4.4 Article

Relationship between platelet serotonin content and rejections of unfair offers in the ultimatum game

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 437, 期 2, 页码 158-161

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2008.04.006

关键词

neuroeconomics; bargaining; ultimatum game; serotonin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ultimatum game (UG), a well-studied decision task used in experimental neuroeconomics, represents a simple two-person bargaining between a proposer and a responder. The proposer offers the responder how to split a sum of money. The responder decides whether to accept or reject the offer. When the responder accepts it, each player earns money according to the proposer's offer. If the offer is rejected, neither player gets anything. Rejections of free money in the UG represent a deviation from the standard economic model of rationality. This behaviour could be linked to adverse psychological reactions to unfair offers, including anger, hostility and impulsiveness. Currently, it is believed that the most plausible biological system related to anger and impulsivity is the serotonergic system. We hypothesize that serotonergic activity, as measured by platelet serotonin levels, will differentiate subjects who either reject or accept low UG offers. A sample of 60 economy students (31 males and 29 females, mean age: 24.4 +/- 2.3 years) was investigated. As predicted, the mean platelet serotonin level was significantly lower in participants who reject unfair offers (is an element of 1 out of is an element of 10) than in those who accept (2.86 +/- 0.13 versus 3.48 +/- 0.11 nmol/10(9) platelets, respectively,p < 0.001). We conclude that low platelet serotonin may serve as a reliable biomarker to identify people who are more likely to reject unfair ultimatum offers in an experimental neuroeconomic setting. Our pilot data seem to indicate that the serotonergic system may play an important role in the UG rejection behaviour. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据