↓ Skip to main content

Social exclusion modulates fairness consideration in the ultimatum game: an ERP study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Social exclusion modulates fairness consideration in the ultimatum game: an ERP study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen Qu, Yuru Wang, Yunyun Huang

Abstract

Previous neuroimaging research has identified brain regions activated when people's fairness consideration changes under conditions of social exclusion. The current study used EEG data to examine the temporal process of changes in fairness consideration under social exclusion. In this study, a Cyberball game was administered to manipulate participants' social exclusion or inclusion. Then, in the following Ultimatum game (UG), participants' brain potentials were recorded while they received fair/unfair offers from someone who previously excluded them, someone who previously included them, or a stranger. Results showed that feedback-related negativity (FRN) after onset of distribution outcome was more pronounced for unfair offers compared to fair offers. Moreover, the FRN was more negative-going in response to unfair offers from people who previously excluded them than from the includer and the stranger. Fair offers elicited a larger P300 than unfair offers. In addition, P300 was more positive-going for unfair offers from the stranger than from the excluder and the includer. This study reveals a temporal process in which the effects of social exclusion on fair consideration are reflected in FRN in the early stage of outcome evaluation. These data also suggest that the FRN is modulated by the subjective evaluation of outcome events in a social context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Japan 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 113 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 32%
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 51%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Engineering 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 29 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,887,321
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,252
of 7,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,815
of 292,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#547
of 861 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 292,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 861 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.