Abstract:Altruistic intentions reduced the people's unfairness aversion. Responses to ambiguous intentions revealed clear individual differences. ERP activity similarities in the 432–592 ms and response time of decision‐making similarities correlated significantly. In an ultimatum game, the responder must decide between pursuing self‐interest and insisting on fairness, and these choices are affected by the intentions of the proposer. However, the time course of this social decision‐making process is unclear. Representational similarity analysis (RSA) is a useful technique for linking brain activity with rich behavioral data sets. In this study, electroencephalography (EEG) was used to measure the time course of neural responses to proposed allocation schemes with different intentions. Twenty‐eight participants played an ultimatum game as responders. They had to choose between accepting and rejecting the fair or unfair money allocation schemes of proposers. The schemes were offered based on the proposer's selfish intention (monetary gain), altruistic intention (donation to charity), or ambiguous intention (unknown to the responder). We used a spatiotemporal RSA and inter‐subject RSA (IS‐RSA) to explore the connections between event‐related potentials (ERPs) after offer presentation and intention presentation with four types of behavioral data (acceptance, response time, fairness ratings, and pleasantness ratings). The spatiotemporal RSA results revealed that only response time variation was linked with the difference in ERPs at 432–592 ms after offer presentation on the posterior parietal and prefrontal regions. Meanwhile, the IS‐RSA results found a significant association between inter‐individual differences in response time and differences in ERP activity at 596–812 ms after the presentation of ambiguous intention, particularly in the prefrontal region. This study expands the intention‐based reciprocal model to the third‐party context and demonstrates that brain activity can represent response time differences in social decision‐making.

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

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

Effects of Empathy on the Evolutionary Dynamics of Fairness in Group-Structured Systems.

You Did Not Mean It: Perceived Good Intentions Alleviate Sense of Unfairness

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

The Sweet Side of Inequality: How Advantageous Status Modulates Empathic Response to Others' Gains and Losses.

Empathic Responses to Others’ Gains and Losses: an Electrophysiological Investigation

Proposer's moral identity modulates fairness processing in the ultimatum game: Evidence from behavior and brain potentials

Social comparisons differentially affect fair and unfair processing in ultimatum bargaining

Neural Responses to Unfairness and Fairness Depend on Self-Contribution to the Income.

Intention affects fairness processing: Evidence from behavior and representational similarity analysis of event‐related potential signals

Effects of empathy on the evolution of fairness in group-structured populations

Proposers' Economic Status Affects Behavioral and Neural Responses to Unfairness

Neural Responses to Perceived Pain in Others Predict Real-Life Monetary Donations in Different Socioeconomic Contexts

Perceived Reputation of Others Modulates Empathic Neural Responses

Empathy-based tolerance towards poor norm violators in third-party punishment

Social Support Modulates Neural Responses to Unfairness in the Ultimatum Game.

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

Modulating Activity in the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Changes Punishment in the 3-Player Prisoner’s Dilemma: A Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Study

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

Increased Neural Responses to Unfairness in a Loss Context