有惩罚与无惩罚时利益分配者公平感知神经机制的差异
|
摘要
惩罚机制下的公平研究一直是社会学、心理学、管理学领域研究的热点。目前,大量惩罚机制下公平感知的研究对象主要集中在被动接受提议的决策者,而非掌握主导作用,提出权利分配的决策者,即利益分配者。因此,对于利益分配者在不同惩罚机制下的公平感知活动研究就更具有价值。而本文就是关注有惩罚和无惩罚机制下,利益分配者的公平感知差异。
传统的研究大部分借助行为实验和问卷调查的方法。其中,最后通牒博弈和独裁者博弈常常被运用于研究惩罚机制和公平感知的行为实验中,但此类实验并不能深入到心理层面甚至是生理层面,来寻求进一步的证据。随着认知神经科学的发展,特别是神经科学技术如事件相关电位(ERP)等方法的成熟发展,人们拥有逐渐打开“大脑”黑箱的能力。运用ERP技术,人们挖掘惩罚机制下利益分配者公平感知的脑区特征和神经活动,更好地揭示了现象后面的本质。
本研究运用最后通牒博弈和独裁者博弈的情境,借助ERP技术,探索利益分配者(学生被试)在不同惩罚机制下的不同行为选择和公平准则背后的神经机制差异。同时,本研究通过对学生样本和社会人群样本进行问卷调研,对实验样本的公平感知水平进行了定性研究。结合行为数据、脑电数据和问卷调查,本研究得出两个结论和一个推论：
结论一：与有惩罚相比,无惩罚情形下,利益分配者更加倾向于给出利己的不公平分配方案。表现在行为数据上,无惩罚情境相对于有惩罚情境,不公平的选择比例更高,不公平的程度更大,响应时更短。
结论二：不论有无惩罚机制,分配方案不公平程度越高,利益分配者内疚感(一种冲突)越强。表现在ERP成分上,不公平分配方案诱发比公平分配方案诱发振幅更大的N400-like(广义的N400,反映冲突的一种ERP成分)；绝对不公平分配方案比相对不公平分配方案诱发振幅更大的N400-like;相对不公平分配方案比公平分配方案诱发振幅更大的N400-like.
推论一：无论有无惩罚机制,具有较高公平感知的利益分配者,对于不公平的分配方案,有较强的内疚感。
这些结果的意义和创新点在于：
(1)从行为数据和脑电数据的角度,验证了经济学关于“理性人”和“有限理性”的假设。
(2)运用ERP手段研究利益分配者的公平感知,并验证了“内疚感”的存在,这说明“道德机制”能够在经济活动中发挥作用。
Fairness studying under the punishment mechanism has always been the focus in the research field of sociology, psychology and management. Currently, the research object of fairness perceptive under the punishment mechanism has been concentrated on decision-makers who accept proposal passively (also known as the responder), rather than the decision-makers who master the power allocation (also known as the proposer). Therefore, it is more valuable to do the research on the distributor of benifits. The emphasis of this study is focused on fairness perceptive problem of the distributor of benifits under the punishment and no-punishment mechanism.
Over the years, scholars have carried out the research mainly through behavioral experiments and survey research. Among them, the ultimatum game (UG) and the dictator game (DG) has often been used in the study of behavior experiments on the fairness perceptive and punishment mechanism. However, for seeking further evidence, behavioral experiments can not be penetrated into people's psychological level, and even physical level. With the development of cognitive neuroscience, particularly in neuroscience techniques, such as event-related potentials (ERP), people have gradually mastered the capabilities for opening the "brain" black-box. Using of ERP technology, people can dig the brain characteristics and nerve activity of fairness perceptive of decision-makers under the punishment mechanism, and can reveal the nature behind the phenomenon mere efficiently.
This study uses the ultimatum game (UG) and dictator game (DG) as its situation. And with the event-related potentials (ERP) technique, it studies on both the different behavior selection for distributor of benefits (student paticipatants) under the different punishment mechanism and the differences among neural mechanism behind the fairness criterion. At the same time, we make a quantitative study on the level of fairness perception of the sample through questionnaire survey on the samples of students and society. Based on the behavioral data, EEG data and questionnaire survey, the conclusions and inference of this study are as follows:
Conclusion1:Compared with the punishment case, the distributiors of benefits are more likely to make the selfish unfair solutions under the no punishment case. The behavioral date shows that, under no punishument case, unfair solutions are make more frequently, strongly, firmly(shorter response time).
Conclusion2:No matter what punishemet mechanism, more unfair of the distributon, more guilty (a conflict) the distributor of benefits is. It can been reflecting on the ERP components:compared to the unfair solution, fair solution can stimulate a more negative N400-like component (generalized but not the typical semantic N400, a component which can reflect the conflicts); compared to the relatively unfair solutions, absolutiely unfair solutions can stimulate a more negative N400-like component; compared to the fair solutions, relatively unfair solutions can stimulate a more negative N400-like component.
Inference1:No matter what punishemet mechanism, the distributors of benefits who has a higher level of fairness perception, are more guilty when making the unfair solution.
The meaning and innovation points of these results are:
(1) From the behavioral date and EEG date, this study verifies the "economic man" and "limited rationality" hypothesis.
(2) Prove the existence of "guilt" the the ERP study on the fairness perception of distributor of benefits, and show that the "moral mechanim" can play the role in economic activity.
传统的研究大部分借助行为实验和问卷调查的方法。其中,最后通牒博弈和独裁者博弈常常被运用于研究惩罚机制和公平感知的行为实验中,但此类实验并不能深入到心理层面甚至是生理层面,来寻求进一步的证据。随着认知神经科学的发展,特别是神经科学技术如事件相关电位(ERP)等方法的成熟发展,人们拥有逐渐打开“大脑”黑箱的能力。运用ERP技术,人们挖掘惩罚机制下利益分配者公平感知的脑区特征和神经活动,更好地揭示了现象后面的本质。
本研究运用最后通牒博弈和独裁者博弈的情境,借助ERP技术,探索利益分配者(学生被试)在不同惩罚机制下的不同行为选择和公平准则背后的神经机制差异。同时,本研究通过对学生样本和社会人群样本进行问卷调研,对实验样本的公平感知水平进行了定性研究。结合行为数据、脑电数据和问卷调查,本研究得出两个结论和一个推论：
结论一：与有惩罚相比,无惩罚情形下,利益分配者更加倾向于给出利己的不公平分配方案。表现在行为数据上,无惩罚情境相对于有惩罚情境,不公平的选择比例更高,不公平的程度更大,响应时更短。
结论二：不论有无惩罚机制,分配方案不公平程度越高,利益分配者内疚感(一种冲突)越强。表现在ERP成分上,不公平分配方案诱发比公平分配方案诱发振幅更大的N400-like(广义的N400,反映冲突的一种ERP成分)；绝对不公平分配方案比相对不公平分配方案诱发振幅更大的N400-like;相对不公平分配方案比公平分配方案诱发振幅更大的N400-like.
推论一：无论有无惩罚机制,具有较高公平感知的利益分配者,对于不公平的分配方案,有较强的内疚感。
这些结果的意义和创新点在于：
(1)从行为数据和脑电数据的角度,验证了经济学关于“理性人”和“有限理性”的假设。
(2)运用ERP手段研究利益分配者的公平感知,并验证了“内疚感”的存在,这说明“道德机制”能够在经济活动中发挥作用。
Fairness studying under the punishment mechanism has always been the focus in the research field of sociology, psychology and management. Currently, the research object of fairness perceptive under the punishment mechanism has been concentrated on decision-makers who accept proposal passively (also known as the responder), rather than the decision-makers who master the power allocation (also known as the proposer). Therefore, it is more valuable to do the research on the distributor of benifits. The emphasis of this study is focused on fairness perceptive problem of the distributor of benifits under the punishment and no-punishment mechanism.
Over the years, scholars have carried out the research mainly through behavioral experiments and survey research. Among them, the ultimatum game (UG) and the dictator game (DG) has often been used in the study of behavior experiments on the fairness perceptive and punishment mechanism. However, for seeking further evidence, behavioral experiments can not be penetrated into people's psychological level, and even physical level. With the development of cognitive neuroscience, particularly in neuroscience techniques, such as event-related potentials (ERP), people have gradually mastered the capabilities for opening the "brain" black-box. Using of ERP technology, people can dig the brain characteristics and nerve activity of fairness perceptive of decision-makers under the punishment mechanism, and can reveal the nature behind the phenomenon mere efficiently.
This study uses the ultimatum game (UG) and dictator game (DG) as its situation. And with the event-related potentials (ERP) technique, it studies on both the different behavior selection for distributor of benefits (student paticipatants) under the different punishment mechanism and the differences among neural mechanism behind the fairness criterion. At the same time, we make a quantitative study on the level of fairness perception of the sample through questionnaire survey on the samples of students and society. Based on the behavioral data, EEG data and questionnaire survey, the conclusions and inference of this study are as follows:
Conclusion1:Compared with the punishment case, the distributiors of benefits are more likely to make the selfish unfair solutions under the no punishment case. The behavioral date shows that, under no punishument case, unfair solutions are make more frequently, strongly, firmly(shorter response time).
Conclusion2:No matter what punishemet mechanism, more unfair of the distributon, more guilty (a conflict) the distributor of benefits is. It can been reflecting on the ERP components:compared to the unfair solution, fair solution can stimulate a more negative N400-like component (generalized but not the typical semantic N400, a component which can reflect the conflicts); compared to the relatively unfair solutions, absolutiely unfair solutions can stimulate a more negative N400-like component; compared to the fair solutions, relatively unfair solutions can stimulate a more negative N400-like component.
Inference1:No matter what punishemet mechanism, the distributors of benefits who has a higher level of fairness perception, are more guilty when making the unfair solution.
The meaning and innovation points of these results are:
(1) From the behavioral date and EEG date, this study verifies the "economic man" and "limited rationality" hypothesis.
(2) Prove the existence of "guilt" the the ERP study on the fairness perception of distributor of benefits, and show that the "moral mechanim" can play the role in economic activity.
引文
[1]Adams. J.S. Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology,1966,267-299.
[2]Andreoni, J.& Miller, J. H. Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma:Experimental evidence. The Economic Journal,1993,103(418). 570-585.
[3]Aquino, K.,& Reed, A. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.2002.83(6),14-23.
[4]Aron, A.R., Robbins, T.W.& Poldrack, R.A. Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences,2004,8(4),170-177.
[5]Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D.,& Glickman, S. Attentional bias in anxiety:a behavioral and ERP study. Brain Cognition,2005,59(1),11-22.
[6]Barrett. S.E.,& Rugg, M.D. Event-related potentials and the semantic matching of pictures. Brain and Cognition.1990,14(2),201-212.
[7]Bentin. S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M.H., Echallier, J.F.,& Pernier, J. ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels:Time course and scalp distribution. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1999,11(3),235-260.
[8]Bies, R.J.,& Moag. J.F. Interaction justice:Communication criteria of fainess. In Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H.& Bazerman, M.H. Research on Negotiations in Organizations,1986,1,43-55.
[9]Blount, S. When Social Outcomes Aren'T Fair:The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1995. 63(2),131-144.
[10]Boksem, M.A.S., Tops, M., Kostermans, E.& De Cremer, D. Sensitivity to punishment and reward omission:evidence from error-related ERP components. Biological Psychology.2008,79(2),185-192.
[11]Boksem, M.A.S.& De Cremer, D. Fairness concerns predict medial frontal negativity amplitude in ultimatum bargaining. Social neuroscience,2010,5(1). 118-128.
[12]Bolton, G.E.& Zwick, R. Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior,1995,10(1),95-121.
[13]Bolton, G.E.& Ockenfels, A. ERC:A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American economic review,2000,90(1),166-193.
[14]Bolton, G.E., Brandts, J.& Ockenfels, A. Fair procedures:Evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal,2005,115(506),1054-1076.
[15]Botvinick. M., Nystrom, L.E., Fissell, K., Carter, C.S.& Cohen, J.D. Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature,1999, 462(6758),179-180.
[16]Botvinick, M.M., Cohen, J.D.& Carter, C.S. Conflict monitoring and anterior (?)ingulate cortex:an update. Trends in cognitive sciences,2004,8(12),539-546.
[17]Boucsein. W. Electrodermal Acitivity.1992.
[18]Calder, A.J., Lawrence, A.D.& Young, A.W. Neuropsychology of fear and loathing. "Nature Reviews Neuroscience,2001,2(5),352-363.
[19]Camerer, C.& Thaler, R. H. Anomalies:Ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,1995,9(2),209-219.
[20]Camerer, C, Behavioral game theory:Experiments in strategic interaction, (?)cton University Press,2003. [21]Camerer, C.F.& Loewenstein. G. Information, fairness, and efficiency in bargaining.1993.
[22]Carretie. L., Mercado, F., Tapia, M.,& Hinojosa, J.A. Emotion, attention, and the 'negativity bias', studied through event-related potentials. Internation Journal of Psychophysiol,2001,41.75-85.
[23]Campanella. S., Quinet. P., Bruyer, R., Crommelinck, M., Guerit. J.M. Categorical perception of happiness and fear facial expressions:an ERP study. (?) Cognitive Neuroscience,2002.14(2),210-227.
[24]Carter, J.R.& Irons, M.D. Are economists different, and if so, why? The Journal (?) Perspectives,1991,5(2),171-177.
[25]Chen. M., Ma, Q., Li, M., Lai, H., Wang, X.,& Shu, L. Cognitive and emotional coflicts of counter-conformity choice in purchasing books online:An event-related potentials study. Biological psychology,2010,85(3),437-445.
[26]Christie, R.,& Geis, F. Studies in Machiavellism. New York:Academic Press, 1970.
[27]Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J.& Scott, B. A. Organizational justice:where do we stand? 2005.
[28]Compton, R.J. The interface between emotion and attention:a review of evidence from psychology and neuroscience. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews,2003,2(2),115-129.
[29]Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E.& Gilliland, S.W. The management of organizational justice. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2007,21(4), 34-48.
[30]Damasio, A.R., Grabowski, T.J., Bechara. A., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Parvizi, J. & Hichwa. R.D. Subcortical and cortical brain activity during the feeling of self-generated emotions. Nature neuroscience.2000,3(10),1049-1056.
[31]Dawes, R.M.& Thaler, R.H. Anomalies:cooperation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,1988,2(3),187-197.
[32]Declerck, C.H., Kiyonari, T.& Boone. C. Why do responders reject unequal offers in the Ultimatum Game? An experimental study on the role of perceiving interdependence. Journal of Economic Psychology,2009,30(3),335-343.
[33]Delgado, M.. Locke, H., Stenger, V.& Fiez, J. Dorsal striatum responses to reward and punishment:effects of valence and magnitude manipulations. Cognitive, Affective.& Behavioral Neuroscience,2003.3(1),27-38.
[34]Denzau, A.T., North, D.C. Shared mental models:ideologies and institutions. Kyklos,1994,47(1),3-31.
[35]Douglas, F., Hernandez-Marrero, P.& Wielemaker, M. The role of affect and cognition in the perception of outcome acceptability under different justice conditions. Journal of American Academy of Business,2005,7(1),269-277.
[36]Eckel, C.C.& Grossman, P.J. Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry,2001,39(2),171-188.
[37]Federmeier, K.D.,& Kutas, M. Picture the difference:Electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the two cerebral hemispheres. Neuropsychologia,2002,40,730-747.
[38]Fehr, E.& Schmidt, K.M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(3),817-868.
[39]Fehr, E.& Gachter, S. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. The American economic review,2000,90(4),980-994.
[40]Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U.& Gachter, S. Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Human nature,2002,13(1),1-25.
[41]Folstein, J.R.& Van Petten, C. Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP:a review. Psychophysiology,2008,45(1), 152-170.
[42]Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J.L., Savin, N. E.& Sefton, M. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior,1994,6(3),347-369.
[43]Greenberg, J. Stealing in the name of justice:Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1993,54(1),81-103.
[44]Guth, W., Schmittberger. R.& Schwarze. B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization,1982,3(4), 367-388.
[45]Gehring, W.J.& Willoughby, A.R. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science.2002.295(5563),2279-2282.
[46]Halko, M.L., Hlushchuk, Y. Hari, R.& Schurmann. M. Competing with peers: Mentalizing-related brain activity reflects what is at stake. Neuroimage,2009, 46(2),542-548.
[47]Hamm, J.P., Johnson, B.W.,& Kirk, I.J. Comparison of the N300 and N400 ERPs to picture stimuli in congruent and incongruent contexts. Clinical Neurophysiology.2002,113(8).1339-1350.
[48]Harbaugh, W., Krause, K.& Lidey, S. Children's bargaining behavior: differences by age, gender, and height. Manuscript, University of Oregon.2000.
[49]Harrison, G.W.& McCabe, K.A. Expectations and fairness in a simple bargaining experiment. International Journal of Game Theory,1996,25(3), 303-327.
[50]Henrich. J., Boyd, R.. Bowles, S.. Camerer, C, Fehr, E., Gintis, H.& McElreath. R. In search of horno economicus:behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The American economic review,2001.91(2).73-78.
[51]Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K.& Smith, V. Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior.1994.7(3), 346-380.
[52]Hoffman, E., McCabe, K.& Smith. V. The impact of exchange context on the activation of equity in ultimatum games. Experimental Economics,2000,3(1), 5-9.
[53]Jerald, G. Stealing in the name of justice:Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1993.54(1),81-103.
[54]Kahneman, D. Maps of bounded rationality:A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel prize lecture.2002.8(12),449-89.
[55]Kahneman, D.. Knetsch, J.L.& Thaler. R. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking:Entitlements in the market. The American economic review,1986,76(4), 728-741.
[56]Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K.. Treyer. V.& Fehr. E. Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science,2006, 314(5800),829-832.
[57]Knutson, B., Westdorp, A., Kaiser, E.& Hommer, D. FMRI visualization of brain activity during a monetary incentive delay task. Neuroimage,2000,12(1),20-27.
[58]Knutson, B., Adams, C.M., Fong, G.W.& Hommer. D. Anticipation of increasing monetary reward selectively recruits nucleus accumbens. J Neurosci,2001, 21(16),1-5.
[59]Kringelbach, M.L. The human orbitofrontal cortex:linking reward to hedonic experience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,2005,6(9),691-702.
[60]Kutas, M.& Hillyard, S.A. Reading senseless sentences:Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science,1980,207(4427),203-205.
[61]Larrick, R. P.& Blount, S. The claiming effect:Why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in ultimatum games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1997,72(4),810-825.
[62]Ledyard, J.O. Public goods:A survey of experimental research. Public Economics,1994.
[63]Leventhal, G.S. What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships.1976.
[64]Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J.& Fry, W.R. Beyond fairness:A theory of allocation preferences. Justice and social interaction,1980,3,167-218.
[65]List, J.A.& Cherry, T.L. Learning to accept in ultimatum games:Evidence from an experimental design that generates low offers. Experimental Economics,2000, 3(1),11-29.
[66]Lind, E.A.& Tyler, T.R. The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Us,1988.
[67]Liotti, M., Woldorff, M.G., Perez, R.& Mayberg, H.S. An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect. Neuropsychologia, 2000,38.701-711.
[68]Lu, Y., Zhang, W.H.. Hu, W.,& Luo, Y.J. Understanding the subliminal affective priming effect of facial stimuli:an ERP study. Neuroscience Letters,2011.
[69]Luo. J. Neural correlates of insight. Acta Psychologica Sinica,2004,3(6), 219-234.
[70]MacDonald, A.W., Cohen, J.D., Stenger, V.A.& Carter. C.S. Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science,2000,288(5472),1835-1838.
[71]Mazerolle, E.L., D"Arcy, R.C.N., Marchand, Y., Bolster, R.B. ERP assessment of functional status in the temporal lobe:Examining spatiotemporal correlates of object recognition. Internation Journal of Psychophysiology,2007,66(1).81-92.
[72]Mai. X.Q., Luo, J., Wu, J.H.& Luo, Y.J. "Aha!:effects in a guessing riddle task: An ERP study. Human brain mapping,2004,22(4),261-270.
[73]Miller, E.K.& Cohen. J.D. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual review of neuroscience,2001,24(1),167-202.
[74]Miltner, W.H., Trippe, R.H., Krieschel, S., Gutberlet, I., Hecht, H.,& Weiss, T. Event-related brain potentials and affective responses to threat in spider/snake-phobic and non-phobic subjects. International Journal of Psychophysiology,2005,57(1),43-52.
[75]Murnighan. J.K.& Saxon, M.S. Ultimatum bargaining by children and adults. Journal of Economic Psychology,1998.19(4),415-445.
[76]Nagy, E., Potts, G.F.& Loveland, K. A. Sex-related ERP differences in deviance detection. International journal of psychophysiology,2003,48(3),285-292.
[77]O'Doherty, J., Kringelbach, M.L., Rolls, E.T., Hornak, J.& Andrews. C. Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal cortex. Nature neuroscience,2001,4(1),95-102.
[78]O'Doherty, J., Dayan, P., Schultz, J., Deichmann. R., Friston, K.& Dolan, R.J. Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instrumental conditioning. Science.2004,304(5669),452-454.
[79]Olivares, E.I., Iglesias, J.& Rodriguez-Holguin, S. Long-latency ERPs and recognition of facial identity. Journal of cognitive neuroscience,2003,15(1), 136-151.
[80]Phillips, M.L., Young, A., Senior, C, Brammer, M., Andrew, C, Calder, A., Bullmore, E., Perrett, D., Rowland, D.& Williams, S. A specific neural substrate for perceiving facial expressions of disgust. Nature,1997,389(6650),495-498.
[81]Qiu. J., Zhang, Q.L., Li, H., Luo, Y.J., Yin, Q.Q., Chen, A.T.,& Yuan, H. The event-related potential effects of cognitive conflict in a Chinese character-generation task. NeuroReport,2007,18(9),881-886.
[82]Rapoport, A.& Sundali, J.A. Ultimatums in two-person bargaining with one-sided uncertainty:Offer games. International Journal of Game Theory,1996, 25(4),475-494.
[83]Reuben, E.& Van Winden, F. Fairness perceptions and prosocial emotions in the power to take. Journal of Economic Psychology.2010,31(6),908-922.
[84]Rotemberg, J.J. Minimally acceptable altruism and the ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization,2008,66(3-4),457-476.
[85]Sally, D. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas. Rationality and Society,1995,7(1),58-92.
[86]Sanfey, A.G.. Rilling, J.K., Aronson, J.A.. Nystrom. L.E.& Cohen, J.D. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science,2003, 300(5626),1755-1758.
[87]Sanfey, A.G. Social decision-making:insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science,2007,318(5850),598-602.
[88]Schotter, A., Weiss, A.& Zapater, I. Fairness and survival in ultimatum and dictatorship games. Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization,1996,31(1), 37-56.
[89]Schultz, W. Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2000,1(3),199-208.
[90]Schultz, W., Tremblay, L.& Hollerman, J.R. Changes in behavior-related neuronal activity in the striatum during learning. TRENDS in Neurosciences, 2003,26(6),321-328.
[91]Schutter, D.J.L.G., de Haan, E.H.F& van Honk, J. Functionally dissociated aspects in anterior and posterior electrocortical processing of facial threat. International Journal of Psychophysiol,2004.53(1),29-36.
[92]Solnick. S.J. Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry,2001, 39(2),189-200.
[93]Spitzer, M., Fischbacher, U., Herrnberger, B., Gron, G.& Fehr, E. The neural signature of social norm compliance. Neuron,2007,56(1),185-196.
[94]Squires, K.C., Wickens, C, Squires, N.K.& Donchin, E. The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. Science,1976, 193(4258),1142.
[95]Simon, H.A. Administrative behavior. New York:Macmillan,1947.
[96]Steffensen, S.C., Ohran. A.J., Shipp, D.N., Hales, K., Stobbs, S.H.& Fleming, D.E. Gender-selective effects of the P300 and N400 components of the visual evoked potential. Vision research,2008,48(7),917-925.
[97]Taake, I., Jaspers-Fayer, F.& Liotti, M. Early frontal responses elicited by physical threat words in an emotional Stroop task:Modulation by anxiety sensitivity. Biological Psychology,2009,81(1),48-57.
[98]Thibaut, J.& Walker, L., Procedural justice:A psychological analysis, L. Erlbaum Associates,1975.
[99]Tricomi, E. M, Delgado, M. R.& Fiez, J. A. Modulation of caudate activity by action contingency. Neuron,2004,41(2),281-292.
[100]Walster, E., Walster, G.W.& Traupmann, J. Equity and premarital sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1978,36(1),82.
[101]West, R.. Herndon, R.W.,& Crewdson, S.J.Neural activity associated with the realization of a delayed intention. Cognitive Brain Research,2001,12(1),1-9.
[102]Xiao, E.,& Houser, D. Emotion expression in human punishment behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2005,102(20),7398-7401.
[103]拉克.事件相关电位基础.上海：华东师范大学出版社,,2009.
[104]李浩.提升员工公平感.企业管理,2003(6),92-94.
[105]李哗,龙立荣,刘亚.组织公平感研究进展.心理科学进展,2003,11(1),78-84.
[106]林志萍.风险与含糊情境下的投资决策研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[107]马庆国.管理统计.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[108]马庆国,王小毅.认知神经科学、神经经济学与神经管理学.管理世界,2006(10),139-149.
[109]马庆国,王小毅.从神经经济学和神经营销学到神经管理学.管理工程学报,2006,20(3),129-132.
[110]邱江,罗跃嘉,吴真真,张庆林.再探猜谜作业中“顿悟”的ERP效应.心理学报,2006,38(4),507-514.
[111]孙怀平,杨东涛,袁培林.员工公平感的影响因素实证研究.科技管理研究,2007(8),239-242.
[112]孙伟,黄培伦.公平理论研究评述.科技管理研究,2004,24(4),102-104.
[113]汪丁丁,叶航.理性的追问：关于经济学理性主义的对话.桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2003.
[114]王凯.突发事件下决策者的框架效应研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[115]魏景汉,罗跃嘉.认知事件相关脑电位教程.北京：经济日报出版社,2002.
[116]张薇.组织公平感与个性特点研究进展及评述.甘肃社会科学,2004(1),189-192.
[117]赵立军.框架效应与公平判断.博士学位论文,华东师范大学,2010.
[118]赵仑.ERP实验教程.南京：东南大学出版社,2010.
[2]Andreoni, J.& Miller, J. H. Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma:Experimental evidence. The Economic Journal,1993,103(418). 570-585.
[3]Aquino, K.,& Reed, A. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.2002.83(6),14-23.
[4]Aron, A.R., Robbins, T.W.& Poldrack, R.A. Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences,2004,8(4),170-177.
[5]Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D.,& Glickman, S. Attentional bias in anxiety:a behavioral and ERP study. Brain Cognition,2005,59(1),11-22.
[6]Barrett. S.E.,& Rugg, M.D. Event-related potentials and the semantic matching of pictures. Brain and Cognition.1990,14(2),201-212.
[7]Bentin. S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M.H., Echallier, J.F.,& Pernier, J. ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels:Time course and scalp distribution. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1999,11(3),235-260.
[8]Bies, R.J.,& Moag. J.F. Interaction justice:Communication criteria of fainess. In Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H.& Bazerman, M.H. Research on Negotiations in Organizations,1986,1,43-55.
[9]Blount, S. When Social Outcomes Aren'T Fair:The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1995. 63(2),131-144.
[10]Boksem, M.A.S., Tops, M., Kostermans, E.& De Cremer, D. Sensitivity to punishment and reward omission:evidence from error-related ERP components. Biological Psychology.2008,79(2),185-192.
[11]Boksem, M.A.S.& De Cremer, D. Fairness concerns predict medial frontal negativity amplitude in ultimatum bargaining. Social neuroscience,2010,5(1). 118-128.
[12]Bolton, G.E.& Zwick, R. Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior,1995,10(1),95-121.
[13]Bolton, G.E.& Ockenfels, A. ERC:A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American economic review,2000,90(1),166-193.
[14]Bolton, G.E., Brandts, J.& Ockenfels, A. Fair procedures:Evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal,2005,115(506),1054-1076.
[15]Botvinick. M., Nystrom, L.E., Fissell, K., Carter, C.S.& Cohen, J.D. Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature,1999, 462(6758),179-180.
[16]Botvinick, M.M., Cohen, J.D.& Carter, C.S. Conflict monitoring and anterior (?)ingulate cortex:an update. Trends in cognitive sciences,2004,8(12),539-546.
[17]Boucsein. W. Electrodermal Acitivity.1992.
[18]Calder, A.J., Lawrence, A.D.& Young, A.W. Neuropsychology of fear and loathing. "Nature Reviews Neuroscience,2001,2(5),352-363.
[19]Camerer, C.& Thaler, R. H. Anomalies:Ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,1995,9(2),209-219.
[20]Camerer, C, Behavioral game theory:Experiments in strategic interaction, (?)cton University Press,2003. [21]Camerer, C.F.& Loewenstein. G. Information, fairness, and efficiency in bargaining.1993.
[22]Carretie. L., Mercado, F., Tapia, M.,& Hinojosa, J.A. Emotion, attention, and the 'negativity bias', studied through event-related potentials. Internation Journal of Psychophysiol,2001,41.75-85.
[23]Campanella. S., Quinet. P., Bruyer, R., Crommelinck, M., Guerit. J.M. Categorical perception of happiness and fear facial expressions:an ERP study. (?) Cognitive Neuroscience,2002.14(2),210-227.
[24]Carter, J.R.& Irons, M.D. Are economists different, and if so, why? The Journal (?) Perspectives,1991,5(2),171-177.
[25]Chen. M., Ma, Q., Li, M., Lai, H., Wang, X.,& Shu, L. Cognitive and emotional coflicts of counter-conformity choice in purchasing books online:An event-related potentials study. Biological psychology,2010,85(3),437-445.
[26]Christie, R.,& Geis, F. Studies in Machiavellism. New York:Academic Press, 1970.
[27]Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J.& Scott, B. A. Organizational justice:where do we stand? 2005.
[28]Compton, R.J. The interface between emotion and attention:a review of evidence from psychology and neuroscience. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews,2003,2(2),115-129.
[29]Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E.& Gilliland, S.W. The management of organizational justice. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2007,21(4), 34-48.
[30]Damasio, A.R., Grabowski, T.J., Bechara. A., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Parvizi, J. & Hichwa. R.D. Subcortical and cortical brain activity during the feeling of self-generated emotions. Nature neuroscience.2000,3(10),1049-1056.
[31]Dawes, R.M.& Thaler, R.H. Anomalies:cooperation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,1988,2(3),187-197.
[32]Declerck, C.H., Kiyonari, T.& Boone. C. Why do responders reject unequal offers in the Ultimatum Game? An experimental study on the role of perceiving interdependence. Journal of Economic Psychology,2009,30(3),335-343.
[33]Delgado, M.. Locke, H., Stenger, V.& Fiez, J. Dorsal striatum responses to reward and punishment:effects of valence and magnitude manipulations. Cognitive, Affective.& Behavioral Neuroscience,2003.3(1),27-38.
[34]Denzau, A.T., North, D.C. Shared mental models:ideologies and institutions. Kyklos,1994,47(1),3-31.
[35]Douglas, F., Hernandez-Marrero, P.& Wielemaker, M. The role of affect and cognition in the perception of outcome acceptability under different justice conditions. Journal of American Academy of Business,2005,7(1),269-277.
[36]Eckel, C.C.& Grossman, P.J. Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry,2001,39(2),171-188.
[37]Federmeier, K.D.,& Kutas, M. Picture the difference:Electrophysiological investigations of picture processing in the two cerebral hemispheres. Neuropsychologia,2002,40,730-747.
[38]Fehr, E.& Schmidt, K.M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1999,114(3),817-868.
[39]Fehr, E.& Gachter, S. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. The American economic review,2000,90(4),980-994.
[40]Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U.& Gachter, S. Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Human nature,2002,13(1),1-25.
[41]Folstein, J.R.& Van Petten, C. Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP:a review. Psychophysiology,2008,45(1), 152-170.
[42]Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J.L., Savin, N. E.& Sefton, M. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior,1994,6(3),347-369.
[43]Greenberg, J. Stealing in the name of justice:Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1993,54(1),81-103.
[44]Guth, W., Schmittberger. R.& Schwarze. B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization,1982,3(4), 367-388.
[45]Gehring, W.J.& Willoughby, A.R. The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science.2002.295(5563),2279-2282.
[46]Halko, M.L., Hlushchuk, Y. Hari, R.& Schurmann. M. Competing with peers: Mentalizing-related brain activity reflects what is at stake. Neuroimage,2009, 46(2),542-548.
[47]Hamm, J.P., Johnson, B.W.,& Kirk, I.J. Comparison of the N300 and N400 ERPs to picture stimuli in congruent and incongruent contexts. Clinical Neurophysiology.2002,113(8).1339-1350.
[48]Harbaugh, W., Krause, K.& Lidey, S. Children's bargaining behavior: differences by age, gender, and height. Manuscript, University of Oregon.2000.
[49]Harrison, G.W.& McCabe, K.A. Expectations and fairness in a simple bargaining experiment. International Journal of Game Theory,1996,25(3), 303-327.
[50]Henrich. J., Boyd, R.. Bowles, S.. Camerer, C, Fehr, E., Gintis, H.& McElreath. R. In search of horno economicus:behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The American economic review,2001.91(2).73-78.
[51]Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K.& Smith, V. Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior.1994.7(3), 346-380.
[52]Hoffman, E., McCabe, K.& Smith. V. The impact of exchange context on the activation of equity in ultimatum games. Experimental Economics,2000,3(1), 5-9.
[53]Jerald, G. Stealing in the name of justice:Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1993.54(1),81-103.
[54]Kahneman, D. Maps of bounded rationality:A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel prize lecture.2002.8(12),449-89.
[55]Kahneman, D.. Knetsch, J.L.& Thaler. R. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking:Entitlements in the market. The American economic review,1986,76(4), 728-741.
[56]Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K.. Treyer. V.& Fehr. E. Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science,2006, 314(5800),829-832.
[57]Knutson, B., Westdorp, A., Kaiser, E.& Hommer, D. FMRI visualization of brain activity during a monetary incentive delay task. Neuroimage,2000,12(1),20-27.
[58]Knutson, B., Adams, C.M., Fong, G.W.& Hommer. D. Anticipation of increasing monetary reward selectively recruits nucleus accumbens. J Neurosci,2001, 21(16),1-5.
[59]Kringelbach, M.L. The human orbitofrontal cortex:linking reward to hedonic experience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,2005,6(9),691-702.
[60]Kutas, M.& Hillyard, S.A. Reading senseless sentences:Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science,1980,207(4427),203-205.
[61]Larrick, R. P.& Blount, S. The claiming effect:Why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in ultimatum games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1997,72(4),810-825.
[62]Ledyard, J.O. Public goods:A survey of experimental research. Public Economics,1994.
[63]Leventhal, G.S. What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships.1976.
[64]Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J.& Fry, W.R. Beyond fairness:A theory of allocation preferences. Justice and social interaction,1980,3,167-218.
[65]List, J.A.& Cherry, T.L. Learning to accept in ultimatum games:Evidence from an experimental design that generates low offers. Experimental Economics,2000, 3(1),11-29.
[66]Lind, E.A.& Tyler, T.R. The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Us,1988.
[67]Liotti, M., Woldorff, M.G., Perez, R.& Mayberg, H.S. An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect. Neuropsychologia, 2000,38.701-711.
[68]Lu, Y., Zhang, W.H.. Hu, W.,& Luo, Y.J. Understanding the subliminal affective priming effect of facial stimuli:an ERP study. Neuroscience Letters,2011.
[69]Luo. J. Neural correlates of insight. Acta Psychologica Sinica,2004,3(6), 219-234.
[70]MacDonald, A.W., Cohen, J.D., Stenger, V.A.& Carter. C.S. Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science,2000,288(5472),1835-1838.
[71]Mazerolle, E.L., D"Arcy, R.C.N., Marchand, Y., Bolster, R.B. ERP assessment of functional status in the temporal lobe:Examining spatiotemporal correlates of object recognition. Internation Journal of Psychophysiology,2007,66(1).81-92.
[72]Mai. X.Q., Luo, J., Wu, J.H.& Luo, Y.J. "Aha!:effects in a guessing riddle task: An ERP study. Human brain mapping,2004,22(4),261-270.
[73]Miller, E.K.& Cohen. J.D. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual review of neuroscience,2001,24(1),167-202.
[74]Miltner, W.H., Trippe, R.H., Krieschel, S., Gutberlet, I., Hecht, H.,& Weiss, T. Event-related brain potentials and affective responses to threat in spider/snake-phobic and non-phobic subjects. International Journal of Psychophysiology,2005,57(1),43-52.
[75]Murnighan. J.K.& Saxon, M.S. Ultimatum bargaining by children and adults. Journal of Economic Psychology,1998.19(4),415-445.
[76]Nagy, E., Potts, G.F.& Loveland, K. A. Sex-related ERP differences in deviance detection. International journal of psychophysiology,2003,48(3),285-292.
[77]O'Doherty, J., Kringelbach, M.L., Rolls, E.T., Hornak, J.& Andrews. C. Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal cortex. Nature neuroscience,2001,4(1),95-102.
[78]O'Doherty, J., Dayan, P., Schultz, J., Deichmann. R., Friston, K.& Dolan, R.J. Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instrumental conditioning. Science.2004,304(5669),452-454.
[79]Olivares, E.I., Iglesias, J.& Rodriguez-Holguin, S. Long-latency ERPs and recognition of facial identity. Journal of cognitive neuroscience,2003,15(1), 136-151.
[80]Phillips, M.L., Young, A., Senior, C, Brammer, M., Andrew, C, Calder, A., Bullmore, E., Perrett, D., Rowland, D.& Williams, S. A specific neural substrate for perceiving facial expressions of disgust. Nature,1997,389(6650),495-498.
[81]Qiu. J., Zhang, Q.L., Li, H., Luo, Y.J., Yin, Q.Q., Chen, A.T.,& Yuan, H. The event-related potential effects of cognitive conflict in a Chinese character-generation task. NeuroReport,2007,18(9),881-886.
[82]Rapoport, A.& Sundali, J.A. Ultimatums in two-person bargaining with one-sided uncertainty:Offer games. International Journal of Game Theory,1996, 25(4),475-494.
[83]Reuben, E.& Van Winden, F. Fairness perceptions and prosocial emotions in the power to take. Journal of Economic Psychology.2010,31(6),908-922.
[84]Rotemberg, J.J. Minimally acceptable altruism and the ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization,2008,66(3-4),457-476.
[85]Sally, D. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas. Rationality and Society,1995,7(1),58-92.
[86]Sanfey, A.G.. Rilling, J.K., Aronson, J.A.. Nystrom. L.E.& Cohen, J.D. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science,2003, 300(5626),1755-1758.
[87]Sanfey, A.G. Social decision-making:insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science,2007,318(5850),598-602.
[88]Schotter, A., Weiss, A.& Zapater, I. Fairness and survival in ultimatum and dictatorship games. Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization,1996,31(1), 37-56.
[89]Schultz, W. Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2000,1(3),199-208.
[90]Schultz, W., Tremblay, L.& Hollerman, J.R. Changes in behavior-related neuronal activity in the striatum during learning. TRENDS in Neurosciences, 2003,26(6),321-328.
[91]Schutter, D.J.L.G., de Haan, E.H.F& van Honk, J. Functionally dissociated aspects in anterior and posterior electrocortical processing of facial threat. International Journal of Psychophysiol,2004.53(1),29-36.
[92]Solnick. S.J. Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry,2001, 39(2),189-200.
[93]Spitzer, M., Fischbacher, U., Herrnberger, B., Gron, G.& Fehr, E. The neural signature of social norm compliance. Neuron,2007,56(1),185-196.
[94]Squires, K.C., Wickens, C, Squires, N.K.& Donchin, E. The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. Science,1976, 193(4258),1142.
[95]Simon, H.A. Administrative behavior. New York:Macmillan,1947.
[96]Steffensen, S.C., Ohran. A.J., Shipp, D.N., Hales, K., Stobbs, S.H.& Fleming, D.E. Gender-selective effects of the P300 and N400 components of the visual evoked potential. Vision research,2008,48(7),917-925.
[97]Taake, I., Jaspers-Fayer, F.& Liotti, M. Early frontal responses elicited by physical threat words in an emotional Stroop task:Modulation by anxiety sensitivity. Biological Psychology,2009,81(1),48-57.
[98]Thibaut, J.& Walker, L., Procedural justice:A psychological analysis, L. Erlbaum Associates,1975.
[99]Tricomi, E. M, Delgado, M. R.& Fiez, J. A. Modulation of caudate activity by action contingency. Neuron,2004,41(2),281-292.
[100]Walster, E., Walster, G.W.& Traupmann, J. Equity and premarital sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1978,36(1),82.
[101]West, R.. Herndon, R.W.,& Crewdson, S.J.Neural activity associated with the realization of a delayed intention. Cognitive Brain Research,2001,12(1),1-9.
[102]Xiao, E.,& Houser, D. Emotion expression in human punishment behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,2005,102(20),7398-7401.
[103]拉克.事件相关电位基础.上海：华东师范大学出版社,,2009.
[104]李浩.提升员工公平感.企业管理,2003(6),92-94.
[105]李哗,龙立荣,刘亚.组织公平感研究进展.心理科学进展,2003,11(1),78-84.
[106]林志萍.风险与含糊情境下的投资决策研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[107]马庆国.管理统计.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[108]马庆国,王小毅.认知神经科学、神经经济学与神经管理学.管理世界,2006(10),139-149.
[109]马庆国,王小毅.从神经经济学和神经营销学到神经管理学.管理工程学报,2006,20(3),129-132.
[110]邱江,罗跃嘉,吴真真,张庆林.再探猜谜作业中“顿悟”的ERP效应.心理学报,2006,38(4),507-514.
[111]孙怀平,杨东涛,袁培林.员工公平感的影响因素实证研究.科技管理研究,2007(8),239-242.
[112]孙伟,黄培伦.公平理论研究评述.科技管理研究,2004,24(4),102-104.
[113]汪丁丁,叶航.理性的追问：关于经济学理性主义的对话.桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2003.
[114]王凯.突发事件下决策者的框架效应研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[115]魏景汉,罗跃嘉.认知事件相关脑电位教程.北京：经济日报出版社,2002.
[116]张薇.组织公平感与个性特点研究进展及评述.甘肃社会科学,2004(1),189-192.
[117]赵立军.框架效应与公平判断.博士学位论文,华东师范大学,2010.
[118]赵仑.ERP实验教程.南京：东南大学出版社,2010.