4.7 Article

Increased neural responses to unfairness in a loss context

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 77, Issue -, Pages 246-253

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.048

Keywords

Unfairness; Loss; Gain; fMRI

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31271090, 31100728, 90924013]
  2. Projects Planning in Shanghai Philosophy and Social Sciences Research [2012JJY001]
  3. Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [12ZS046]
  4. 985 Project of Fudan University [2011SHKXZD008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Unfairness plays an important role in economic decision making. This fMRI study sought to investigate how the loss and the gain contexts could modulate behavioral and brain responses to unfairness by focusing on participants' rejection behaviors during an Ultimatum Game paradigm. Participants were scanned while they were playing the Ultimatum Game as responders in both loss and gain contexts, i.e. receiving (sic)50 as gains and paying for (sic)50 as losses. At the behavioral level, lower fairness ratings and higher rejection rates were revealed for unfair losses than unfair gains. At the neural level, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, bilateral anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex/anterior middle cingulate cortex and bilateral dorsal striatum were associated with rejection (vs. acceptance) in the loss context, but not in the gain context. Together, our data indicated that participants may experience more unfairness in UG and stronger desire to sanction social norm violations in the loss context than in the gain context, inducing more fairness-related neutral activities when rejecting (vs. accepting) unfair losses than unfair gains. These findings shed light on the significance of context (i.e. loss or gain) in fairness-related social decision-making processes. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available