公平偏好的电生理测量：来自脑电、皮肤电和心电的证据

研究发现,人们普遍具有追求公平的偏好,即人们在追求个人收益时也会关注收益分配的公平性。随着电生理技术的发展,越来越多的研究者采用电生理技术对公平偏好进行深入探讨。本研究从脑电、皮肤电、心电等方面梳理公平偏好的电生理机制。脑电的研究发现,公平偏好相关的脑电主要涉及反馈相关负波和P300;皮肤电的研究发现,相比于公平分配,个体在不公平分配情况下其皮肤电的激活水平更高;心率的研究发现,相比于公平分配,个体遭遇不公平分配时其心率降低。研究公平偏好电生理机制有助于更深入地揭示公平偏好的产生根源与形成过程。未来可从公平偏好电生理的整合研究、公平偏好的脑成像与电生理的整合性探索,以及拓展公平偏好电生理的外部效度和研究范式等方面展开进一步探究。     

群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注

群际互动是社会互动的一种重要形式, 在人类社会发展中起着重要作用。已有的行为研究表明个体参与群际互动时, 互动对象的群体身份会影响其心理加工和行为决策。但目前关于群体身份如何影响公平加工的动态时间过程尚不清楚。为了研究群体身份对最后通牒任务(Ultimatum Game, UG)中反应者公平关注的影响, 15名健康成人作为反应者与组内和组外提议者进行UG博弈, 提议包括极端不公平、中等不公平或公平提议三种。事件相关电位结果发现, 组外互动时公平提议和中等不公平提议比极端不公平提议诱发更负的AN1, 组内互动时不同提议诱发的AN1无显著差异。来自组内成员的中等和极端不公平提议比公平提议引起更负的内侧额叶负波(MFN), 但来自组外成员的不同提议则没有导致MFN波幅的变化。这些结果表明在群体互动情境下, 互动成员的群体身份能够影响个体的早期注意资源分配和公平关注加工。     

共情关怀对公平决策的影响——来自ERP的证据

本研究运用事件相关电位技术(event-related potential, ERP)和最后通牒博弈范式(ultimatum game, UG)考察了共情关怀对公平决策的影响。实验采用2 (状态共情关怀: 有共情关怀vs.无共情关怀) × 3 (分配公平性: 公平vs.劣势不公平vs.优势不公平)被试内设计, 共37名被试参与实验, 被试作为响应者选择是否接受提议者的分配提议。行为结果显示劣势不公平条件下, 有共情情境的接受率高于无共情情境; 优势不公平条件下呈现相反的结果。ERP结果显示: 对于他人提出的优势不公平提议, 无共情情境较有共情情境下诱发了更负的前部N1 (anterior N1, AN1), 有共情情境比无共情情境下诱发了更大的P2波幅; 有共情情境下, 他人提出的劣势不公平提议较优势不公平和公平提议诱发了更负的内侧额叶负波(medial frontal negativity, MFN); P3在公平条件下的波幅较劣势不公平条件下更大, 并未受到共情关怀的调节。这些结果表明共情关怀不仅调节了公平决策行为, 还调节了公平加工的早期注意和动机及之后的认知和情绪加工, 但由P3表征的高级认知过程仅受到公平性的调节而不受共情水平的影响。     

Counterfactual comparison modulates fairness consideration in the mini‐ultimatum game: An event‐related potentials study

Existing literature on the mini‐ultimatum game indicates that counterfactual comparison between chosen and unchosen alternatives is of great importance for individual's fairness consideration. However, it is still unclear how counterfactual comparison influences the electrophysiological responses to unfair chosen offers. In conjunction with event‐related potentials’ (ERPs) technique, the current study aimed to explore the issue by employing a modified version of the mini‐ultimatum game where a fixed set of two alternatives (unfair offer vs. fair alternative, unfair vs. hyperfair alternative, unfair offer vs. hyperunfair alternative) was presented before the chosen offer. The behavioral results showed that participants were more likely to accept unfair chosen offers when the unchosen alternative was hyperunfair than when the unchosen alternative was fair or hyperfair. The ERPs results showed that the feedback‐related negativity (FRN) elicited by unfair chosen offers was insensitive to the type of unchosen alternative when correcting for possible overlap with other components. In contrast, unfair chosen offers elicited larger P300 amplitudes when the unchosen alternative was hyperunfair than when the unchosen alternative was fair or hyperfair. These findings suggest that counterfactual comparison may take effect at later stages of fairness consideration as reflected by the P300.     

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

There is ample experimental evidence showing that people have a strong preference for equity in wealth allocation and social interaction. Although the behavior of gain sharing and responses to (un)fairness in allocation of wealth has been extensively investigated in studies employing economic exchange games, few studies have focused on how people respond to an unfair division of loss between individuals. In this study we developed a new variant of the ultimatum game and examined the participants' reactions to (un)fairness in both gain and loss sharing. Results from three experiments showed that the rejection rates to unfair offers were generally higher in the loss than in the gain domain. Moreover, participants were inclined to associate loss with “unfair” and gain with “fair”, with stronger associations leading to higher rejection rates in the ultimatum game. Furthermore, in subjective rating, unfair offers were perceived as being more unfair in the loss than in the gain domain. These results demonstrate an increased demand for fairness under adversity and the importance of justice in liability sharing.     

Effects of Interpersonal Affect Upon Fairness Judgment

We examined the effect of interpersonal affect on fairness judgment. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to write down fair and unfair behaviors that positive and negative persons performed, giving as many examples as possible within 5 minutes. Participants wrote more fair behaviors for the positive person than for the negative, and wrote more unfair behaviors for the negative person than for the positive. In Experiments 2 and 3, subjects rated the perceived frequency of 60 behaviors (30 fair and 30 unfair). In both experiments, they evaluated fair behaviors by the positive person to be more frequent than those of the negative, and unfair behaviors by the negative person to be more frequent than those of the positive. The results indicate that fairness judgment is influenced by the participant's positive and negative affect toward the judged object. The effects of positive and negative interpersonal affect on fairness judgment are discussed.     

Procedural and interpersonal fairness moderate the relationship between outcome fairness and acceptance of merit pay

An organizational field study (N = 257) investigated employees' acceptance of a new merit pay system as involving an assessment of whether merit pay can make their earnings more fair, compared to their earnings in the current, seniority-based pay system. We expected that improvement of unfair earnings, and consequently acceptance of merit pay, is considered likely when existing procedures that produce these earnings are unfair, because merit pay improves such procedures. We also expected improvement of unfair earnings, and increased merit pay acceptance, to be likely when employees anticipate fair performance evaluation in a new system, as indicated by fair interpersonal treatment by their supervisor. Results showed that procedural and interpersonal fairness in the existing pay system indeed moderated the relationship between fairness of current outcomes and merit pay acceptance as predicted. Implications for the introduction of merit pay in organizations and for our understanding of the different roles of procedural and interpersonal fairness in outcome evaluations are discussed.     

Procedural fairness and self-esteem

We argue that people's self-esteem is affected by the fairness of procedures to which they are subjected; unfair treatment will lower self-esteem. Moreover, since this influence on self-esteem is presumably due to the implicit evaluation expressed by the choice of procedure and hence by the evaluation expressed by the person implementing the procedure, people's concern with the fairness of treatment will be focused on the interactional aspects of the procedure. In two experiments designed to test these hypotheses subjects received either a high or a low grade on an ability test on the basis of either fair or unfair grading procedures. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that subjects' self-esteem was lower after unfair treatment, and this influence was only apparent when subjects received high test feedback. Additionally, ratings of the fairness of the interaction were lower following unfair grading procedures. Experiment 2 also manipulated level of involvement with the test. Self-esteem was affected by procedural fairness and procedural fairness influenced perceived fairness of the interaction only in the high involvement condition.     

Dynamic adjustments of cognitive control during economic decision making

Decision making in the Ultimatum game requires the resolution of conflicts between economic self-interest and fairness intuitions. Since cognitive control processes play an important role in conflict resolution, the present study examined how control processes that are triggered by conflicts between fairness and self-interest in unfair offers affect subsequent decisions in the Ultimatum game. Our results revealed that more unfair offers were accepted following previously unfair, compared to previously fair offers. Interestingly, the magnitude of this conflict adaptation effect correlated with the individual subjects' focus on economic self-interest. We concluded that conflicts between fairness and self-interest trigger cognitive control processes, which reinforce the focus on the current task goal.     

Responses to exclusion are moderated by its perceived fairness

Experimental exclusion manipulations may induce exclusion in a way that participants perceive as unfair. Groups often use exclusion punitively to correct inappropriate behavior, however, which may lead to perceptions that it is potentially justified or fair. The current studies examined if individuals' perceptions of fairness with respect to an exclusion experience moderated their reactions. Participants wrote about or imagined a time in which they were excluded after they did something wrong (fair exclusion) or excluded even though they did nothing wrong (unfair exclusion) or about a mundane experience unrelated to exclusion (control). Compared with fair exclusion, unfair exclusion resulted in significantly weaker efficacy needs satisfaction (Studies 1, 2, and 4), greater antisocial intent (Study 3), and greater sensitivity to signs of interpersonal acceptance and rejection in a visual search task (Study 4). These results suggest that it is important to consider the role of perceived fairness in shaping responses to exclusion.     

阶段转移事件对公平稳定性的影响

摘要：目前,组织公平的研究多集中于组织公平与组织结果变量之间关系,较少关注组织公平的稳定性。本文采取4（公平模式：公平控制/初始公平/不公平控制/初始不公平）×2（实验阶段：阶段1/阶段2）混合实验设计,探讨阶段转移事件对被试公平反应稳定性的影响。研究结果显示,公平对待导致积极的公平反应,不公平对待导致消极的公平反应;公平程序向不公平程序的转移导致对实验者信任和组织公民行为意向的评价显著降低;而不公平程序向公平程序的转移并没有导致对实验者信任和组织公民行为意向评价的显著增加,从而说明了公平反应的有限稳定性。     

公平加工的情境依赖性：来自ERP的证据

公平是人类社会生活的重要概念。大量研究采用最后通牒博弈, 发现人们具有不公平厌恶倾向, 即宁愿牺牲个人的经济利益, 也要拒绝不公平的分配提议。已有研究表明, 损失情境会增强不公平厌恶, 但其神经机制尚不清楚。本实验采用ERP技术, 运用最后通牒博弈范式, 考察两个情境因素：域(损失或获益)和博弈对象(人或计算机)对公平加工的影响。发现损失域下对不公平分配的拒绝率更高, 而博弈对象对决策行为无影响; 获益域下, 对家为人比对家为计算机诱发了更负的N1; 人机博弈时, 获益域比损失域诱发了更大的P2和LPP, 损失域比获益域、不公平提议比公平提议诱发了更大的N350, 而公平提议比不公平提议诱发了更大的LPP; 人际博弈时, 这些差异均不显著。这些结果表明, 对分配提议的大脑加工受博弈对象的调节, 人际博弈时, 对损益域、公平与不公平提议的加工类似, 而人机博弈时, 损失域和不公平提议涉及更多的抑制加工和冲突解决, 获益域和公平提议则更富动机性意义, 证实公平加工具有情境依赖性。     

公平行为的认知神经机制

大量研究采用最后通牒博弈发现人们愿意牺牲自身利益来维护公平,普遍具有不公平厌恶倾向。本文基于行为博弈任务对个体处于不同角色时的公平行为,从神经学层面做出新的解释,并对现存理论模型做了梳理。脑成像的研究发现,公平行为的相关脑区主要有负责情绪加工的脑岛和与认知控制相关的背外侧前额叶,内侧眶额皮层。前脑岛激活越大,个体拒绝不公平方案的可能性越大,而腹外侧前额叶可以调节前脑岛的活动,使个体采取更理性的方式,接受不公平分配方案。另外,睾酮素和催产素作为神经调节的激素,可以对公平行为起到调节作用,睾酮素通过抑制内侧眶额皮层的激活,增加对不公平方案的拒绝率,相反,催产素可以降低个体对于不公平方案的拒绝率,并增加个体的公平行为。     

Dissociation between medial frontal negativity and cardiac responses in the ultimatum game: Effects of offer size and fairness

In the present study, we examined the role of fairness and offer size on brain and cardiac responses in the ultimatum game (UG). Twenty healthy volunteers played the role of responder in a computerized version of the UG in which the fairness and size of the offers were systematically varied. Both fairness and size of the offer influenced the acceptance rates in a predictable way, leading to fewer accepted unfair and low offers. Only unfair high, but not unfair low offers were accompanied by a medial frontal negativity. An unexpected stronger cardiac deceleration to fairer offers was found, which was not affected by the size of the offers. Cardiac and electrocortical measures showed a different relation with performance, and both measures were correlated only modestly. This dissociation between cardiac responses and brain potentials is discussed in terms of a possible differential sensitivity to effects of stimulus probability and violation of the social rules.     

Procedural fairness in ultimatum bargaining: Effects of interactional fairness and formal procedure on respondents’ reactions to unequal offers1

Abstract: Ninety‐nine Japanese students received one of three offers in an ultimatum bargaining scenario: unfavorable and unequal; equal; or favorable but unequal. These offers were determined by either the other participant or by a computerized lottery. We also manipulated the arbitrariness of the role assignment procedure. Participants perceived the intentional small offer as more unfair in the interactional sense than the unintentional small offer, while they perceived the same offers as unfair in the distributive sense, regardless of intentionality. The intentional small offer was more likely to be rejected than the unintentional small offer. Participants perceived the arbitrary procedure of the role assignment as highly unfair, whereas the difference of arbitrariness in role assignment procedures had no significant impact on their reactions to the offer. Acceptance of the offer was strongly determined by interactional fairness, as well as by distributive fairness, and these types of fairness were influenced by different situational characteristics, such as intentionality, the size of the offer, and the equality of the offer.     

Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions

Previous research on coalition formation has established that people will not hesitate to exclude others in order to maximize their payoff. The authors propose that this view is too narrow and that the decision to exclude depends on the valence of the payoff. Consistent with a “do-no-harm” hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed that participants were more reluctant to exclude in order to minimize their losses than to maximize their gains. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and showed that participants were most affected by payoff valence when they were disposed to consider the viewpoint of others. Additional analyses revealed that participants were more motivated by fairness (Experiment 1) and that fairness was more cognitively accessible (Experiment 2) when payoffs were negative rather than positive.     

价值取向对自我他人决策时公平规范执行的影响

社会价值取向反映了人们对自己和他人分配结果的一种稳定偏好,影响着个体对提议公平性的认知及规范执行。同时,自我-他人决策差异也是影响规范执行的重要因素,但目前尚不清楚价值取向和社会距离如何影响公平规范执行。本研究选取了20名合作者和20名个人主义者,使用单次匿名最后通牒博弈任务,考察了资产分配情景中价值取向对自我-他人决策时公平规范执行的影响。结果表明：（1）相比自我决策条件,合作者在替他人决策时更多的接受不公平提议,而公平提议的接受率不受社会距离的调节;个人主义者的提议接受率则不受社会距离和提议类型的交互影响;（2）合作者替他人决策时的接受阈限显著高于自我决策,而个人主义者在自我决策和替他人决策时的接受阈限无显著差异。这些结果表明价值取向能够调节自我-他人决策时,人们对不公平提议的规范执行。     

公平加工的情境依赖性:来自行为的证据

采用最后通牒博弈范式,考察利益水平及社会距离对个体公平加工的影响,探讨公平加工的情境依赖性。实验结果表明:(1)对分配提议的加工受到利益水平的调节,不利不公平条件下被试更加注重公平。(2)提议的不同水平影响被试的拒绝行为,提议越不公平,拒绝率越高。(3)虽然社会距离的主效应不显著,但在实际情境中,较近的社会距离下人们对公平的要求更严格,证实公平加工具有情境依赖性。     

Speaking of fairness in testing

In an article based on her presentation to the 114th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Janet Helms described a concept of test fairness. Helms's approach to fairness appears to be based on the premise that socialization consists of experiences received from one's environment, which are simply internalized as personal attributes. From an ecological perspective, this is incorrect, misleading, and oddly evocative of social-cognitive and psychodynamic notions. Individuals are not passive recipients of culture, and they do not necessarily simply reflect their experiences. Although Helms intended her model to apply to racial and cultural groups, it seems that she has overlooked the potential of applying her concept of fairness to another important level of social organization: the family. R. J. Griffore suggests that it is unfair to avoid using valid tests that are said to be unfair because of racially or culturally based construct-irrelevant variance if those tests can help individuals make decisions that lead to success outcomes. The use of race or culture as a variable that in any way jeopardizes the prediction of success for individuals or groups is unfair for all groups for whom the test is used.     

A policy‐modeling approach to examining fairness judgments in organizational acquisitions

Organizational acquisitions may be characterized by the degree of friendliness or hostility as well as the degree of autonomy or absorption of the organizations following the merger. This study examined judgments of fairness across four types of organizational acquisitions. Students read fictitious newspaper accounts of a university acquisition and rated their expectations and perceptions of fairness about possible changes. Results indicated that in an acquisition, both the procedures used and the outcomes provided influenced how fair the acquisition was perceived. As predicted, the relative importance of procedures and outcomes in overall perceptions of fairness shifted depending on the context of the acquisition. As the desirability of the acquisition increased, individuals placed greater importance on the procedural elements. In a friendly and low integration acquisition, the processes and outcomes became equally important. Individuals faced with a high integration acquisition expected more unfair changes and fewer fair changes to occur. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance expectations play in perceptions of fairness. The type of acquisition will influence expectations for fair treatment. Under less desirable conditions (hostile and high‐integration mergers), organizations should take steps early in the process to manage fairness perceptions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.