Egocentric fairness perception: emotional reactions and individual differences in overt responses
Extensive research documents the existence of egocentric biases in the perception and application of justice norms. The origin of these biases remains poorly understood. We investigated both inter- and intra-individual differences in egocentric justice biases. Participants played an ultimatum game p...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2014-02, Vol.9 (2), p.e88432-e88432 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e88432 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | e88432 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Bediou, Benoit Scherer, Klaus R |
| description | Extensive research documents the existence of egocentric biases in the perception and application of justice norms. The origin of these biases remains poorly understood. We investigated both inter- and intra-individual differences in egocentric justice biases. Participants played an ultimatum game presumably with different anonymous players (simulated by a computer) in which they contributed differentially to the joint production of the initial endowment. We examined how contributions (low vs. high) affect proposers' offers and responders' acceptance decisions, as well as their fairness judgments and their emotional reactions to different types of offers (equal, equitable, unfair, and hyperfair). An egocentric bias in proposers' offers (indicating more flexible preferences) was found only in individualists and not in prosocials, suggesting differences in the motivations (or cognitions) underlying their choice of justice norms. Responders also showed egocentric biases in their judgments of fairness and in their emotional reactions to equal and equitable offers, but not in their acceptance decisions. Such dissociation might suggest that some form of emotion regulation occurred. Responders may evaluate offers on valence dimensions (e.g., goal conduciveness/outcome favorability and norm compatibility/justice) that are multiply interacting and potentially conflicting. The individual's acceptance/rejection decision reflects the relative weight attributed to competing appraisals. For this overt behavioral decision, the (personal) appraisal of outcome favorability that drives (analytical) acceptance of goal-conducive outcome seems to be stronger than the (social) appraisal of outcome fairness, which may trigger covert (emotional) rejection of offers that are incompatible with justice norms. Our data show that the emotional reaction patterns provide a more fine-grained readout of the overall evaluation of the proposer's action, the underlying emotional dynamics of which may, in real life, strongly determine future interactions with specific partners. Further research on the relationship between emotion and behavior in economic games is needed to explore potential dissociations and long-term effects. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0088432 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1503271781</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A478787922</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_63abdfa8ca454047821afccd4db31cdf</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A478787922</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-bd114ab830b4d46e100c2d0ef3183342d3f550bee4dfd0fb16fd9ab4fc8ac9403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk0uL2zAQx01p6T7ab1BaQ2FpD0n1smP3UFiWbRtYWOjrKsbSKFFwpKxkh_bbV0m8S1z2UHTQMPrNX5rRTJa9omRK-Yx-WPk-OGinG-9wSkhVCc6eZKe05mxSMsKfHtkn2VmMK0IKXpXl8-yEiaIqOStPM7heeIWuC1blBmxwGGO-waBw01nvPua49jsD2jwgqJ0Zc3A6t07brdV9OtDWGAzoFMbkzv0WQ5fomF4WMb7InhloI74c9vPs5-frH1dfJze3X-ZXlzcTVdasmzSaUgFNxUkjtCiREqKYJmg4rTgXTHNTFKRBFNpoYhpaGl1DI4yqQNWC8PPszUF30_ooh-pESQvC2YzOKpqI-YHQHlZyE-wawh_pwcq9w4eFhNBZ1aIsOTTaQKVAFIKIWcUoGKW00A2nSpuk9Wm4rW_WqPclhHYkOj5xdikXfit5zSvBiiTwbhAI_q7H2Mm1jQrbFhz6fv9uQYtZUfOEvv0HfTy7gVpASsA649O9aicqL1MCadWMJWr6CJWWxrVVqZWMTf5RwPtRQGI6_N0toI9Rzr9_-3_29teYvThilwhtt4y-7fcdNgbFAVTBxxjQPBSZErmbhPtqyN0kyGESUtjr4w96CLpvff4Xzu0GYg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1503271781</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Egocentric fairness perception: emotional reactions and individual differences in overt responses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Bediou, Benoit ; Scherer, Klaus R</creator><contributor>Bastian, Brock</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bediou, Benoit ; Scherer, Klaus R ; Bastian, Brock</creatorcontrib><description>Extensive research documents the existence of egocentric biases in the perception and application of justice norms. The origin of these biases remains poorly understood. We investigated both inter- and intra-individual differences in egocentric justice biases. Participants played an ultimatum game presumably with different anonymous players (simulated by a computer) in which they contributed differentially to the joint production of the initial endowment. We examined how contributions (low vs. high) affect proposers' offers and responders' acceptance decisions, as well as their fairness judgments and their emotional reactions to different types of offers (equal, equitable, unfair, and hyperfair). An egocentric bias in proposers' offers (indicating more flexible preferences) was found only in individualists and not in prosocials, suggesting differences in the motivations (or cognitions) underlying their choice of justice norms. Responders also showed egocentric biases in their judgments of fairness and in their emotional reactions to equal and equitable offers, but not in their acceptance decisions. Such dissociation might suggest that some form of emotion regulation occurred. Responders may evaluate offers on valence dimensions (e.g., goal conduciveness/outcome favorability and norm compatibility/justice) that are multiply interacting and potentially conflicting. The individual's acceptance/rejection decision reflects the relative weight attributed to competing appraisals. For this overt behavioral decision, the (personal) appraisal of outcome favorability that drives (analytical) acceptance of goal-conducive outcome seems to be stronger than the (social) appraisal of outcome fairness, which may trigger covert (emotional) rejection of offers that are incompatible with justice norms. Our data show that the emotional reaction patterns provide a more fine-grained readout of the overall evaluation of the proposer's action, the underlying emotional dynamics of which may, in real life, strongly determine future interactions with specific partners. Further research on the relationship between emotion and behavior in economic games is needed to explore potential dissociations and long-term effects.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088432</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24586326</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Algorithms ; Appraisals ; Behavior ; Computer simulation ; Cooperation ; Data processing ; Decision analysis ; Decision making ; Decision Making - physiology ; Decisions ; Dissociation ; Emotions ; Endowment ; Endowments ; Equality ; Equity ; Female ; Game theory ; Games ; Humans ; Individuality ; Judgments ; Long-term effects ; Male ; Medicine ; Norms ; Perception ; Perception - physiology ; Perceptions ; Principles ; Privacy ; Rejection ; Social and Behavioral Sciences ; Social Behavior ; Social Justice ; Social psychology ; Studies ; Theory ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2014-02, Vol.9 (2), p.e88432-e88432</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2014 Bediou, Scherer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2014 Bediou, Scherer 2014 Bediou, Scherer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-bd114ab830b4d46e100c2d0ef3183342d3f550bee4dfd0fb16fd9ab4fc8ac9403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-bd114ab830b4d46e100c2d0ef3183342d3f550bee4dfd0fb16fd9ab4fc8ac9403</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938425/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938425/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24586326$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Bastian, Brock</contributor><creatorcontrib>Bediou, Benoit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherer, Klaus R</creatorcontrib><title>Egocentric fairness perception: emotional reactions and individual differences in overt responses</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Extensive research documents the existence of egocentric biases in the perception and application of justice norms. The origin of these biases remains poorly understood. We investigated both inter- and intra-individual differences in egocentric justice biases. Participants played an ultimatum game presumably with different anonymous players (simulated by a computer) in which they contributed differentially to the joint production of the initial endowment. We examined how contributions (low vs. high) affect proposers' offers and responders' acceptance decisions, as well as their fairness judgments and their emotional reactions to different types of offers (equal, equitable, unfair, and hyperfair). An egocentric bias in proposers' offers (indicating more flexible preferences) was found only in individualists and not in prosocials, suggesting differences in the motivations (or cognitions) underlying their choice of justice norms. Responders also showed egocentric biases in their judgments of fairness and in their emotional reactions to equal and equitable offers, but not in their acceptance decisions. Such dissociation might suggest that some form of emotion regulation occurred. Responders may evaluate offers on valence dimensions (e.g., goal conduciveness/outcome favorability and norm compatibility/justice) that are multiply interacting and potentially conflicting. The individual's acceptance/rejection decision reflects the relative weight attributed to competing appraisals. For this overt behavioral decision, the (personal) appraisal of outcome favorability that drives (analytical) acceptance of goal-conducive outcome seems to be stronger than the (social) appraisal of outcome fairness, which may trigger covert (emotional) rejection of offers that are incompatible with justice norms. Our data show that the emotional reaction patterns provide a more fine-grained readout of the overall evaluation of the proposer's action, the underlying emotional dynamics of which may, in real life, strongly determine future interactions with specific partners. Further research on the relationship between emotion and behavior in economic games is needed to explore potential dissociations and long-term effects.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Appraisals</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision Making - physiology</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>Dissociation</subject><subject>Emotions</subject><subject>Endowment</subject><subject>Endowments</subject><subject>Equality</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Game theory</subject><subject>Games</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Individuality</subject><subject>Judgments</subject><subject>Long-term effects</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Norms</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Perception - physiology</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Principles</subject><subject>Privacy</subject><subject>Rejection</subject><subject>Social and Behavioral Sciences</subject><subject>Social Behavior</subject><subject>Social Justice</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Theory</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk0uL2zAQx01p6T7ab1BaQ2FpD0n1smP3UFiWbRtYWOjrKsbSKFFwpKxkh_bbV0m8S1z2UHTQMPrNX5rRTJa9omRK-Yx-WPk-OGinG-9wSkhVCc6eZKe05mxSMsKfHtkn2VmMK0IKXpXl8-yEiaIqOStPM7heeIWuC1blBmxwGGO-waBw01nvPua49jsD2jwgqJ0Zc3A6t07brdV9OtDWGAzoFMbkzv0WQ5fomF4WMb7InhloI74c9vPs5-frH1dfJze3X-ZXlzcTVdasmzSaUgFNxUkjtCiREqKYJmg4rTgXTHNTFKRBFNpoYhpaGl1DI4yqQNWC8PPszUF30_ooh-pESQvC2YzOKpqI-YHQHlZyE-wawh_pwcq9w4eFhNBZ1aIsOTTaQKVAFIKIWcUoGKW00A2nSpuk9Wm4rW_WqPclhHYkOj5xdikXfit5zSvBiiTwbhAI_q7H2Mm1jQrbFhz6fv9uQYtZUfOEvv0HfTy7gVpASsA649O9aicqL1MCadWMJWr6CJWWxrVVqZWMTf5RwPtRQGI6_N0toI9Rzr9_-3_29teYvThilwhtt4y-7fcdNgbFAVTBxxjQPBSZErmbhPtqyN0kyGESUtjr4w96CLpvff4Xzu0GYg</recordid><startdate>20140228</startdate><enddate>20140228</enddate><creator>Bediou, Benoit</creator><creator>Scherer, Klaus R</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140228</creationdate><title>Egocentric fairness perception: emotional reactions and individual differences in overt responses</title><author>Bediou, Benoit ; Scherer, Klaus R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-bd114ab830b4d46e100c2d0ef3183342d3f550bee4dfd0fb16fd9ab4fc8ac9403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Appraisals</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision Making - physiology</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>Dissociation</topic><topic>Emotions</topic><topic>Endowment</topic><topic>Endowments</topic><topic>Equality</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Game theory</topic><topic>Games</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Individuality</topic><topic>Judgments</topic><topic>Long-term effects</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Norms</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Perception - physiology</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Principles</topic><topic>Privacy</topic><topic>Rejection</topic><topic>Social and Behavioral Sciences</topic><topic>Social Behavior</topic><topic>Social Justice</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Theory</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bediou, Benoit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherer, Klaus R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bediou, Benoit</au><au>Scherer, Klaus R</au><au>Bastian, Brock</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Egocentric fairness perception: emotional reactions and individual differences in overt responses</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2014-02-28</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e88432</spage><epage>e88432</epage><pages>e88432-e88432</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Extensive research documents the existence of egocentric biases in the perception and application of justice norms. The origin of these biases remains poorly understood. We investigated both inter- and intra-individual differences in egocentric justice biases. Participants played an ultimatum game presumably with different anonymous players (simulated by a computer) in which they contributed differentially to the joint production of the initial endowment. We examined how contributions (low vs. high) affect proposers' offers and responders' acceptance decisions, as well as their fairness judgments and their emotional reactions to different types of offers (equal, equitable, unfair, and hyperfair). An egocentric bias in proposers' offers (indicating more flexible preferences) was found only in individualists and not in prosocials, suggesting differences in the motivations (or cognitions) underlying their choice of justice norms. Responders also showed egocentric biases in their judgments of fairness and in their emotional reactions to equal and equitable offers, but not in their acceptance decisions. Such dissociation might suggest that some form of emotion regulation occurred. Responders may evaluate offers on valence dimensions (e.g., goal conduciveness/outcome favorability and norm compatibility/justice) that are multiply interacting and potentially conflicting. The individual's acceptance/rejection decision reflects the relative weight attributed to competing appraisals. For this overt behavioral decision, the (personal) appraisal of outcome favorability that drives (analytical) acceptance of goal-conducive outcome seems to be stronger than the (social) appraisal of outcome fairness, which may trigger covert (emotional) rejection of offers that are incompatible with justice norms. Our data show that the emotional reaction patterns provide a more fine-grained readout of the overall evaluation of the proposer's action, the underlying emotional dynamics of which may, in real life, strongly determine future interactions with specific partners. Further research on the relationship between emotion and behavior in economic games is needed to explore potential dissociations and long-term effects.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>24586326</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0088432</doi><tpages>e88432</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2014-02, Vol.9 (2), p.e88432-e88432 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1503271781 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Algorithms Appraisals Behavior Computer simulation Cooperation Data processing Decision analysis Decision making Decision Making - physiology Decisions Dissociation Emotions Endowment Endowments Equality Equity Female Game theory Games Humans Individuality Judgments Long-term effects Male Medicine Norms Perception Perception - physiology Perceptions Principles Privacy Rejection Social and Behavioral Sciences Social Behavior Social Justice Social psychology Studies Theory Young Adult |
| title | Egocentric fairness perception: emotional reactions and individual differences in overt responses |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T14%3A54%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Egocentric%20fairness%20perception:%20emotional%20reactions%20and%20individual%20differences%20in%20overt%20responses&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Bediou,%20Benoit&rft.date=2014-02-28&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e88432&rft.epage=e88432&rft.pages=e88432-e88432&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088432&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA478787922%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1503271781&rft_id=info:pmid/24586326&rft_galeid=A478787922&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_63abdfa8ca454047821afccd4db31cdf&rfr_iscdi=true |