Limits...
Gut feelings and the reaction to perceived inequity: the interplay between bodily responses, regulation, and perception shapes the rejection of unfair offers on the ultimatum game.

Dunn BD, Evans D, Makarova D, White J, Clark L - Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci (2012)

Bottom Line: It has been robustly demonstrated using the ultimatum game (UG) that individuals frequently reject unfair financial offers even if this results in a personal cost.Larger electrodermal responses to rejected relative to accepted offers predicted greater rejection in those with accurate interoception but were unrelated to rejection in those with poor interoception.Although cardiovascular responses during the offer period were unrelated to rejection rates, greater resting heart rate variability (linked to trait emotion regulation capacity) predicted reduced rejection rates of offers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Mood Disorders Centre, University of Exeter, Perry Road, EX4 4QG Exeter, UK. b.d.dunn@exeter.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
It has been robustly demonstrated using the ultimatum game (UG) that individuals frequently reject unfair financial offers even if this results in a personal cost. One influential hypothesis for these rejections is that they reflect an emotional reaction to unfairness that overrides purely economic decision processes. In the present study, we examined whether the interplay between bodily responses, bodily regulation, and bodily perception ("interoception") contributes to emotionally driven rejection behavior on the UG. Offering support for bodily feedback theories, interoceptive accuracy moderated the relationship between changes in electrodermal activity to proposals and the behavioral rejection of such offers. Larger electrodermal responses to rejected relative to accepted offers predicted greater rejection in those with accurate interoception but were unrelated to rejection in those with poor interoception. Although cardiovascular responses during the offer period were unrelated to rejection rates, greater resting heart rate variability (linked to trait emotion regulation capacity) predicted reduced rejection rates of offers. These findings help clarify individual differences in reactions to perceived unfairness, support previous emotion regulation deficit accounts of rejection behavior, and suggest that the perception and regulation of bodily based emotional biasing signals ("gut feelings") partly shape financial decision making on the UG.

Show MeSH
Percentage of offers rejected, anger ratings and fairness ratings for each offer type. Anger and fairness ratings on scales from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely). Data are mean (standard error of the mean) values
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3400033&req=5

Fig1: Percentage of offers rejected, anger ratings and fairness ratings for each offer type. Anger and fairness ratings on scales from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely). Data are mean (standard error of the mean) values

Mentions: FigureĀ 1 plots rejection percentage, fairness ratings, and anger ratings for each offer type. Showing that the task was working as intended, participants rejected more unfair than fair offers, F(1, 50) = 139.05, p < .001, and tended to reject more human than computer offers, F(1, 50) = 3.21, p = .08. There was an interaction between fairness and proposer type, F(1, 50) = 5.23, p = .03, with participants rejecting more unfair offers from human proposers than computer proposers, t(50) = 2.13, p = .04, but not differing in their rejections of fair human or computer offers, t < 1. The use of ANOVA approaches with proportion data has been criticized, and alternative multilevel logistic regression techniques have been recommended (Jaeger, 2008). Multilevel analyses consider effects at the individual trial level, taking into account that each trial is nested within a particular participant. We repeated the key rejection rate analysis using multilevel logistical regression (applying the xtmelogit command in Stata 11.0; StataCorp, 2009). Rejection rates were greater for unfair than for fair, B = 5.08, SE = 0.61, Z = 8.32, p < .001, and for human than for computer, B = .65, SE = .22, Z = 2.97, p < .01, offers. However, in contrast with the ANOVA analyses, there was no significant interaction between fairness and proposer, B = 1.28, SE = .84, Z = 1.52, p = 0.13.Fig. 1


Gut feelings and the reaction to perceived inequity: the interplay between bodily responses, regulation, and perception shapes the rejection of unfair offers on the ultimatum game.

Dunn BD, Evans D, Makarova D, White J, Clark L - Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci (2012)

Percentage of offers rejected, anger ratings and fairness ratings for each offer type. Anger and fairness ratings on scales from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely). Data are mean (standard error of the mean) values
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3400033&req=5

Fig1: Percentage of offers rejected, anger ratings and fairness ratings for each offer type. Anger and fairness ratings on scales from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely). Data are mean (standard error of the mean) values
Mentions: FigureĀ 1 plots rejection percentage, fairness ratings, and anger ratings for each offer type. Showing that the task was working as intended, participants rejected more unfair than fair offers, F(1, 50) = 139.05, p < .001, and tended to reject more human than computer offers, F(1, 50) = 3.21, p = .08. There was an interaction between fairness and proposer type, F(1, 50) = 5.23, p = .03, with participants rejecting more unfair offers from human proposers than computer proposers, t(50) = 2.13, p = .04, but not differing in their rejections of fair human or computer offers, t < 1. The use of ANOVA approaches with proportion data has been criticized, and alternative multilevel logistic regression techniques have been recommended (Jaeger, 2008). Multilevel analyses consider effects at the individual trial level, taking into account that each trial is nested within a particular participant. We repeated the key rejection rate analysis using multilevel logistical regression (applying the xtmelogit command in Stata 11.0; StataCorp, 2009). Rejection rates were greater for unfair than for fair, B = 5.08, SE = 0.61, Z = 8.32, p < .001, and for human than for computer, B = .65, SE = .22, Z = 2.97, p < .01, offers. However, in contrast with the ANOVA analyses, there was no significant interaction between fairness and proposer, B = 1.28, SE = .84, Z = 1.52, p = 0.13.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: It has been robustly demonstrated using the ultimatum game (UG) that individuals frequently reject unfair financial offers even if this results in a personal cost.Larger electrodermal responses to rejected relative to accepted offers predicted greater rejection in those with accurate interoception but were unrelated to rejection in those with poor interoception.Although cardiovascular responses during the offer period were unrelated to rejection rates, greater resting heart rate variability (linked to trait emotion regulation capacity) predicted reduced rejection rates of offers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Mood Disorders Centre, University of Exeter, Perry Road, EX4 4QG Exeter, UK. b.d.dunn@exeter.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
It has been robustly demonstrated using the ultimatum game (UG) that individuals frequently reject unfair financial offers even if this results in a personal cost. One influential hypothesis for these rejections is that they reflect an emotional reaction to unfairness that overrides purely economic decision processes. In the present study, we examined whether the interplay between bodily responses, bodily regulation, and bodily perception ("interoception") contributes to emotionally driven rejection behavior on the UG. Offering support for bodily feedback theories, interoceptive accuracy moderated the relationship between changes in electrodermal activity to proposals and the behavioral rejection of such offers. Larger electrodermal responses to rejected relative to accepted offers predicted greater rejection in those with accurate interoception but were unrelated to rejection in those with poor interoception. Although cardiovascular responses during the offer period were unrelated to rejection rates, greater resting heart rate variability (linked to trait emotion regulation capacity) predicted reduced rejection rates of offers. These findings help clarify individual differences in reactions to perceived unfairness, support previous emotion regulation deficit accounts of rejection behavior, and suggest that the perception and regulation of bodily based emotional biasing signals ("gut feelings") partly shape financial decision making on the UG.

Show MeSH