Intrinsic dynamics and synaptic inputs control the activity patterns of subthalamic nucleus neurons in health and in Parkinson's disease

Charles J. Wilson,M. Bevan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.06.049

IF: 3.708

2011-12-15

Neuroscience

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Receivers' responses are integrated into costly third-party punishment in a way that interacts with the unfairness of allocations

Li Zheng,Yujian Zhou,Hui Ouyang,Jiajia Xie,Yang Lu,Xiuyan Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2024.111082

2024-10-15

Abstract:Costly third-party punishment (TPP) is an effective way to enforce fairness norms and promote cooperation. Recent studies have shown that the third party considers not only the proposer's suggested allocation but also the receiver's response to the allocation, which was typically ignored in traditional TPP studies when making punishment decisions. However, it remains unclear whether and how the varying unfair allocations and receivers' responses are integrated into third-party punishment. The current study addressed these issues at behavioral and electrophysiological levels by employing a modified third-party punishment task involving proposers' highly or moderately unfair allocations and the receivers' acceptance or rejection responses. At the behavioral level, participants punished proposers more often when receivers rejected relative to accepted unfair allocations. This effect was further modulated by the unfairness degree of allocations, indicated by a more pronounced rejection-sensitive effect when participants observed the moderately unfair offers. Electrophysiologically, when the receiver rejected the moderately unfair allocations, a stronger late-stage component P300/LPP, which was considered to be involved in allocations of attention resources, was found. Meanwhile, separated from the P300/LPP, the P200 associated with early attention capture demonstrated a rejection-sensitive effect. Together, in the costly TPP studies, the receiver is typically designated as passive and silent, and her/his responses to unfairness are conventionally ignored. However, our results indicate that except for the proposer's distribution behavior, the receiver's response does have an impact on third-party punishment in a way that interacts with the unfairness of allocations.
Group environment promotes the third-party punishment for maintaining social fairness: evidence from ERPs and neural oscillations

Yuan Gao,Lihong Ao,Lei Yang,Qian Wang,He Wang,XinYu Du,Yingjie Liu,Gao, Yuan,Ao, Lihong,Yang, Lei,Wang, Qian,Wang, He,Du, XinYu,Liu, Yingjie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05071-5

IF: 2.8

2023-08-16

Current Psychology

Abstract:Third-party punishment (TPP) has evolved as a vital mechanism for enforcing social fairness, to reduce tit-for-tat escalations among peers. Third parties intervene in conflicts between individuals both in private and in front of audiences and larger groups. To explore the influence of group environment on TPP and its neural mechanism and to investigate the moderating effect of gain and loss contexts on TPP, this study employed a modified third-party punishment task based on the dictator game (DG) and used the within-subject experimental design to collect the EEG data of 25 Chinese college students for analysis. Neural results showed that the group environment induced a larger P2 than the individual environment. In addition, when third parties observed dictators unfairly sharing losses with recipients, the presence of a group activated greater mid-frontal delta and theta band activation than environments where individuals acted alone. P2 can help to identify or reflect risk assessment to account for social and reputation assessments and future group benefits. Delta band activation is involved in the disgust response in moral decision-making, suggesting that the group environment affects the emotional factors involved in third-party punishment when viewing unfairly distributed losses. Mid-frontal theta band activation indicates altruistic motivation, and it is also activated more sharply in the loss context in the presence of a group, suggesting that there is a stronger neural signal to intervene when the group environment is potentially at issue. This study provides electrophysiological evidence from EEG of how group environments interact with norm violations to influence how individuals enact third-party punishment to maintain social fairness.

psychology, multidisciplinary
The Promoting Effect of the Absence of Second-party's Punishment Power on Third-party Punishment in Maintaining Social Fairness Norms: An EEG Hyper-scanning Study

Yingjie Liu,Yujia Meng,Shuyu Jia,Jingyue Liu,He Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120848

IF: 5.7

2024-09-13

NeuroImage

Abstract:Third-party punishment (TPP) plays an irreplaceable role in maintaining social fairness. Punishment power is a significant area of study within economic games. However, the impact of whether or not the second-party possesses punishment power on TPP remains unexplored. The present study utilizes the high temporal resolution of EEG and time-frequency analysis, intra-barin functional connectivity analysis, inter-brain synchronization (IBS) analysis, and granger causality analysis(GCA) to...

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,neurosciences,neuroimaging
Social hierarchies in third-party punishment: A behavioral and ERP study

Fang Cui,Chengyao Wang,Qiongwen Cao,Can Jiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107722

IF: 3.111

2019-09-01

Biological Psychology

Abstract:Third-party punishment refers to the punishment imposed by a party whose benefit is not directly affected by any norm violations. The present study using a modified Dictator Game explored how social statuses of the involved parties modulate punishment decisions of a third-party. Systematic manipulation of the dictators' and recipients' status revealed that: higher recipient status correlated with more severe punishment, but no effect of the dictator's. We further focused on the neural underlying of this effect using ERPs. An interaction of recipient's status × fairness was observed on MFN such that only for a high-status recipient, larger amplitude was triggered by unfair offers comparing to fair offers. On LPC, the largest amplitude was observed when the offer was fair and the recipient had medium-status. These findings suggested: participants consider unfair offers proposed to high-status recipients as more norm-violating and they may evaluate the offers from the perspective of the recipient.

psychology,behavioral sciences, biological, experimental
Electrophysiological correlates of third-party punishment: ERP study

O. Zinchenko,A. Gorin,A. Revazyan,V. Klucharev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2023.137276

IF: 3.197

2023-04-28

Neuroscience Letters

Abstract:Human societies benefit from social norms that increase cooperation and support social order. Hence, the understanding of effective mechanisms enforcing norms is crucial. One of such mechanisms is "third-party punishment" (TPP) – a form of social punishment that could be delivered by a third-party, not directly affected by the actions of the norm violator. Previous electrophysiological studies (ERP) reported that perceived violations of norms evoked the medial frontal negativity in third-parties. The current study further probed the link between the medial frontal negativity (MFN) and actual TPP of norm violation, as it was not shown directly before. Participants played a dictator game as third-parties, being able to select different levels of punishment of an unfair violator's decisions. We replicated previous findings and showed the amplitude of the MFN correlated with the intensity of TPP (Fz, r = -0.516, p = 0.034, FCz, r = -0.509; p = 0.037). Overall, our findings further support the direct link between the MFN and the intensity of TPP.

neurosciences
Neural Correlates of Proposers’ Fairness Perception in Punishment and Non-Punishment Economic Games

Mingliang Chen,Xiaolei Zhu,Jing Zhang,Ganping Ma,Yuanhong Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0129-3

IF: 2.8

2019-01-01

Current Psychology

Abstract:In economic games, people acting as responders always hope to be treated fairly; otherwise they may punish proposers even sacrificing own monetary gains. However, people often treat others unequally when they become proposers, especially in the absence of punishment mechanisms. Will people lose fairness perception when they become proposers? Previous researches mainly focused on the fairness perception of responders, few paid attentions to that of proposers. In present study, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to record the neural activities of participants acting as proposers in the ultimatum game and the dictator game, corresponding to punishment condition and non-punishment condition respectively. In each trial, a participant could choose an offer from three categories: absolutely unfair, relatively unfair and fair. Behavioral results indicate that the proposers would choose more highly unfair offers that are beneficial to themselves in a non-punishment condition than in a punishment condition. However, no matter whether there was punishment mechanism, more highly unfair offers elicited larger MFN. This finding may reflect the existence of the proposers’ unfairness aversion and guilty feeling triggered by intentional violations of social fairness norm and shows that the proposers do not give up the fairness norm in the cockles of the heart even in a non-punishment environment.
Poverty and the spread of bloodborne disease in central China.

J. Tucker,Charles C. Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/500475

2006-03-15

Abstract:
Punishment cost affects third-parties' behavioral and neural responses to unfairness

Xuemei Cheng,Li Zheng,Zhiyuan Liu,Xiaoli Ling,Xiaoyan Wang,Hui Ouyang,Xiaorong Chen,Dunhua Huang,Xiuyan Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.04.003

2022-01-01

Abstract:Third-party punishment plays a crucial role in fairness norm enforcement. The present study investigated how punishment cost would affect third-parties' behavioral and neural responses to unfairness using a modified Third-Party Dictator Game and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants acted as third-parties and decided how many monetary units (MUs) to invest to punish norm violations in two punishment cost contexts. Participants' every MU investment reduced dictators' payoff by 6 MUs in the low punishment cost context and 3 MUs in the high one. Participants' invested MUs reflected the cost they would like to pay to punish dictators while dictators' reduced MUs represented the amount of punishment they received. Behavioral results showed participants' fairness ratings were not affected by punishment cost. However, punishment amount decreased in the high punishment cost context where participants invested more MUs and spent more time for decision-making. Neurally, left anterior insula (AI) and bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) showed stronger responses to unfair relative to fair allocations in both contexts. Moreover, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) was more active during unfair allocations in the high punishment cost context than in the low one and the difference of dACC activity between these two conditions was positively correlated with the difference of re-action times. Overall, the present study demonstrated that punishment cost would not affect people's fairness perception but increase the conflicts between norm enforcement and self-interest. The decision for punishment was the outcome of integrating fairness and economic considerations.
Power to Punish Norm Violations Affects the Neural Processes of Fairness-Related Decision Making

Xuemei Cheng,Li Zheng,Lin Li,Xiuyan Guo,Qianfeng Wang,Anton Lord,Zhengxi Hu,Guang Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00344

IF: 3.617

2015-01-01

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract:Punishing norm violations is considered an important motive during rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game (UG). The present study investigates the impact of the power to punish norm violations on people's responses to unfairness and associated neural correlates. In the UG condition participants had the power to punish norm violations, while an alternate condition, the impunity game (IG), was presented where participants had no power to punish norm violations since rejection only reduced the responder's income to zero. Results showed that unfair offers were rejected more often in UG compared to IG. At the neural level, anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex were more active when participants received and rejected unfair offers in both UG and IG. Moreover, greater dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity was observed when participants rejected than accepted unfair offers in UG but not in IG. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation was higher in UG than IG when unfair offers were accepted as well as when rejecting unfair offers in IG as opposed to UG. Taken together, our results demonstrate that the power to punish norm violations affects not only people's behavioral responses to unfairness but also the neural correlates of the fairness-related social decision-making process.
How Intergroup Relation Moderates Group Bias in Third-Party Punishment

Rui Guo,Jianshu Ding,Zhen Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103055

IF: 1.8

2020-01-01

Acta Psychologica

Abstract:Two experiments were conducted to investigate how intergroup relation moderates group bias in Third-Party Punishment (TPP) of selfishness. Participants competed or cooperated with the other group and then performed a TPP task in which they could reduce an allocator's benefits after paying a low cost (paying 1/3 unit deducts 1 unit of the allocator in Experiment 1, n = 76) or a high cost (paying 1 unit deducts 1 unit of the allocator in Experiment 2, n = 81). The results supported the “mere-preference hypothesis” of group bias, showing that people were more likely to tolerate their ingroups while punishing outgroups more harshly. Furthermore, when the cost was low, competition increased people's punishment toward outgroups' selfishness but not toward ingroup members, thus enlarging the group bias. When the cost was high, however, this effect disappeared, indicating that people consider a “cost-to-impact ratio” when selectively enforcing the fairness norm in intergroup conflicts. Our findings suggest how intergroup relation and cost-benefit analysis interact together to influence the group bias in TPP, providing insights into mechanisms underlying the maintenance of fairness norms and decision-making in a group context.
An fMRI investigation of the intention-outcome interactions in second- and third-party punishment

Chunliang Feng,Qun Yang,Lydia Azem,Konstantina M. Atanasova,Ruolei Gu,Wenbo Luo,Morris Hoffman,Stefanie Lis,Frank Krueger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-021-00555-z

2021-09-17

Brain Imaging and Behavior

Abstract:Second-party punishment (SPP) and third-party punishment (TPP) are two basic forms of costly punishment that play an essential role in maintaining social orders. Despite scientific breakthroughs in understanding that costly punishment is driven by an integration of the wrongdoers' intention and the outcome of their actions, so far, few studies have compared the neurocognitive processes associated with the intention-outcome integration between SPP and TPP. Here, we combined economic exchange games measuring SPP and TPP with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to compare the neuropsychological architectures underlying the intention-outcome integration during one-shot interactions with anonymous partners across four types of norm violations (no norm, accidental, attempted, and intentional violations). Our behavioral findings showed that third-parties punished only attempted norm violations less frequently than second-parties. Our neuroimaging findings revealed higher activities in the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) for attempted norm violations during TPP relative to SPP; more activities in these regions with less punishment frequency; and enhancement of functional connectivity of the right TPJ with the right dlPFC and dorsomedial PFC. Our findings demonstrated specific psychological and neural mechanisms of intention-outcome interactions between SPP and TPP —helping to unravel the complex neurocognitive processes of costly punishment.

neuroimaging
Context Modulates Perceived Fairness in Altruistic Punishment: Neural Signatures from ERPs and EEG Oscillations

Lei Yang,Yuan Gao,Lihong Ao,He Wang,Shuhang Zhou,Yingjie Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-024-01039-1

IF: 4.275

2024-03-07

Brain Topography

Abstract:Social norms and altruistic punitive behaviours are both based on the integration of information from multiple contexts. Individual behavioural performance can be altered by loss and gain contexts, which produce different mental states and subjective perceptions. In this study, we used event-related potential and time-frequency techniques to examine performance on a third-party punishment task and to explore the neural mechanisms underlying context-dependent differences in punishment decisions. The results indicated that individuals were more likely to reject unfairness in the context of loss (vs. gain) and to increase punishment as unfairness increased. In contrast, fairness appeared to cause an early increase in cognitive control signal enhancement, as indicated by the P2 amplitude and theta oscillations, and a later increase in emotional and motivational salience during decision-making in gain vs. loss contexts, as indicated by the medial frontal negativity and beta oscillations. In summary, individuals were more willing to sanction violations of social norms in the loss context than in the gain context and rejecting unfair losses induced more equity-related cognitive conflict than accepting unfair gains, highlighting the importance of context (i.e., gain vs. loss) in equity-related social decision-making processes.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Punish the Perpetrator or Compensate the Victim? Gain vs. Loss Context Modulate Third-Party Altruistic Behaviors

Yingjie Liu,Lin Li,Li Zheng,Xiuyan Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02066

IF: 3.8

2017-11-28

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:Third-party punishment and third-party compensation are primary responses to observed norms violations. Previous studies mostly investigated these behaviors in gain rather than loss context, and few study made direct comparison between these two behaviors. We conducted three experiments to investigate third-party punishment and third-party compensation in the gain and loss context. Participants observed two persons playing Dictator Game to share an amount of gain or loss, and the proposer would propose unfair distribution sometimes. In Study 1A, participants should decide whether they wanted to punish proposer. In Study 1B, participants decided to compensate the recipient or to do nothing. This two experiments explored how gain and loss contexts might affect the willingness to altruistically punish a perpetrator, or to compensate a victim of unfairness. Results suggested that both third-party punishment and compensation were stronger in the loss context. Study 2 directly compare third-party punishment and third-party compensation in the both contexts, by allowing participants choosing between punishment, compensation and keeping. Participants chose compensation more often than punishment in the loss context, and chose more punishments in the gain context. Empathic concern partly explained between-context differences of altruistic compensation and punishment. Our findings provide insights on modulating effect of context on third-party altruistic decisions.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Punishing the privileged: Selfish offers from high-status allocators elicit greater punishment from third-party arbitrators

Bradley D. Mattan,Denise M. Barth,Alexandra Thompson,Oriel FeldmanHall,Jasmin Cloutier,Jennifer T. Kubota

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232369

IF: 3.7

2020-05-14

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Individuals high in socioeconomic status (SES) are often viewed as valuable members of society. However, the appeal of high-SES people exists in tension with our aversion to inequity. Little experimental work has directly examined how people rectify inequitable distributions between two individuals varying in SES. The objective of the present study was to examine how disinterested third parties adjudicate inequity in the context of concrete financial allocations between a selfish allocator and a recipient who was the victim of the allocator's selfish offer. Specifically, this study focused on whether knowing the SES of the victim or the allocator affected the participant's decisions to punish the selfish allocator. In two experiments (<em>N</em> = 999), participants completed a modified third-party Ultimatum Game in which they arbitrated inequitable exchanges between an allocator and a recipient. Although participants generally preferred to redistribute inequitable exchanges without punishing players who made unfair allocations, we observed an increased preference for punitive solutions as offers became increasingly selfish. This tendency was especially pronounced when the victim was low in SES or when the perpetrator was high in SES, suggesting a tendency to favor the disadvantaged even among participants reporting high subjective SES. Finally, punitive responses were especially likely when the context emphasized the allocator's privileged status rather than the recipient's underprivileged status. These findings inform our understanding of how SES biases retributive justice even in non-judicial contexts that minimize the salience of punishment.

multidisciplinary sciences
The sensitivity of third party punishment to the framing effect and its brain mechanism

Jiamiao Yang,Jie Liu,Ruolei Gu,Kexin Deng,Xiaoxuan Huang,Fang Cui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.11.426181

2021-01-11

Abstract:Abstract People as third-party observers, without direct self-interest, may punish norm violators to maintain social norms. However, third-party judgment and the follow-up punishment might be susceptible to the way we frame (i.e., verbally describe) a norm violation. We conducted a behavioral and a neuroimaging experiment to investigate the above phenomenon, which we call “third-party framing effect.” In these experiments, participants observed an anonymous player A decided whether to retain her/his economic benefit while exposing player B to a risk of physical pain (described as “harming others” in one condition and “not helping others” in the other condition), then they had a chance to punish player A at their own cost. Participants were more willing to execute third-party punishment under the harm frame compared to the help frame, manifesting as a framing effect. Self-reported moral outrage toward player A mediated the relationship between empathy toward player B and the framing effect size. Correspondingly, the insula (possibly related to empathy) and cerebellum (possibly related to anger) were activated more strongly under the harm frame than the help frame. Functional connectivity between these regions showed strongest weight when predicting the framing effect size. These findings shed light on the psychological and neural mechanisms of the third-party framing effect. Graphic abstract
Group membership and adolescents' third-party punishment: a moderated chain mediation model

Zhen Zhang,Menghui Li,Qiyun Liu,Chao Chen,Chunhui Qi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1251276

IF: 3.8

2023-12-12

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:Third-party punishment (TPP) reflects people's social preference for fairness norms and is fundamental to maintaining fairness norms on a large scale. Several empirical studies have shown that the offender's group membership impacts TPP, but the detailed mechanisms have yet to be fully elucidated. The current study used the third-party punishment game task to explore the relationship between group membership, perceived unfairness, anger, and adolescents' TPP. A total of 306 teenagers aged 12 to 15 were chosen as subjects through cluster sampling. The results showed that group membership (classmate vs. stranger) and gender can affect adolescents' TPP together, which manifests as adolescents enacting significantly harsher punishments on strangers than on classmates, especially for boys. Group membership indirectly affects TPP through the mediating effects of perceived unfairness, anger and through a chain mediation of perceived unfairness and anger. Moreover, gender positively moderate the relationship between group membership and perceived unfairness. Specifically, group membership significantly affects boys' perceived unfairness, but cannot predict girls' perceived unfairness. The above results can be used to guide adolescents toward appropriate justice concepts and moral awareness, thus enhancing TPP.

psychology, multidisciplinary
You Are Excusable! Neural Correlates of Economic Neediness on Empathic Concern and Fairness Perception.

Wang Ailian,Zhu Lian,Lyu Dong,Cai Danfeng,Ma Qingguo,Jin Jia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-021-00934-5

2021-01-01

Abstract:There is ample experimental evidence showing that the proposers' social role is related to individuals' fairness perception in the Ultimatum Game (UG). However, various social roles, e.g., degree of economic neediness, have different influences on fairness perception, yet it has not been well studied. In this study, we adapted the UG paradigm and recorded electroencephalography (EEG) to probe the neural signatures of whether and how the degree of neediness influences fairness perception. Behavioral results showed that responders are prone to accept unfair offers from proposers in need more than those who are not in need. At the brain level, MFN (medial frontal negativity) was more negative-going in response to unfair than fair offers for not-in-need proposers. In contrast, we found a reversed MFN difference response to unfair and fair offers for in-need proposers, showing a strongly pure altruistic phenomenon. Moreover, we found smaller P300 amplitude was induced in the proposer-in-need condition, compared with its counterpart, while a negative correlation between empathy rating and P300 amplitude in the proposer-in-need condition regardless of the offers' fairness. The current results indicate that the degree of neediness might reduce fairness perception by promoting the empathic concern toward the in-need proposers rather than decreasing the empathic concern for the not-in-need proposers.
Deliberate or Unintended: Intentions Modulate Empathic Responses to Others’ Economic Payoffs in Social Interactions

Qingguo Ma,Liang Meng,Qiang Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2016.1223746

2016-01-01

Social Neuroscience

Abstract:Previous studies examining empathy have revealed the neural substrates of how the physical pain of others is represented in the human brain. However, little is known about the empathic modulation of behavioral and neural responses to others' economic payoffs, especially in the social context. In the present study, we engaged participants in a revised Dictator Game as observers who observe the powerless players receiving varied offers proposed by the dominant players, establishing the link between empathy and fairness perception. Results showed that unfair division schemes elicited a more pronounced FRN than fair ones only if a human agent proposed the initial offer. In addition, observers sacrificed their own payments to adjust unfair proposals, especially when a human agent proposed the offer. Thus, results of the current study demonstrated that perceived intention modulates behavioral and neural responses to others' economic payoffs in social interactions.
Neural mechanisms of the mood effects on third-party responses to injustice after unfair experiences

Enhui Xie,Mengdie Liu,Jieqiong Liu,Xiaoxue Gao,Xianchun Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25874

2022-08-15

Abstract:Behavioral decision theory argues that humans can adjust their third-party responses (e.g., punishment and compensation) to injustice by integrating unfair experiences. Typically, the mood plays an important role in such a decision-making process. However, the underlying neurocognitive bases remain largely unclear. We first employ a modified third-party justice game in which an allocator split an amount of money between oneself and a receiver. The participants can reapportion the money as observers by choosing from the following three costly options: compensate the receiver, accept the current allocation, or punish the allocator. Then, a second-party pseudo interaction is conducted where participants receive more (i.e., advantageous unfair experience) or less (i.e., disadvantageous unfair experience) than others. Finally, participants perform the third-party justice game again after unfair experiences. Here, we use functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to measure participants' brain activities during third-party responses to injustice. We find participants compensate more to the receiver after advantageous unfair experience, which involved enhanced positive emotion, weakened sense of unfairness, and is linked with increased activity in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC). In contrast, participants punish more on the allocator after disadvantageous unfair experience, which might primarily stem from their negative emotional responses, strong sense of unfairness, and is associated with significantly decreased activity in the rDLPFC. Our results suggest that third-party compensation and punishment involved differential psychological and neural bases. Our findings highlight the crucial roles of second-party unfair experiences and the corresponding mood responses in third-party responses to unfairness, and unravel the intermediate neural architecture.
On the fragility of third-party punishment: The context effect of a dominated risky investment option

Changkuk Im,Jinkwon Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2022.101872

IF: 1.831

2022-06-01

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

Abstract:Experimental studies regularly show that third-party punishment (TPP) substantially exists in various settings. This study further investigates the robustness of TPP under an environment where context effects are involved. In our experiment, we offer a third party an additional but unattractive risky investment option. We find that, when the dominated investment option irrelevant to prosocial behavior is available, the demand for punishment decreases, whereas the demand for investment increases. These findings support our hypotheses that the seemingly unrelated and dominated investment option may work as a compromise and suggest the fragility of TPP in this setting.

economics

Intrinsic dynamics and synaptic inputs control the activity patterns of subthalamic nucleus neurons in health and in Parkinson's disease

Receivers' responses are integrated into costly third-party punishment in a way that interacts with the unfairness of allocations

Group environment promotes the third-party punishment for maintaining social fairness: evidence from ERPs and neural oscillations

The Promoting Effect of the Absence of Second-party's Punishment Power on Third-party Punishment in Maintaining Social Fairness Norms: An EEG Hyper-scanning Study

Social hierarchies in third-party punishment: A behavioral and ERP study

Electrophysiological correlates of third-party punishment: ERP study

Neural Correlates of Proposers’ Fairness Perception in Punishment and Non-Punishment Economic Games

Poverty and the spread of bloodborne disease in central China.

Punishment cost affects third-parties' behavioral and neural responses to unfairness

Power to Punish Norm Violations Affects the Neural Processes of Fairness-Related Decision Making

How Intergroup Relation Moderates Group Bias in Third-Party Punishment

An fMRI investigation of the intention-outcome interactions in second- and third-party punishment

Context Modulates Perceived Fairness in Altruistic Punishment: Neural Signatures from ERPs and EEG Oscillations

Punish the Perpetrator or Compensate the Victim? Gain vs. Loss Context Modulate Third-Party Altruistic Behaviors

Punishing the privileged: Selfish offers from high-status allocators elicit greater punishment from third-party arbitrators

The sensitivity of third party punishment to the framing effect and its brain mechanism

Group membership and adolescents' third-party punishment: a moderated chain mediation model

You Are Excusable! Neural Correlates of Economic Neediness on Empathic Concern and Fairness Perception.

Deliberate or Unintended: Intentions Modulate Empathic Responses to Others’ Economic Payoffs in Social Interactions

Neural mechanisms of the mood effects on third-party responses to injustice after unfair experiences

On the fragility of third-party punishment: The context effect of a dominated risky investment option