Agency matters! social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game

20Citations
Citations of this article
72Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In the present study EEG was recorded simultaneously while two participants were playing the three-person Ultimatum Game. Both participants received different offers from changing proposers about how to split up a certain amount of money between the three players. One of the participants had no say, whereas the other, the responder, was able to harm the payoff of all other players. The aim of the study was to investigate how the outcomes of the respective other are evaluated by participants who were treated fairly or unfairly themselves and to what extent agency influences concerns for fairness. Analyses were focused on the medial frontal negativity (MFN) as an early index for subjective value assignment. Recipients with vetopower exhibited enhanced, more negative-going, MFN amplitudes following proposals that comprised a low share for both recipients, suggesting that responders favored offers with a fair amount to at least one of the two players. Though, the powerless players cared about the amount assigned to the responder, MFN amplitudes were larger following fair compared to unfair offers assigned to the responder. Similarly, concerns for fairness which determined the amplitude of the MFN, suggested that the powerless players exhibited negative and conversely the responders, positive social preferences. © 2013 Alexopoulos, Pfabigan, Göschl, Bauer and Fischmeister.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alexopoulos, J., Pfabigan, D. M., Göschl, F., Bauer, H., & Fischmeister, F. P. S. (2013). Agency matters! social preferences in the three-person ultimatum game. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, (JUN). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00312

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free