis of such recognized intentions. The success of IR is grounded on the free exploitation of unconditional cooperators while remaining robust against unconditional defectors. In addition, we show how intention recognizers do indeed prevail against the best-known successful strategies of iterated dilemmas of cooperation, even in the presence of errors and reduction of fitness associated with a small cognitive cost for performing intention recognition.

The other side of the coin: oxytocin decreases the adherence to fairness norms

Oxytocin (OXT) has been implicated in prosocial behaviors such as trust and generosity. Yet, these effects appear to strongly depend on characteristics of the situation and the people with whom we interact or make decisions. Norms and rules can facilitate and guide our actions, with fairness being a particularly salient and fundamental norm. The current study investigated the effects of intranasal OXT administration on fairness considerations in social decision-making in a double-blind, placebo-controlled within-subject design. After having received 24 IU of OXT or placebo (PLC), participants completed a one-shot Dictator Game (DG) and played the role of the responder in a modified version of the Ultimatum Game (UG), in which an unfair offer of eight coins for the proposer and two coins for the responder is paired with either a fair-(5:5) or no-alternative (8:2). Rejection rates were higher when a fair alternative had been available than when there was no alternative to an unfair offer. Importantly, OXT did not de-or increase rejection rates overall, but reduced the sensitivity to contextual fairness, i.e., the context of alternatives in which an offer was made. As dictators, participants allocated less coins to the recipient when given OXT than when given PLC, indicating a decline in generosity. These results suggest that OXT decreases the adherence to fairness norms in social settings where others are likely to be perceived as not belonging to one's ingroup. While our findings do not support the prosocial conception of OXT, they corroborate recent ideas that the effects of OXT are more nuanced than assumed in the past.