2024年5月15日发(作者：qq免下载在线登录)

ConsciousnessandCognitionxxx(2012)xxx–xxx

ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect

ConsciousnessandCognition

journalhomepage:/locate/concog

Hypnoticingroup–outgroupsuggestioninfluenceseconomic

decision-makinginanUltimatumGame

MartinBrüne

a,c,

⇑

,CumhurTas

a

,JuliaWischniewski

a

,AnnaWelpinghus

b

,ChristineHeinisch

a

,

AlbertNewen

b,c

ResearchDepartmentofCognitiveNeuropsychiatryandPsychiatricPreventiveMedicine,DepartmentofPsychiatry,PsychotherapyandPreventiveMedicine,

LWLUniversityHospital,Ruhr-UniversityBochum,Germany

b

InstituteofPhilosophyII,FacultyofPhilosophyandEducation,Ruhr-UniversityBochum,Germany

c

CenterforMind,BrainandCognitiveEvolution,Ruhr-UniversityBochum,Germany

a

articleinfo

abstract

Studiesineconomicdecision-makinghavedemonstratedthatindividualsappreciatesocial

valuessupportingequityanddisapproveunfairnesswhendistributinggoodsbetweentwo

r,thisseemstocriticallydependonpsychologicalmechanisms

partlypertainingtotheingroup–isknownastowhatextent

economicbargainingcanbemanipulatedbymeansofpsychologicalinterventionssuch

showthatahypnoticingroupversusoutgroupsuggestionimpacts

fically,theingroupsuggestionwas

associatedwithsignificantlygreateracceptanceratesofunfairoffersthantheoutgroup

suggestion,whereashypnosisaloneexertedonlysmalleffectsonunfairnesstolerance.

Thesefindingsindicatethatpsychologicalinterventionssuchashypnoticsuggestioncan

contributetoingroupfavoritismandoutgrouprejection.

Óhtsreserved.

Articlehistory:

Received30November2011

Availableonlinexxxx

Keywords:

UltimatumGame

Economicbargaining

Toleranceofunfairness

Ingroup–outgroupdistinction

uction

Researchintoeconomicdecision-makinghasrevealedthatpeoplearesensitivetounfairness,mple,

inexperimentalbargainingscenariosoffersthatareperceivedtobeunfairwillusuallyberejected,evenifindividualsforgoa

netgainofresources(Fehr&Schmitt,1999).Evolutionarytheorizinghasprovidedtestablepredictionswhypeopletendto

behaveinwaysthatare‘‘illogical’’inastrictlyeconomicperspective(Axelrod&Hamilton,1981;Camerer,2003;Gintis,

2000;Trivers,1971).Theunderlyingmotivationfornottoleratinginequityorunfairnessprobablyresidesintheneedtorein-

forcecooperationwithinsocialgroups,andsuchbehavioraltendencies,includingtheformationofculturallyacceptedsocial

rulesandmoralvalues,hasundergonepositiveselectioninhumanevolution(Fehr&Fischbacher,2004).

Awealthofstudieshasshownthathumansfollowthatlogicinexperimentalsituationsandtendtorejectoffersbelow

50%ofadistributablegood,reetowhichoneiswillingto

acceptunfairnesshaswidelybeenstudied,includingexperimentalmanipulationsusingbrainstimulationtechniquesor

blenumberofstudiesusedaso-calledUltimatumGame(UG;Camerer,2003),inwhichoneplayer,called

theproposer,suggestshowtosplitanamountof(virtual)erplayer,calledtherecipient,hastheoptionto

heorsherejects,,theUGentailsamildform

y,fairoffersofaround50%ofthetotalsumareaccepted

⇑

Correspondingauthorat:ResearchDepartmentofCognitiveNeuropsychiatryandPsychiatricPreventiveMedicine,DepartmentofPsychiatry,

PsychotherapyandPreventiveMedicine,LWLUniversityHospital,Ruhr-UniversityBochum,Alexandrinenstr.1,D-44791Bochum,:+49234

50771329.

E-mailaddress:@(üne).

1053-8100/$-seefrontmatterÓhtsreserved.

doi:10.1016/.2012.02.009

Pleasecitethisarticleinpressas:Brüne,M.,icingroup–outgroupsuggestioninfluenceseconomicdecision-makinginanUlti-

ousnessandCognition(2012),doi:10.1016/.2012.02.009

üneetal./ConsciousnessandCognitionxxx(2012)xxx–xxx

byrecipients,whiletheacceptanceratedropsdramaticallywithincreasingunfairnessoftheoffer(Sanfey,Rilling,Aronson,

Nystrom,&Cohen,2003).Inbrainstimulationexperimentsapplyingrepetitivetranscranialmagneticstimulation(rTMS)or

transcranialdirectcurrentstimulation(tDCS)ofneocorticalareas,participantsacceptedmoreunfairoffersuponfunctional

inhibitionoftherightdorsolateralprefrontalcortex,suggestingeitherthattheinhibitoryeffectsofbrainstimulationover-

rodeaprepotentemotionalresponsetorejectunfairoffers,or,alternatively,thatthestimulationproducedmoreselfish

behaviorbydiminishingcorticalcontroloveregocentricity(Knoch,Pascual-Leone,Meyer,Treyer,&Fehr,2006;Knoch

etal.,2007;van’tWout,Kahn,Sanfey,&Aleman,2005).Conversely,theadministrationofsocialhormonessuchasoxytocin

hasbeenshowntoincreasetrust(Kosfeld,Heinrichs,Zak,Fischbacher,&Fehr,2005)andprosocialbehaviorineconomic

games(DeDreuetal.,2010;Israeletal.,2009).Incontrasttostudiesbasedonbrainstimulationorapplicationofhormones,

thereisapaucityofstudiesintoeconomicdecision-makingafterpsychologicalinterventions.

Hypnosisreflectsapsychologicaltechniquethatisknowntoinflmple,ithasbeen

shownthathypnosishasthepotentialtoinfluencepainperception(Arendt-Nielsen,Zachariae,&Bjerring,1990),speechpro-

cessing(Casigliaetal.,2010),mirrorself-identification(Barnier,Cox,Connors,Langdon,&Coltheart,2011;Barnieretal.,

2008),toinducemotorparalysis(Cojanetal.,2009)orcatalepsy(Grond,Pawlik,Walter,Lesch,&Heiss,1995),toaltervol-

untarymotorcontrol(Haggard,Cartledge,Dafydd,&Oakley,2004),andtoimpactonmoraldecision-making(Page,1985;

Page&Handley,1988;Wheatley&Haidt,2005).Asregardsthelatterissue,Page(1985)wasamongthefirsttoshowthat

hypnoticageregressionlowersone’smoralreasoningscoresondilemmassuchasabrokenpromisesortransgressionoflaws

inlife-threateningsituationsaccordingtoKohlberg’sMoralJudgementInterview(Kohlberg,1976).Thatis,hypnotizedand

age-r,thesamegroupwasunabletorep-

licatethisfindinginadifferentsampleusingdifferentdilemmas(Page&Handley,1988).Morerecently,astudy,inwhich

participantsreceivedthepost-hypnoticsuggestiontoexperienceabriefsickeningfeelinginthestomach,foundthatindi-

vidualsratedmoraldilemmasasmoresevereanddisgustingwhenaparticularwordthatwasassociatedwiththesuggestion

appearedinthevignetteofthemoraldilemma(Wheatley&Haidt,2005).Suchexperimentssuggestthatmoralreasoning

canbeinflr,whilefocusingongeneralmoralrules,theseexper-

imentslackpersonalinvolvementoftheparticipants,edirectandcontext-dependentexperienceofbeingtreated

inanunfairmanner,asreflectedineconomicgames.

Asregardsthesocialcontextineconomicdecision-making,trustandtoleranceofunfairnesscriticallydependonone’s

mple,peopleclearlytendtodistinguishbetweeningroupandout-

groupmembers,andthisdistinctionhasdemonstrableeffectsonone’swillingnesstosharewithothers(DeDreu,2010).

Evenchildrenasyoungas6–7yearsoldshowaclearpreferencetoshareresourcessuchassweetswithkidsfromtheir

peer-groupascomparedtokidsfromadifferentkindergartengroup(Fehr,Bernhard,&Rockenbach,2008).Inaddition,altru-

ismisalsoclearlymoredirectedtowardskinandingroupmembers,asopposedtoaltruisticbehaviororientedtowardsout-

clinationseemstobeevenstrongerupontheadministrationofoxytocin(DeDreu,Greer,VanKleef,

Shalvi,&Handgraaf,2011;DeDreuetal.,2010),whichisknownforitspro-empatheticproperties(Domes,Heinrichs,Michel,

Berger,&Herpertz,2006).Inrespectofthesefindings,itisinterestingtonotethatemotionalcontagionandempathyhave

beenfoundtoberelatedtoone’shypnotizability(Cardeña,Terhune,Loof,&Buratti,2009;Wickramasekera&Szlyk,2003),

andthatoxytocinincreaseshypnotizabilityeveninlowhypnotizablesubjects(Bryant,Hung,Guastella,&Mitchell,2012).

Takentogether,thissuggeststhatthehypnoticstatecouldinfl-

tion,ahypnoticsuggestionofingroup–outgroupdistinctioncouldfurtherbiassubjects’economicdecision-making,perhaps

comparabletotheeffectofoxytocin.

Accordingly,wesoughttoexamineboththeeffectofhypnosisandtheimpactofahypnoticingroup–outgroupsuggestion

ntheafore-mentionedstudies,wehypothesizedthathypnosisalonewouldincrease

one’er,wepredictedthatahypnoticingroup–outgroupsuggestionwouldin-

creaseordecreasethelikelihoodofacceptingorrejectingunfairoffers,dependingonthespecificcontentofthesuggestion.

Thatis,weexpectedthatsubjects’toleranceofunfairnesswouldriseforunfairoffersreceivedfromingroupmembers,

whereastheacceptancerateofunfairoffersfromoutgroupmemberswoulddecline.

s

ipants

Twenty-fourright-handedsubjects(15women)withameanageof25.5years(SD

age

=3.68years)participatedintheeco-

jectshadnormalorcorrected-to-normalvisionandnohistoryofneurologicorpsychi-

ndaxisIIdisorderswereexcludedbyastructuredclinicalinterview(SCID;Wittchen&Fydrich,1997).

PartidywasapprovedbytheEthicsCom-

mitteeoftheMedicalFacultyoftheRuhr-UniversityBochum,andallparticipantsgavewritteninformedconsent.

tumGame(UG)

Priortotesting,allsubjectsreceivedwritteninstructionsandperformedapracticetrialtoensurethattheyhadcom-

alswerepresentedonacomputerscreenwitharesolutionof1280Âtance

Pleasecitethisarticleinpressas:Brüne,M.,icingroup–outgroupsuggestioninfluenceseconomicdecision-makinginanUlti-

ousnessandCognition(2012),doi:10.1016/.2012.02.009