↓ Skip to main content

Gut feelings and the reaction to perceived inequity: The interplay between bodily responses, regulation, and perception shapes the rejection of unfair offers on the ultimatum game

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
Title
Gut feelings and the reaction to perceived inequity: The interplay between bodily responses, regulation, and perception shapes the rejection of unfair offers on the ultimatum game
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2012
DOI 10.3758/s13415-012-0092-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barnaby D. Dunn, Davy Evans, Dasha Makarova, Josh White, Luke Clark

Abstract

It has been robustly demonstrated using the ultimatum game (UG) that individuals frequently reject unfair financial offers even if this results in a personal cost. One influential hypothesis for these rejections is that they reflect an emotional reaction to unfairness that overrides purely economic decision processes. In the present study, we examined whether the interplay between bodily responses, bodily regulation, and bodily perception ("interoception") contributes to emotionally driven rejection behavior on the UG. Offering support for bodily feedback theories, interoceptive accuracy moderated the relationship between changes in electrodermal activity to proposals and the behavioral rejection of such offers. Larger electrodermal responses to rejected relative to accepted offers predicted greater rejection in those with accurate interoception but were unrelated to rejection in those with poor interoception. Although cardiovascular responses during the offer period were unrelated to rejection rates, greater resting heart rate variability (linked to trait emotion regulation capacity) predicted reduced rejection rates of offers. These findings help clarify individual differences in reactions to perceived unfairness, support previous emotion regulation deficit accounts of rejection behavior, and suggest that the perception and regulation of bodily based emotional biasing signals ("gut feelings") partly shape financial decision making on the UG.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Unknown 221 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 22%
Student > Master 34 15%
Student > Bachelor 32 14%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 37 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 119 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 6%
Neuroscience 13 6%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 45 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,740,062
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#425
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,157
of 167,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 167,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.