Premium
Why humans deviate from rational choice
Author(s) -
Hewig Johannes,
Kretschmer Nora,
Trippe Ralf H.,
Hecht Holger,
Coles Michael G. H.,
Holroyd Clay B.,
Miltner Wolfgang H. R.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
psychophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.661
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1469-8986
pISSN - 0048-5772
DOI - 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01081.x
Subject(s) - ultimatum game , psychology , anterior cingulate cortex , negativity effect , punishment (psychology) , cognitive psychology , reinforcement , reinforcement learning , iowa gambling task , dictator game , social decision making , social psychology , cognition , neuroscience , artificial intelligence , computer science
Rational choice theory predicts that humans always optimize the expected utility of options when making decisions. However, in decision‐making games, humans often punish their opponents even when doing so reduces their own reward. We used the Ultimatum and Dictator games to examine the affective correlates of decision‐making. We show that the feedback negativity, an event‐related brain potential that originates in the anterior cingulate cortex that has been related to reinforcement learning, predicts the decision to reject unfair offers in the Ultimatum game. Furthermore, the decision to reject is positively related to more negative emotional reactions and to increased autonomic nervous system activity. These findings support the idea that subjective emotional markers guide decision‐making and that the anterior cingulate cortex integrates instances of reinforcement and punishment to provide such affective markers.