Literature DB >> 19564602

The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment.

Toshio Yamagishi1, Yutaka Horita, Haruto Takagishi, Mizuho Shinada, Shigehito Tanida, Karen S Cook.   

Abstract

In a series of experiments, we demonstrate that certain players of an economic game reject unfair offers even when this behavior increases rather than decreases inequity. A substantial proportion (30-40%, compared with 60-70% in the standard ultimatum game) of those who responded rejected unfair offers even when rejection reduced only their own earnings to 0, while not affecting the earnings of the person who proposed the unfair split (in an impunity game). Furthermore, even when the responders were not able to communicate their anger to the proposers by rejecting unfair offers in a private impunity game, a similar rate of rejection was observed. The rejection of unfair offers that increases inequity cannot be explained by the social preference for inequity aversion or reciprocity; however, it does provide support for the model of emotion as a commitment device. In this view, emotions such as anger or moral disgust lead people to disregard the immediate consequences of their behavior, committing them to behave consistently to preserve integrity and maintain a reputation over time as someone who is reliably committed to this behavior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19564602      PMCID: PMC2703666          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0900636106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  7 in total

1.  Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game.

Authors:  M A Nowak; K M Page; K Sigmund
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-09-08       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game.

Authors:  Alan G Sanfey; James K Rilling; Jessica A Aronson; Leigh E Nystrom; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-06-13       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  [Reciprocity and identity protection: reasons for rejection in the ultimatum game].

Authors:  Yutaka Horita; Toshio Yamagishi
Journal:  Shinrigaku Kenkyu       Date:  2007-10

4.  In bad taste: evidence for the oral origins of moral disgust.

Authors:  H A Chapman; D A Kim; J M Susskind; A K Anderson
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Why do people reject unintended inequity? Responders' rejection in a truncated ultimatum game.

Authors:  Yu Ohmura; Toshio Yamagishi
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  2005-04

6.  Emotion expression in human punishment behavior.

Authors:  Erte Xiao; Daniel Houser
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-05-06       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers.

Authors:  Terence C Burnham
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

  7 in total
  42 in total

1.  Great expectations: neural computations underlying the use of social norms in decision-making.

Authors:  Luke J Chang; Alan G Sanfey
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Modulation of value representation by social context in the primate orbitofrontal cortex.

Authors:  João C B Azzi; Angela Sirigu; Jean-René Duhamel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Personality influences responses to inequity and contrast in chimpanzees.

Authors:  Sarah F Brosnan; Lydia M Hopper; Sean Richey; Hani D Freeman; Catherine F Talbot; Samuel D Gosling; Susan P Lambeth; Steven J Schapiro
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2015-03-01       Impact factor: 2.844

4.  Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game: a coordinate-based meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chunliang Feng; Yue-Jia Luo; Frank Krueger
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 5.  Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation.

Authors:  Keith Jensen
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2010-09-12       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  The neural basis of perceived unfairness in economic exchanges.

Authors:  Bidhan Lamichhane; Bhim Mani Adhikari; Sarah F Brosnan; Mukesh Dhamala
Journal:  Brain Connect       Date:  2014-09-19

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

Authors:  Chunliang Feng; Bobby Azarian; Yina Ma; Xue Feng; Lili Wang; Yue-Jia Luo; Frank Krueger
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  On Power and Freedom: Extending the Definition of Coercion.

Authors:  Sonia M Goltz
Journal:  Perspect Behav Sci       Date:  2020-01-06

9.  Governing for the Common Good.

Authors:  Jennifer Prah Ruger
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2015-12

10.  Digit ratio (2D : 4D) and prosocial behaviour in economic games: no direct correlation with generosity, bargaining or trust-related behaviours.

Authors:  Pablo Brañas-Garza; Antonio M Espín; Teresa García-Muñoz; Jaromír Kovářík
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 3.703

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.