Limits...
Social distance and anonymity modulate fairness consideration: An ERP study.

Yu R, Hu P, Zhang P - Sci Rep (2015)

Bottom Line: At the behavior level, we found that acceptance rate and reaction time can be substantially modified by social distance and anonymity.Feedback-related negativity, an ERP component associated with conflict between cognitive and emotion motives, was more negative in response to unfairness than fairness from strangers; however, it showed an opposite trend for unfair offers provided by friends, suggesting that the influence of social distance on fairness perception is relatively fast.These results suggest that unfairness is evaluated in a fast conflict detection stage and a slower stage that integrates more complex social contextual factors such as anonymity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology and Center for Studies of Psychological Application, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.

ABSTRACT
Previous research indicated that fairness consideration can be influenced by social distance. However, it is not clear whether social distance and anonymity have an interactive impact on fairness evaluation during asset distribution and whether these processes can be documented in brain activity. Using a modified ultimatum game combined with measures of event related potential (ERP), we examined how social distance and anonymity modulate brain response to inequality. At the behavior level, we found that acceptance rate and reaction time can be substantially modified by social distance and anonymity. Feedback-related negativity, an ERP component associated with conflict between cognitive and emotion motives, was more negative in response to unfairness than fairness from strangers; however, it showed an opposite trend for unfair offers provided by friends, suggesting that the influence of social distance on fairness perception is relatively fast. The P300 in response to fair offers was more positive when the proposers made offers when uncertain about partner identity than when certain about partner identity. These results suggest that unfairness is evaluated in a fast conflict detection stage and a slower stage that integrates more complex social contextual factors such as anonymity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Post-experiment subjective ratings of feeling.The self-reported fairness scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (A). The self-reported satisfaction scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (B). The self-reported surprise scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (C).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4544037&req=5

f3: Post-experiment subjective ratings of feeling.The self-reported fairness scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (A). The self-reported satisfaction scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (B). The self-reported surprise scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (C).

Mentions: Post-experiment emotion ratings for 8 conditions are shown in Fig. 3. For the self-reported satisfaction measure, repeated-measures ANOVA using social distance (friend vs. stranger), fairness (fair vs. unfair), and anonymity (certainty about identity vs. uncertainty about identity) as independent factors found a significant main effect of fairness, F(1, 18) = 50.793, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.738, with fair offers rated as more satisfactory (mean ± SE, 9.296 ± 0.274) than unfair offers (mean ± SE, 6.066 ± 0.475). The interaction between fairness and social distance was also significant, F(1, 18) = 5.171, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.223. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the satisfaction difference between fair (mean ± SE, 9.296 ± 0.274) and unfair offers (mean ± SE, 6.066 ± 0.475) was larger in the stranger condition (mean ± SE, 3.802 ± 0.629) than in the friend condition (mean ± SE, 2.657 ± 0.376), t(18) = −2.274, p < 0.05, suggesting that social distance modulates self-reported satisfaction of outcome. No other effect was significant, p > 0.2.


Social distance and anonymity modulate fairness consideration: An ERP study.

Yu R, Hu P, Zhang P - Sci Rep (2015)

Post-experiment subjective ratings of feeling.The self-reported fairness scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (A). The self-reported satisfaction scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (B). The self-reported surprise scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (C).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4544037&req=5

f3: Post-experiment subjective ratings of feeling.The self-reported fairness scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (A). The self-reported satisfaction scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (B). The self-reported surprise scores (mean ± SE) for the eight experimental conditions are shown in (C).
Mentions: Post-experiment emotion ratings for 8 conditions are shown in Fig. 3. For the self-reported satisfaction measure, repeated-measures ANOVA using social distance (friend vs. stranger), fairness (fair vs. unfair), and anonymity (certainty about identity vs. uncertainty about identity) as independent factors found a significant main effect of fairness, F(1, 18) = 50.793, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.738, with fair offers rated as more satisfactory (mean ± SE, 9.296 ± 0.274) than unfair offers (mean ± SE, 6.066 ± 0.475). The interaction between fairness and social distance was also significant, F(1, 18) = 5.171, p < 0.05, ηp2 = 0.223. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the satisfaction difference between fair (mean ± SE, 9.296 ± 0.274) and unfair offers (mean ± SE, 6.066 ± 0.475) was larger in the stranger condition (mean ± SE, 3.802 ± 0.629) than in the friend condition (mean ± SE, 2.657 ± 0.376), t(18) = −2.274, p < 0.05, suggesting that social distance modulates self-reported satisfaction of outcome. No other effect was significant, p > 0.2.

Bottom Line: At the behavior level, we found that acceptance rate and reaction time can be substantially modified by social distance and anonymity.Feedback-related negativity, an ERP component associated with conflict between cognitive and emotion motives, was more negative in response to unfairness than fairness from strangers; however, it showed an opposite trend for unfair offers provided by friends, suggesting that the influence of social distance on fairness perception is relatively fast.These results suggest that unfairness is evaluated in a fast conflict detection stage and a slower stage that integrates more complex social contextual factors such as anonymity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology and Center for Studies of Psychological Application, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.

ABSTRACT
Previous research indicated that fairness consideration can be influenced by social distance. However, it is not clear whether social distance and anonymity have an interactive impact on fairness evaluation during asset distribution and whether these processes can be documented in brain activity. Using a modified ultimatum game combined with measures of event related potential (ERP), we examined how social distance and anonymity modulate brain response to inequality. At the behavior level, we found that acceptance rate and reaction time can be substantially modified by social distance and anonymity. Feedback-related negativity, an ERP component associated with conflict between cognitive and emotion motives, was more negative in response to unfairness than fairness from strangers; however, it showed an opposite trend for unfair offers provided by friends, suggesting that the influence of social distance on fairness perception is relatively fast. The P300 in response to fair offers was more positive when the proposers made offers when uncertain about partner identity than when certain about partner identity. These results suggest that unfairness is evaluated in a fast conflict detection stage and a slower stage that integrates more complex social contextual factors such as anonymity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus