China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Good People / Moral Enhancement
Published in Jonathan Anomaly, Creating Future People, 2020
For a vivid illustration of how oxytocin affects moral behavior, consider the Ultimatum Game (see Appendix A for more details). One person (Proposer) is given $10 to split between himself and another person (Responder), and any split is permitted, provided the Responder agrees to it. If the Responder rejects the offer, no money is dispensed. Many Responders will reject a very low offer (say, $1) because they consider it unfair. When people are administered oxytocin before the experiment, they tend to make more generous offers when they’re in the position of Proposer (Zak et al., 2007), and when their serotonin levels are artificially lowered, they tend to reject very low offers when they’re in the position of Responder (Crockett et al., 2008). These results strongly suggest oxytocin is bound up with generosity, while serotonin affects our sense of fairness, or our desire to punish unfair behavior.
Decision-Making Dysfunctions in Addiction
Published in Hanna Pickard, Serge H. Ahmed, The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy and Science of Addiction, 2019
Chronic heroin users have been shown to display dysfunctions in reflection impulsivity (in open situations and information vs reward trade-off situations in the IST) (Clark et al. 2006), delay discounting (Kirby and Petry 2004), decision-making under risk indicated by the Cambridge Gamble Task (CGT) (Fishbein et al. 2007; Baldacchino et al. 2015), and decision-making under ambiguity indicated by the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) (Verdejo-Garcia and Perez-Garcia 2007). The CGT deficits have been specifically associated with patterns of heroin use in a sample of relatively “pure” opioid-only users (Fishbein et al. 2007), and linked to orbitofrontal cortex deficits in current and former users (Ersche et al. 2005). The IGT deficits seem to be associated with some trait characteristics, such as general impulsivity and reduced loss aversion (Ahn et al. 2014). Reduced reflection impulsivity has been demonstrated in both current and former opioid users (Clark et al. 2006), and steeper delay discounting and poorer decision-making under ambiguity are noticeable even after protracted periods of abstinence (Li et al. 2013), suggesting that they are stable characteristics, somehow disconnected from the residual neuropharmacological effects of the opioid drugs. Although there is not much literature on social decision-making in this population, a recent study using a social interaction task (the Ultimatum Game) has shown heroin-related increases in rejection of unfair offers of low reward magnitude, coupled with decreased rejection of unfair offers of high reward magnitude (Hou et al. 2016). It is as yet unclear to what extent these deficits are clinically significant, and if they relate to heroin consumption or, more generally, to socioeconomic disadvantage.
Theory of mind and the Ultimatum Game in healthy adult aging
Published in Experimental Aging Research, 2018
Alessandra Girardi, Sergio Della Sala, Sarah E. MacPherson
The Ultimatum Game is commonly used to examine decision-making involved in social interactions (Güth, Schmittberger, & Schwarze, 1982). Participants are instructed that one player will propose to split a certain amount of money with them (e.g., £10). The participants (i.e., the respondents) can choose to either accept or reject the offer. If the respondent accepts the offer (e.g., £8:£2), the money will be split as proposed; if instead the respondent rejects the offer, both players will get nothing. Typically, when the respondent is offered 20–30% of the total amount, the offers are rejected and rejection rates increase as offers become more “unfair” (Güth et al., 1982; Nowak, Page, & Sigmund, 2000). It has been proposed that humans incorporate social norms into their decision-making and reject unfair offers even when it conflicts with their own self-interest (Knoch, Pascual-Leone, Meyer, Treyer, & Fehr, 2006).
Circadian rhythms and decision-making: a review and new evidence from electroencephalography
Published in Chronobiology International, 2020
Ángel Correa, Sonia Alguacil, Luis F. Ciria, Ana Jiménez, María Ruz
Participants played a modified version of the Ultimatum Game in which they had to either accept or reject economic offers made by a partner, who was a different person on each trial. Participants were told that in each trial their partner, the proposer, received an initial amount of fictional money (10 Euros) and split it into two parts, one for each of them. The participant then had to either accept or reject the offer. If she/he accepted it they would both earn their share, whereas if she/he decided to reject the offer, none would add money for that trial. To every participant, the same set of splits including two kinds of fair offers (5/5, 4/6) and three different unfair offers (1/9, 2/8, 3/7) were presented.