Unfairness and Inequality Perception in the Ultimatum Game

Claudia Civai Dept. of Economics University of Minnesota SCoNe 2013 @ SISSA Unfairness and inequity perception in the Ultimatum Game Outline • Last week: Harm/care • Today: Fairness/Reciprocity - What are we talking about? - Rationality and Social preferences - Ultimatum Game - Dual-system? Psychological and neural correlates - Limitations of the traditional design and some new ideas - Conclusions http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? THREE CHILDREN AND A FLUTE (A. Sen, The Idea of Justice). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? THREE CHILDREN AND A FLUTE (A. Sen, The Idea of Justice). ANN: the flute is on the ground, and I am the only one who can play it! http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? THREE CHILDREN AND A FLUTE (A. Sen, The Idea of Justice). ANN: the flute is on the ground, and I am the only one who can play it! BOB: I am the only one who is so poor that I have no toys of my own! http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? THREE CHILDREN AND A FLUTE (A. Sen, The Idea of Justice). ANN: the flute is on the ground, and I am the only one who can play it! BOB: I am the only one who is so poor that I have no toys of my own! CARLA: I have been working diligently for many months to make this flute, and just when I finished it, these expropriators came along to try to grab the flute from me! http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? THREE CHILDREN AND A FLUTE (A. Sen, The Idea of Justice). ANN: the flute is on the ground, and I am the only one who can play it! BOB: I am the only one who is so poor that I have no toys of my own! CARLA: I have been working diligently for many months to make this flute, and just when I finished it, these expropriators came along to try to grab the flute from me! Everyone has his/her point of view on what is fair for a number of reasons; given that we know more about our condition, we have a natural partiality for our own interests. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? THREE CHILDREN AND A FLUTE (A. Sen, The Idea of Justice). ANN: the flute is on the ground, and I am the only one who can play it! BOB: I am the only one who is so poor that I have no toys of my own! CARLA: I have been working diligently for many months to make this flute, and just when I finished it, these expropriators came along to try to grab the flute from me! Everyone has his/her point of view on what is fair for a number of reasons; given that we know more about our condition, we have a natural partiality for our own interests. Different ideas http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? THREE CHILDREN AND A FLUTE (A. Sen, The Idea of Justice). ANN: the flute is on the ground, and I am the only one who can play it! BOB: I am the only one who is so poor that I have no toys of my own! CARLA: I have been working diligently for many months to make this flute, and just when I finished it, these expropriators came along to try to grab the flute from me! Everyone has his/her point of view on what is fair for a number of reasons; given that we know more about our condition, we have a natural partiality for our own interests. Different ideas John Rawls (1971): original position in which the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they will live in; this choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance, i.e. the parties don’t know their condition http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai What are we talking about? THREE CHILDREN AND A FLUTE (A. Sen, The Idea of Justice). ANN: the flute is on the ground, and I am the only one who can play it! BOB: I am the only one who is so poor that I have no toys of my own! CARLA: I have been working diligently for many months to make this flute, and just when I finished it, these expropriators came along to try to grab the flute from me! Everyone has his/her point of view on what is fair for a number of reasons; given that we know more about our condition, we have a natural partiality for our own interests. Different ideas John Rawls (1971): original position in which the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they will live in; this choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance, i.e. the parties don’t know their condition Adam Smith (1790): impartial spectator, an external view that people need to consider when making fairness and justice judgment, in order to overcome the natural parochialism, mistaking it for universal truth. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Equality as preference http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Equality as preference Psychological interpretation http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Equality as preference Psychological interpretation The idea that, everything else being equal, a 50-50 share of the resources available is preferred to other types of partitions is well established in the literature (e.g. Camerer, 1997; Andreoni & Bernheim, 2009). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Equality as preference Psychological interpretation The idea that, everything else being equal, a 50-50 share of the resources available is preferred to other types of partitions is well established in the literature (e.g. Camerer, 1997; Andreoni & Bernheim, 2009). People intuitively apply simple coordination rules such as norms about equity when relationships are new or untested; it has been suggested that people use equity heuristically, because it has psychological advantages: it is a cognitive simple strategy, easy to use and to be understood by everyone, quickly implemented, defensible, and, moreover, a useful starting point from which, in case, adjustments can be made (Messick & Schell, 1992; Messick, 1995). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Self-interest vs Social preferences? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Self-interest vs Social preferences? Behavioral economics http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Self-interest vs Social preferences? Behavioral economics Behavioral economists showed that, in specific situations, predictions of classic models of monetary gain maximization and pure self-interest are violated. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Self-interest vs Social preferences? Behavioral economics Behavioral economists showed that, in specific situations, predictions of classic models of monetary gain maximization and pure self-interest are violated. Social preferences are defined as a concern for the payoffs of other relevant agents in addition to the concern for one’s own payoff (Carpenter, 2008) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Self-interest vs Social preferences? Behavioral economics Behavioral economists showed that, in specific situations, predictions of classic models of monetary gain maximization and pure self-interest are violated. Social preferences are defined as a concern for the payoffs of other relevant agents in addition to the concern for one’s own payoff (Carpenter, 2008) NEGATIVE RECIPROCITY (Rabin, 1993) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Self-interest vs Social preferences? Behavioral economics Behavioral economists showed that, in specific situations, predictions of classic models of monetary gain maximization and pure self-interest are violated. Social preferences are defined as a concern for the payoffs of other relevant agents in addition to the concern for one’s own payoff (Carpenter, 2008) NEGATIVE RECIPROCITY (Rabin, 1993) INEQUITY AVERSION (Fehr & Schmidt, 1999; Bolton & Ockenfels, 2000) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? • Negative reciprocity (Rabin, 1993): focus on intentions. Self-interest is neglected in order to punish unfair behavior. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? • Negative reciprocity (Rabin, 1993): focus on intentions. Self-interest is neglected in order to punish unfair behavior. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? • Negative reciprocity (Rabin, 1993): focus on intentions. Self-interest is neglected in order to punish unfair behavior. • Inequity aversion (Fehr & Schmidt, 1999; Bolton & Ockenfels, 2000): focus on outcomes. Self-interest is neglected because people are intrinsically averse to unequal splits http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Psychological interpretation of costly rejections: EMOTIONS http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Psychological interpretation of costly rejections: EMOTIONS The WOUNDED PRIDE/SPITE MODEL suggests that the perception of unfairness can lead to anger and wounded pride, and, ultimately, to a greater likelihood that that offer is rejected (Pillutla & Murnighan, 1996, p. 211). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? These interpretations can be combined together as follows: http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? These interpretations can be combined together as follows: http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Why do people reject? These interpretations can be combined together as follows: unfairness http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai frustration punishment irrational rejection The Ultimatum Game http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Standard structure http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Standard structure Participants are usually playing as the responder http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The Ultimatum Game Standard structure Participants are usually playing as the responder http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Emotional rejections http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai van’t Wout et al. (2006) Exp Brain Res Emotional rejections Skin Conductance Response (SCR) higher for rejections of human offers SCR correlates with the rate of rejections http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai van’t Wout et al. (2006) Exp Brain Res Emotional rejections Skin Conductance Response (SCR) higher for rejections of human offers SCR correlates with the rate of rejections http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai van’t Wout et al. (2006) Exp Brain Res Emotional rejections Skin Conductance Response (SCR) higher for rejections of human offers SCR correlates with the rate of rejections http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai van’t Wout et al. (2006) Exp Brain Res Emotional rejections http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Harle & Sanfey (2007) Emotion Emotional rejections Mood Induction http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Harle & Sanfey (2007) Emotion Emotional rejections Mood Induction Induce sadness significantly decreases the rate of acceptance of unfair offers http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Harle & Sanfey (2007) Emotion Emotional rejections http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Harle & Sanfey (2007) Emotion Emotional rejections The higher the sadness level, the lower the percentage of acceptance of unfair offers. Fair offers are not affected http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Harle & Sanfey (2007) Emotion Emotional rejections http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti & Di Pellegrino (2010) Emotion Emotional rejections Mood Induction Disgust, more than sadness, seems to be involved in the decrease of acceptance rate for unfair offers. In the disgust condition, contempt is rated as higher for unfair offers http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti & Di Pellegrino (2010) Emotion Neural basis http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Neural basis fMRI http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Neural basis fMRI http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Neural basis fMRI http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? Conclusions: http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? Conclusions: - Activity in bilateral Anterior Insula (AI) is higher for unfair than for fair offers, and it correlates with the acceptance rate. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? Conclusions: - Activity in bilateral Anterior Insula (AI) is higher for unfair than for fair offers, and it correlates with the acceptance rate. AI has been related to processing disgust, so this is an evidence of involvement of emotions in rejections http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? Conclusions: - Activity in bilateral Anterior Insula (AI) is higher for unfair than for fair offers, and it correlates with the acceptance rate. AI has been related to processing disgust, so this is an evidence of involvement of emotions in rejections - Activity in DLPFC is higher for unfair than for fair offers, but it’s not correlated to rejections. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? Conclusions: - Activity in bilateral Anterior Insula (AI) is higher for unfair than for fair offers, and it correlates with the acceptance rate. AI has been related to processing disgust, so this is an evidence of involvement of emotions in rejections - Activity in DLPFC is higher for unfair than for fair offers, but it’s not correlated to rejections. DLPFC has been related to cognitive control (e.g. working memory tasks); here the activation perhaps reflects the steady task representation of money maximization. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Sanfey et al. (2003) Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2006) Science Dual-system? Slow-frequency rTMS DLPFC controls impulses. But which is the impulse? Accepting all the offers (maximizing gain) or rejecting unfair offers (unfairness rejection)? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2006) Science Dual-system? Human Slow-frequency rTMS DLPFC controls impulses. But which is the impulse? Accepting all the offers (maximizing gain) or rejecting unfair offers (unfairness rejection)? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2006) Science Dual-system? Human Computer Slow-frequency rTMS DLPFC controls impulses. But which is the impulse? Accepting all the offers (maximizing gain) or rejecting unfair offers (unfairness rejection)? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2006) Science Dual-system? Human Computer Slow-frequency rTMS DLPFC controls impulses. But which is the impulse? Accepting all the offers (maximizing gain) or rejecting unfair offers (unfairness rejection)? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2006) Science Dual-system? Human Computer Slow-frequency rTMS DLPFC controls impulses. But which is the impulse? Accepting all the offers (maximizing gain) or rejecting unfair offers (unfairness rejection)? Right DLPFC is crucial for the ability to override selfish impulses in order to reject offers perceived as unfair. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2006) Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2007) Cereb Cortex Dual-system? (Cathodical) tDCS It induces changes in cortical excitability by means of a weak electrical field applied transcranially, which de- or hyperpolarizes neuronal membranes on a subthreshold level. Anodal tDCS increases, whereas cathodal tDCS decreases, excitability (Nitsche and Paulus 2001) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2007) Cereb Cortex Dual-system? (Cathodical) tDCS It induces changes in cortical excitability by means of a weak electrical field applied transcranially, which de- or hyperpolarizes neuronal membranes on a subthreshold level. Anodal tDCS increases, whereas cathodal tDCS decreases, excitability (Nitsche and Paulus 2001) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2007) Cereb Cortex Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2007) Cereb Cortex Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2007) Cereb Cortex Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2007) Cereb Cortex Dual-system? (Cathodical) tDCS Unfair offers have a higher rate of acceptance for cathodical tDCS as compared to sham No difference in fairness judgment Activity in the right DLPFC is confirmed as a crucial region to override selfish impulses http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Knoch et al (2007) Cereb Cortex Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Koenigs & Tranel (2007) JoN Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Koenigs & Tranel (2007) JoN Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Koenigs & Tranel (2007) JoN Dual-system? vMPFC lesions Patients reject more unfair offers. Hyper-irrationality vMPFC is crucial to modulate emotional reactions to frustration http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Koenigs & Tranel (2007) JoN Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? vMPFC lesions http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? vMPFC lesions When the reward is more salient, i.e. when the offer is immediately presented in cash, vMPFC patients behave like control groups. Also, there is no difference between human and computer condition, meaning that it can’t be a matter of social norm violation. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? vMPFC lesions When the reward is more salient, i.e. when the offer is immediately presented in cash, vMPFC patients behave like control groups. Also, there is no difference between human and computer condition, meaning that it can’t be a matter of social norm violation. The difference in acceptance rate could be accounted to the difference in abstract and delayed reward sensitivity. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? vMPFC lesions SCR was higher for unfair offers as opposed to fair offers for healthy controls, but no difference was found in vMPFC group. No sign of emotional arousal increase for unfair offers http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Moretti et al. (2009) J Cogn Neurosc Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Crockett et al (2008) Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Crockett et al (2008) Science Dual-system? Neuromodulators http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Crockett et al (2008) Science Dual-system? Neuromodulators Serotonin is known to be involved in social behavior, including impulsive aggression. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Crockett et al (2008) Science Dual-system? Neuromodulators Serotonin is known to be involved in social behavior, including impulsive aggression. Acute tryptophan depletion: temporarily lowers the level of serotonin http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Crockett et al (2008) Science Dual-system? Neuromodulators Serotonin is known to be involved in social behavior, including impulsive aggression. Acute tryptophan depletion: temporarily lowers the level of serotonin Depletion increases retaliation to perceived unfairness without affecting mood, fairness judgment, basic reward processing, or response inhibition, as assessed in this same study. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Crockett et al (2008) Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Tabibnia et al. (2008) Psych Science Dual-system? Fairness perception: fairness is rewarding (reward system activated) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Tabibnia et al. (2008) Psych Science Dual-system? Fairness perception: fairness is rewarding (reward system activated) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Tabibnia et al. (2008) Psych Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Tabibnia et al. (2008) Psych Science Dual-system? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Tabibnia et al. (2008) Psych Science Dual-system? Activity in anterior insula decreases when accepting unfair offers; moreover, it is negatively correlated with the rate of acceptance of unfair offers. It signals the negative emotional reaction to unfairness Activity in VLPFC increases with acceptance of unfair offers; it is positively correlated with acceptance rate of unfair offers. It overcomes the negative emotional reaction to unfairness. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Tabibnia et al. (2008) Psych Science Dual-system: sum up http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Dual-system: sum up • Automatic, emotion-related reaction elicited by unfairness that leads to reject offers against one’s own self-interest. This system involves the vMPFC, as a crucial region of emotional control, and anterior insula, as a region known to be associated with negative feelings, especially disgust. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Dual-system: sum up • Automatic, emotion-related reaction elicited by unfairness that leads to reject offers against one’s own self-interest. This system involves the vMPFC, as a crucial region of emotional control, and anterior insula, as a region known to be associated with negative feelings, especially disgust. Fairness perception seems to be related to the activity in the reward system (amygdala, ventral striatum and vMPFC). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Dual-system: sum up • Automatic, emotion-related reaction elicited by unfairness that leads to reject offers against one’s own self-interest. This system involves the vMPFC, as a crucial region of emotional control, and anterior insula, as a region known to be associated with negative feelings, especially disgust. Fairness perception seems to be related to the activity in the reward system (amygdala, ventral striatum and vMPFC). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Dual-system: sum up • Automatic, emotion-related reaction elicited by unfairness that leads to reject offers against one’s own self-interest. This system involves the vMPFC, as a crucial region of emotional control, and anterior insula, as a region known to be associated with negative feelings, especially disgust. Fairness perception seems to be related to the activity in the reward system (amygdala, ventral striatum and vMPFC). • DLPFC is crucial to override self-interest; its activity is probably fundamental in order to elaborate the situation and the relative social rule that needs to be applied (fairness rule). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Dual-system: sum up • Automatic, emotion-related reaction elicited by unfairness that leads to reject offers against one’s own self-interest. This system involves the vMPFC, as a crucial region of emotional control, and anterior insula, as a region known to be associated with negative feelings, especially disgust. Fairness perception seems to be related to the activity in the reward system (amygdala, ventral striatum and vMPFC). • DLPFC is crucial to override self-interest; its activity is probably fundamental in order to elaborate the situation and the relative social rule that needs to be applied (fairness rule). VLPFC seems to be important in modulating the negative emotional reaction associated with unfairness in order to accept unfair offers. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? • Do rejections correspond to punishment? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? • Do rejections correspond to punishment? • Are people inequity averse, or are they rejecting only disadvantageous inequity? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Are irrational reactions to unfairness emotionally driven? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Are irrational reactions to unfairness emotionally driven? Task http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Are irrational reactions to unfairness emotionally driven? Task UG_TP UG_MS Offers on behalf of.... Proposer Next proposer e.g. e.g. 2 euro out of 10 2 euro out of 10 A 2:8 0:0 Responder (you) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai A R Accept/reject on behalf of... 2:8 Next responder R 0:0 Are irrational reactions to unfairness emotionally driven? Task UG_TP UG_MS Offers on behalf of.... Proposer Next proposer e.g. e.g. 2 euro out of 10 2 euro out of 10 A A R 2:8 0:0 2:8 Accept/reject on behalf of... Responder (you) R 0:0 Next responder FW_TP FW_MS Computer e. g. 2 euro A R 2 0 http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai e. g. 2 euro A 2 Responder (you) Next responder R 0 Are irrational reactions to unfairness emotionally driven? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2010) Cognition Are irrational reactions to unfairness emotionally driven? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2010) Cognition Are irrational reactions to unfairness emotionally driven? • These findings to support the idea that responders reject pure unfairness. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2010) Cognition Are irrational reactions to unfairness emotionally driven? • These findings to support the idea that responders reject pure unfairness. • Emotional arousal is correlated with the self-directed unfairness, and not with pure unfairness. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2010) Cognition Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Fairness-related areas: left Anterior Insula http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Fairness-related areas: left Anterior Insula http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Fairness-related areas: left Anterior Insula • AI integrates info about modality-specific feelings with cognitive processes, individual preferences and contextual information (Singer et al, 2009; Lamm & Singer, 2010). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Fairness-related areas: left Anterior Insula • AI integrates info about modality-specific feelings with cognitive processes, individual preferences and contextual information (Singer et al, 2009; Lamm & Singer, 2010). • Moreover, it has been suggested that AI signals norm-violations (King-Casas et al., 2008), and mediates punishment of unfair behavior (Rilling et al, 2008). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Fairness-related areas: left Anterior Insula • AI integrates info about modality-specific feelings with cognitive processes, individual preferences and contextual information (Singer et al, 2009; Lamm & Singer, 2010). • Moreover, it has been suggested that AI signals norm-violations (King-Casas et al., 2008), and mediates punishment of unfair behavior (Rilling et al, 2008). • AI promotes a general fairness-related behavior in money bargaining http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Self-related areas: Medial Prefrontal Cortex http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Self-related areas: Medial Prefrontal Cortex http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Self-related areas: Medial Prefrontal Cortex http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Self-related areas: Medial Prefrontal Cortex • http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Ventral MPFC: sensitivity to personal gain. Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Self-related areas: Medial Prefrontal Cortex http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai • Ventral MPFC: sensitivity to personal gain. • Anterior MPFC: sensitivity to self-directed unfairness. Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Disentangling self- and fairness-related mechanisms Self-related areas: Medial Prefrontal Cortex http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai • Ventral MPFC: sensitivity to personal gain. • Anterior MPFC: sensitivity to self-directed unfairness. • This interpretation is in line with the hypothesis that valuerelated representations in vMPFC extend more anterior and superior the more complex they become, integrating with socio-affective processes (Amodio & Frith, 2006). Corradi-Dell’Acqua et al. (2013) SCAN Open Questions http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? They are rejecting unfairness. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? They are rejecting unfairness. • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? Higher arousing emotions correlate with self-affecting unfairness, without influencing the rejection rate; there is a difference between pure unfairness and self-affecting unfairness also in terms of brain areas involved. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? They are rejecting unfairness. • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? Higher arousing emotions correlate with self-affecting unfairness, without influencing the rejection rate; there is a difference between pure unfairness and self-affecting unfairness also in terms of brain areas involved. • Do rejections correspond to punishment? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open Questions • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? They are rejecting unfairness. • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? Higher arousing emotions correlate with self-affecting unfairness, without influencing the rejection rate; there is a difference between pure unfairness and self-affecting unfairness also in terms of brain areas involved. • Do rejections correspond to punishment? • Are people inequity averse, or are they rejecting only disadvantageous inequity? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Hypothesis http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Hypothesis • If behavior in the UG is driven by cognitive factors that implement an abstract rule of equal splitting, then the default rule of equal splitting applies. This rule applies to every situation (both MS and TP) http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Hypothesis • If behavior in the UG is driven by cognitive factors that implement an abstract rule of equal splitting, then the default rule of equal splitting applies. This rule applies to every situation (both MS and TP) • If this rule applies when intentions are relevant, then it should not apply when rejections are not intended to punish. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 1 - Third party UG with External Proposer http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 1 - Third party UG with External Proposer P http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai 2:8? P (person): decides how to split the money between A and B but he’s not affected by B’s decision. Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 1 - Third party UG with External Proposer P B: decides whether to accept or reject P’s offers, affecting A’s gain. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai B (participant) 2:8? Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 P (person): decides how to split the money between A and B but he’s not affected by B’s decision. A A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by B’s decisions Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 1 - Third party UG with External Proposer P B: decides whether to accept or reject P’s offers, affecting A’s gain. B (participant) B decides whether to accept or reject P’s offers on behalf of B’, affecting A’ ’s gain. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai B’ 2:8? Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 P (person): decides how to split the money between A and B but he’s not affected by B’s decision. A A’ A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by B’s decisions A’: decides nothing, but he’s affected by B’s decisions Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Significant main effect of Target (TP > MS), and interaction Target*Gain. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Significant main effect of Target (TP > MS), and interaction Target*Gain. TP: difference between B’ disadvantageous and advantageous offers http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 2 - UG with Allocators’ manipulation http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 2 - UG with Allocators’ manipulation P http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai 2:8? P (person) Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 2 - UG with Allocators’ manipulation P B: decides whether to accept or reject P’s offers, affecting A’s gain. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai B (participant) 2:8? Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 P (person) A A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by B’s decisions Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 2 - UG with Allocators’ manipulation P B: decides whether to accept or reject P’s offers, affecting A’s gain. B (participant) 2:8? Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 RNG 2:8? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai P (person) A A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by B’s decisions RGN (random number generator) Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 2 - UG with Allocators’ manipulation P B: decides whether to accept or reject P’s offers, affecting A’s gain. B (participant) 2:8? Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 RNG 2:8? B: decides whether to accept or reject C’s divisions, affecting A’s gain. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai B (participant) Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 P (person) A A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by B’s decisions RGN (random number generator) A A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by B’s decisions Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Significant main effect of Gain. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Significant main effect of Gain. No effect of Allocator. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 3 - Third party UG with Random Number Generator’s Allocation http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 3 - Third party UG with Random Number Generator’s Allocation RNG 2:8? http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai RGN: random number generator that splits the money between A and B, and D and E. Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 3 - Third party UG with Random Number Generator’s Allocation RNG 2:8? B: decides whether to accept or reject C’s offers, affecting A’s gain. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai B (participant) Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 RGN: random number generator that splits the money between A and B, and D and E. A A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by participant’s decisions Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Exp. 3 - Third party UG with Random Number Generator’s Allocation RNG 2:8? B: decides whether to accept or reject C’s offers, affecting A’s gain. B (participant) D http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai RGN: random number generator that splits the money between A and B, and D and E. Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 A Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 E A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by participant’s decisions Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules Significant main effect of Target, main effect of Gain, and interaction Target*Gain. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2013) Acta Psychologica The role of abstract rules http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Negative Reciprocity http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Negative Reciprocity • Responders rejected offers even if it did not mean to punish unfair behavior. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Negative Reciprocity • Responders rejected offers even if it did not mean to punish unfair behavior. • The desire to refuse general inequity, beyond punishment of bad intentions, exists and drives behavior under certain conditions. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Negative Reciprocity • Responders rejected offers even if it did not mean to punish unfair behavior. • The desire to refuse general inequity, beyond punishment of bad intentions, exists and drives behavior under certain conditions. Inequity aversion and self-involvement http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Negative Reciprocity • Responders rejected offers even if it did not mean to punish unfair behavior. • The desire to refuse general inequity, beyond punishment of bad intentions, exists and drives behavior under certain conditions. Inequity aversion and self-involvement • People seem to care about inequity that exists among other people, reflecting a preference for equal outcomes. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The role of abstract rules Negative Reciprocity • Responders rejected offers even if it did not mean to punish unfair behavior. • The desire to refuse general inequity, beyond punishment of bad intentions, exists and drives behavior under certain conditions. Inequity aversion and self-involvement • People seem to care about inequity that exists among other people, reflecting a preference for equal outcomes. • Equity concerns turn into more selfish self-advantage considerations when participants’ own payoff (or the payoff of close-others -exp1-) is at stake. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis RNG 2:8? B: decides whether to accept or reject C’s offers, affecting A’s gain. B (participant) D http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai RGN: random number generator that splits the money between A and B, and D and E. Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 A Yes- 2:8 No- 0:0 E A: decides nothing, but he’s affected by participant’s decisions Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis Anterior Insula: inequity sensitivity http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis Anterior Insula: inequity sensitivity http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis Medial Prefrontal Cortex: disadvantageous offers sensitivity http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Inequity aversion as an abstract rule: neural basis Medial Prefrontal Cortex: disadvantageous offers sensitivity http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Civai et al. (2012) NeuroImage Open questions and answers http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open questions and answers • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? They are rejecting unfairness. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open questions and answers • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? They are rejecting unfairness. • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? Higher arousing emotions correlate with self-affecting unfairness, without influencing the rejection rate; there is a difference between pure unfairness and self-affecting unfairness also in terms of brain areas involved. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open questions and answers • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? They are rejecting unfairness. • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? Higher arousing emotions correlate with self-affecting unfairness, without influencing the rejection rate; there is a difference between pure unfairness and self-affecting unfairness also in terms of brain areas involved. • Do rejections correspond to punishment? No, they don’t. People reject an unequal division, even if at a lower rate, also when this does not depend on an unfair/bad intention. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Open questions and answers • Are people rejecting pure unfairness or self-directed unfairness? They are rejecting unfairness. • Are emotions correlated with pure unfairness or with self-directed unfairness? Higher arousing emotions correlate with self-affecting unfairness, without influencing the rejection rate; there is a difference between pure unfairness and self-affecting unfairness also in terms of brain areas involved. • Do rejections correspond to punishment? No, they don’t. People reject an unequal division, even if at a lower rate, also when this does not depend on an unfair/bad intention. • Are people inequity averse, or are they rejecting only disadvantageous inequity? People reject advantageous inequity at a significant lower rate with respect to disadvantageous inequity. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Inequity aversion as a default norm http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Inequity aversion as a default norm • Behavior is guided by knowledge of norms, which get triggered depending on which cues are salient in a context. Our preferences regarding monetary utility vary with our sensitivity to the contingent contextual cues (Bicchieri, 2006). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Inequity aversion as a default norm • Behavior is guided by knowledge of norms, which get triggered depending on which cues are salient in a context. Our preferences regarding monetary utility vary with our sensitivity to the contingent contextual cues (Bicchieri, 2006). • Inequity aversion can be thought as the default norm, which can be perturbed by salient contextual cues that shift the preference. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Salient contextual cues http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Salient contextual cues Intentions and Negative Reciprocity http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Salient contextual cues Intentions and Negative Reciprocity • The present results suggest that intentions can be considered a salient contextual cue, given that rejections are not necessarily an act of negative reciprocity. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Salient contextual cues Intentions and Negative Reciprocity • The present results suggest that intentions can be considered a salient contextual cue, given that rejections are not necessarily an act of negative reciprocity. Self - involvement http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Salient contextual cues Intentions and Negative Reciprocity • The present results suggest that intentions can be considered a salient contextual cue, given that rejections are not necessarily an act of negative reciprocity. Self - involvement • When their interest is at stake, participants accept advantageous inequity. Self-involvement has to be considered a salient contextual cue, like, for instance, the right of being the winner (Camerer & Thaler, 1999). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Salient contextual cues Intentions and Negative Reciprocity • The present results suggest that intentions can be considered a salient contextual cue, given that rejections are not necessarily an act of negative reciprocity. Self - involvement • When their interest is at stake, participants accept advantageous inequity. Self-involvement has to be considered a salient contextual cue, like, for instance, the right of being the winner (Camerer & Thaler, 1999). • Self-involvement may also be accounted for the emotional arousal. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The contribution of Neuroscience: the role of the AI http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The contribution of Neuroscience: the role of the AI • AI plays a role in many different tasks (Craig, 2009, review). The findings show that AI’s activation reflects deviation from the expected outcome. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The contribution of Neuroscience: the role of the AI • AI plays a role in many different tasks (Craig, 2009, review). The findings show that AI’s activation reflects deviation from the expected outcome. • We proposed that AI signals a deviation from fairness/equity considered to be a deviation from an expected outcome. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The contribution of Neuroscience: the role of the AI • AI plays a role in many different tasks (Craig, 2009, review). The findings show that AI’s activation reflects deviation from the expected outcome. • We proposed that AI signals a deviation from fairness/equity considered to be a deviation from an expected outcome. • AI could either signal the deviation from a desired outcome (personal norm) or a deviation from the expected outcome (social norm). http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai The contribution of Neuroscience: the role of the AI • AI plays a role in many different tasks (Craig, 2009, review). The findings show that AI’s activation reflects deviation from the expected outcome. • We proposed that AI signals a deviation from fairness/equity considered to be a deviation from an expected outcome. • AI could either signal the deviation from a desired outcome (personal norm) or a deviation from the expected outcome (social norm). • Further work is needed in order to disentangle between these two options: test AI’s activation when modifying people’s expectation in the UG. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Conclusions http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Conclusions http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Conclusions People follow inequity aversion as a general norm, and its violation is signaled in the brain as the deviation from the expected outcome. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai Conclusions People follow inequity aversion as a general norm, and its violation is signaled in the brain as the deviation from the expected outcome. There are contextual salient cues which can perturb the default mode. E.g. self-involvement is a contextual salient cue that shift inequity aversion in favor of the self-advantageous inequity. Emotions are involved in this process. http://umn.academia.edu/ClaudiaCivai THANK YOU