Less Expectation, Less Pain: Low Wealth Alleviates Sense of Unfairness

Differences in Implicit Attitudes in West and East Germans as Measured by the Go/NoGo Association Task and Event-related EEG Potentials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Implicit social cognition refers to attitudes and stereotypes that may reside outside conscious awareness and control but that still affect human behavior. In particular, the implicit favoritism of an ingroup, to which an individual belongs, as opposed to an outgroup, to which the individual does not belong, characterized as ingroup bias, is of interest and is investigated here.

METHOD

We used a Go/NoGo association task (GNAT) and behavioral and electroencephalographic (event-related EEG potential [ERP] analysis) measures to investigate the implicit bias toward cities in East Germany, West Germany, and Europe, in 16 individuals each from West and East Germany (mixed gender, M age = 24). The GNAT assesses an individual's Go and NoGo responses for a given association between a target category and either pole (positive or negative) of an evaluative dimension.

RESULTS

Behavioral measures revealed slightly faster reaction times to the combination of European city names and negative, as compared with positive, evaluative words in both groups. ERP analysis showed an increased negativity at 400-800 ms poststimulus in the incongruent conditions of East German city/positive word pairings (in West Germans) and West German city/positive word pairings (in East Germans).

CONCLUSION

An implicitly moderately negative evaluation of Europe by both groups was exhibited based on the behavioral data, and an increased level of conflict arising from the "incongruent" pairings (ie, as manifestation of an implicitly negative attitude toward East Germany in West Germans, and toward West Germany in East Germans) was exhibited based on the electrophysiological data.

Cognitive process underlying ultimatum game: An eye-tracking study from a dual-system perspective

According to the dual-system theories, the decisions in an ultimatum game (UG) are governed by the automatic System 1 and the controlled System 2. The former drives the preference for fairness, whereas the latter drives the self-interest motive. However, the association between the contributions of the two systems in UG and the cognitive process needs more direct evidence. In the present study, we used the process dissociation procedure to estimate the contributions of the two systems and recorded participants eye movements to examine the cognitive processes underlying UG decisions. Results showed that the estimated contributions of the two systems are uncorrelated and that they demonstrate a dissociated pattern of associations with third variables, such as reaction time (RT) and mean fixation duration (MFD). Furthermore, the relative time advantage (RTA) and the transitions between the two payoffs can predict the final UG decisions. Our findings provide evidence for the independent contributions of preference for fairness (System 1) and self-interest maximizing (System 2) inclinations to UG and shed light on the underlying processes.

I am entitled to it! Social power and context modulate disadvantageous inequity aversion

Previous research consistently indicated that social power influences one's fairness consideration. However, it is unclear how social power and context jointly affect inequity aversion and whether these processes would be manifested in brain activities. In this study, participants were randomly assigned into either high or low power condition and then took part in a modified ultimatum game (UG) as responders in both gain and loss contexts, with their event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded. Behavioral results showed that powerful participants were more likely to reject unfair offers in both contexts compared with powerless ones. In addition, powerful participants showed a more negative feedback-related negativity (FRN) loss-win difference wave (d-FRN) upon presentation of proposed offers compared with powerless participants only in the gain context. Interestingly, in a later time window, differences of P300 responses to proposed offers were modulated by social power in both gain and loss contexts. These results suggested that powerful people were more sensitive to fairness levels and FRN may manifest fairness consideration in a gain context, but not in a loss context. Meanwhile, P300 is sensitive to fairness considerations in both gain and loss contexts.