Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bias and Control in Social Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Neuroscience and Social Science

Abstract

Social decisions are crucial in our life. Many of these include interactions between agents in scenarios of varying complexity, where trust and cooperation are essential and multiple sources of information influence our choices. In this chapter we review the contributions from social neuroscience to understanding the sources of bias and control mechanisms in social decisions, integrating insights from diverse methodologies and analyses. These biases include individual influences (both stable and transient) and other stimulus-driven factors, such as social stereotypes, emotion displays, or information regarding personality traits. This information modulates different stages of processing, with control-related influences playing crucial roles to override conflicts between automatic tendencies and goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sanfey AG. Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science. 2007;318(5850):598–602. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142996.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Adolphs R, Anderson D. Social and emotional neuroscience. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23(3):291–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fehr E, Gachter S. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am Econ Rev. 2000;90(4):980–94. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ruff CC, Fehr E. The neurobiology of rewards and values in social decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014;15(8):549–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3776.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frith CD, Frith U. Implicit and explicit processes in social cognition. Neuron. 2008;60(3):503–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Kleef GA. How emotions regulate social life. Curr Dir Psychol. 2009;18(3):184–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunne S, O’Doherty JP. Insights from the application of computational neuroimaging to social neuroscience. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23(3):387–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.02.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science. 2003;300(5626):1755–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stolier RM, Freeman JB. Functional and temporal considerations for top-down influences in social perception. Psychol Inq. 2016;27(4):352–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1216034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG. Social psychological contributions to the decade of the brain. Doctrine of multilevel analysis. Am Psychol. 1992;47(8):1019–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ochsner KN, Lieberman M. The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. Am Psychol. 2001;56(9):717–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Kosfeld M. Neuroeconomic foundations of trust and social preferences neuroeconomic foundations of trust and social preferences. Am Econ Rev. 2005;95(2):346–51. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774669736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanfey AG, Chang LJ. Multiple systems in decision making. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1128:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1399.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leotti LA, Delgado MR. The value of exercising control over monetary gains and losses. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(2):596–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613514589.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Berkman ET, Cunningham WA, Lieberman MD. Research methods in social and affective neuroscience. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, editors. Handbook of research methods in personality and social psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 123–58.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Camerer CF. Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interactions. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ruz M, Acero JJ, Tudela P. What does the brain tell us about the mind? Psicológica. 2006;29:149–57.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J Econ Behav Organ. 1982;3(4):367–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sally D. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Ration Soc. 1995;7(1):58–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gilam G, Lin T, Raz G, Azrielant S, Fruchter E, Ariely D, et al. Neural substrates underlying the tendency to accept anger-infused ultimatum offers during dynamic social interactions. NeuroImage. 2015;120:400–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Heijne A, Sanfey AG. How social and nonsocial context affects stay/leave decision-making: the influence of actual and expected rewards. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135226. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135226.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Stolier RM, Freeman JB. Neural pattern similarity reveals the inherent intersection of social categories. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19(6):795–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenwald AG, Mcghee DE, Schwartz JLK. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(6):1464–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Amodio DM. The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nat Rev. 2014;15(10):670–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schiller D, Freeman JB, Mitchell JP, Uleman JS, Phelps EA. A neural mechanism of first impressions. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12(4):508–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Greene J, Haidt J. How (and where) does moral judgement work? Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6(12):517–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Greene JD, Morelli SA, Lowenberg K, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition. 2008;107(3):1144–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Luck SJ. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cutini S, Basso Moro S, Bisconti S. Functional near infrared optical imaging in cognitive neuroscience: an introductory review. J Near Infrared Spectrosc. 2012;20:75–92. https://doi.org/10.1255/jnirs.969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haxby JV, Gobbini MI, Furey ML, Ishai A, Schouten JL, Pietrini P. Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science. 2001;293(5539):2425–30. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kriegeskorte N, Mur M, Bandettini P. Representational similarity analysis – connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Front Syst Neurosci. 2008;2:4. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Tamir DI, Thornton MA, Contreras JM, Mitchell JP. Neural evidence that three dimensions organize mental state representation: rationality, social impact, and alence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(1):194–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511905112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Glover SH, Bumpus MA, Sharp GF, Munchus GA. Gender differences in ethical decision making. Women Manag Rev. 2002;17(5):217–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420210433175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Andreoni J, Vesterlund L. Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Q J Econ. 2001;116(1):293–312. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosen JB, Brand M, Kalbe E. Empathy mediates the effects of age and sex on altruistic moral decision making. Front Behav Neurosci. 2016;10:67. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00067.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Singer T, Seymour B, Doherty JPO, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature. 2006;439(7075):466–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Moore C. Fairness in children’s resource allocation depends on the recipient. Psychol Sci. 2009;20(8):944–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02378.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Weller D, Hansen Lagattuta K. Helping the in-group feels better: children’s judgments and emotion attributions in response to prosocial dilemmas. Child Dev. 2013;84(1):253–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01837.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bailey PE, Ruffman T, Rendell PG. Age-related differences in social economic decision making: the ultimatum game. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2012;68(3):356–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Harlé KM, Sanfey AG. Social economic decision-making across the lifespan: an fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(7):1416–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.02.026.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lim KTK, Yu R. Aging and wisdom: age-related changes in economic and social decision making. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7:120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Fehr E, Schmidt KM. The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism – experimental evidence and new theories. In: Kolm SC, Ythier JM, editors. Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2006. p. 615–91.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Murphy R, Ackermann K. A review of measurement methods for social preferences. ETH Zurich Chair of decision theory and behavioral game theory, working paper. http://vlab.ethz.ch/svo/SVO_rev_paper.pdf.

  44. Murphy RO, Ackermann KA, Handgraaf MJJ. Measuring social value orientation. Judgm Decis Mak. 2011;6(8):771–81. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1804189.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Au WT, Kwong JY. Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas. In: Suleiman R, Budescu DV, Fischer I, Messick DM, editors. Contemporary research on social dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 71–98.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bogaert S, Boone C, Declerck C, Bogaert Boone C, Declerck CHS. Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a review and conceptual model. Br J Soc Psychol. 2008;47(3):453–80. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X244970.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Emonds G, Declerck CH, Boone C, Vandervliet EJM, Parizel PM. Comparing the neural basis of decision making in social dilemmas of people with different social value orientations, a fMRI study. J Neurosci Psychol Econ. 2011;4(1):11–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Emonds G, Declerck CH, Boone C, Seurinck R, Achten R. Establishing cooperation in a mixed-motive social dilemma. An fMRI study investigating the role of social value orientation and dispositional trust. Soc Neurosci. 2014;9(1):10–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.858080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang WH, Shih YH, Yu HY, Yen DJ, Lin YY, Kwan SY, et al. Theory of mind and social functioning in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2015;56(7):1117–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Koscik TR, Tranel D. The human amygdala is necessary for developing and expressing normal interpersonal trust. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(4):602–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Koenigs M, Young L, Adolphs R, Tranel D, Cushman F, Hauser M, et al. Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature. 2007;446(7138):908–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05631.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Moll J, de Oliveira-Souza R. Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11(8):319–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gleichgerrcht E, Ibanez A, Roca M, Torralva T, Manes F. Decision-making cognition in neurodegenerative diseases. Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6(11):611–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2010.148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gleichgerrcht E, Torralva T, Roca M, Pose M, Manes F. The role of social cognition in moral judgment in frontotemporal dementia. Soc Neurosci. 2011;6(2):113–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2010.506751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. O’Callaghan C, Bertoux M, Irish M, Shine JM, Wong S, Spiliopoulos L, et al. Fair play: social norm compliance failures in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain. 2016;139(1):204–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science. 2006;313(5787):684–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128356.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Wang XT, Rao L, Zheng H. Neural substrates of framing effects in social contexts: a meta-analytical approach. Soc Neurosci. 2016;28:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2016.1165285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zheng H, Wang XT, Zhu L. Framing effects: behavioral dynamics and neural basis. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(11):3198–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.06.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Forgas JP. Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychol Bull. 1995;117(1):39–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Harlé KM, Chang LJ, van’t Wout M, Sanfey AG. The neural mechanisms of affect infusion in social economic decision-making: a mediating role of the anterior insula. NeuroImage. 2012;61(1):32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Forgas J. On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(3):565–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Mislin A, Williams LV, Shaughnessy BA. Motivating trust: can mood and incentives increase interpersonal trust? J Behav Exp Econ. 2015;58:11–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2015.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rand DG, Kraft-Todd G, Gruber J. The collective benefits of feeling good and letting go: positive emotion and (dis) inhibition interact to predict cooperative behavior. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nygren TE, Isen AM, Taylor PJ, Dulin J. The influence of positive affect on the decision rule in risk situations: focus on outcome (and especially avoidance of loss) rather than probability. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;66(1):59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tan HB, Forgas JP. When happiness makes us selfish, but sadness makes us fair: affective influences on interpersonal strategies in the dictator game. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46(3):571–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Szekely RD, Miu AC. Incidental emotions in moral dilemmas: the influence of emotion regulation. Cognit Emot. 2015;29(1):64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.895300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Grecucci A, Giorgetta C, Bonini N, Sanfey AG. Reappraising social emotions: the role of inferior frontal gyrus, temporo-parietal junction and insula in interpersonal emotion regulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00523.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Grecucci A, Giorgetta C, Van’t Wout M, Bonini N, Sanfey AG. Reappraising the ultimatum: an fMRI study of emotion regulation and decision making. Cereb Cortex. 2013;23(2):399–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Bar M, Neta M, Linz H. Very first impressions. Emotion. 2008;6(2):269–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Bickart KC, Dickerson BC, Feldman Barrett L. The amygdala as a hub in brain networks that support social life. Neuropsychologia. 2014;63:235–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C. Social categorization and intergroup behavior. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1971;1(2):149–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Fiske ST. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The handbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998. p. 357–411.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Quadflieg S, Turk DJ, Waiter GD, Mitchell JP, Jenkins AC, Macrae CN. Exploring the neural correlates of social stereotyping. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21(8):1560–70. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Freeman JB, Ma Y, Barth M, Young SG, Han S, Ambady N. The neural basis of contextual influences on face categorization. Cereb Cortex. 2015;25(2):415–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Frith CD, Frith U. How we predict what other people are going to do. Brain Res. 2006;1079(1):36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Stanley DA, Sokol-Hessner P, Fareri DS, Perino MT, Delgado MR, Banaji MR, et al. Race and reputation: perceived racial group trustworthiness influences the neural correlates of trust decisions. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2012;367(1589):744–53. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Gilbert SJ, Swencionis JK, Amodio DM. Evaluative vs. trait representation in intergroup social judgments: distinct roles of anterior temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(14):3600–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Ito T, Urland G. Race and gender on the brain. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(4):616–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ofan RH, Rubin N, Amodio DM. Seeing race: N170 responses to race and their relation to automatic racial attitudes and controlled processing. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011;23(10):3153–61. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Tortosa M, Lupiáñez J, Ruz M. Race, emotion and trust: an ERP study. Brain Res. 2013;1494:44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.11.037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Bentin S, Allison T, Pruce A, Perez E, Mccarthy G. Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. J Cogn Neurosci. 1996;8(6):551–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Ibáñez A, Gleichgerrcht E, Hurtado E, Gonzalez R, Haye A, Manes F. Early neural markers of implicit attitudes: N170 modulated by intergroup and evaluative contexts in IAT. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010;4:188. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Haxby JV, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI. The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4(6):223–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01482-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Contreras JM, Banaji MR, Mitchell JP. Multivoxel patterns in fusiform face area differentiate faces by sex and race. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69684. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069684.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Brosch T, Bar-David E, E a P. Implicit race bias decreases the similarity of neural representations of black and white faces. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(2):160–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612451465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Mendoza SA, Lane SP, Amido DM, Amodio DM. For members only: ingroup punishment of fairness norm violations in the ultimatum game. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2014;5(6):662–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614527115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Stanley DA, Sokol-Hessner P, Banaji MR, Phelps EA. Implicit race attitudes predict trustworthiness judgments and economic trust decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(19):7710–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014345108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Freeman JB, Ambady N. A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychol Rev. 2011;118(2):247–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Adolphs R. Perception and emotion: how we recognize facial expressions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(5):222–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00440.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Oosterhof NN, Todorov A. The functional basis of face evaluation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(32):11087–92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Todorov A, Said CP, Engell AD, Oosterhof NN. Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(12):455–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. G a v K. The emerging view of emotion as social information. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2010;4(5):331–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00262.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Scharlemann JPW, Eckel CC, Kacelnik A, Wilson RK. The value of a smile: game theory with a human face. J Econ Psychol. 2001;22(5):617–40. doi: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:60f12fb9-4fea-4f5f-9837-7d1982010b76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Mussel P, Göritz AS, Hewig J. The value of a smile: facial expression affects ultimatum-game responses. Judgm Decis Mak. 2013;8(3):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Hareli S, Hess U. What emotional reactions can tell us about the nature of others: an appraisal perspective on person perception. Cognit Emot. 2010;24(1):128–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802613828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Ibañez A, Kotz SA, Barrett L, Moll J, Ruz M. Situated affective and social neuroscience. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:547. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00547.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. de Melo CM, Carnevale PJ, Read SJ, Gratch J. Reading people’s minds from emotion expressions in interdependent decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014;106(1):73–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR. The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;86(1):57–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Alguacil S, Tudela P, Ruz M. Ignoring facial emotion expressions does not eliminate their influence on cooperation decisions. Psicológica. 2015;36(2):309–35. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16941182006.

  101. Ruz M, Tudela P. Emotional conflict in interpersonal interactions. NeuroImage. 2011;54(2):1685–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Ruz M, Madrid E, Tudela P. Interactions between perceived emotions and executive attention in an interpersonal game. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013;8(7):838–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Gobbini MI, Haxby JV. Neural systems for recognition of familiar faces. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45(1):32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.04.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Fett AKJ, Shergill SS, Joyce DW, Riedl A, Strobel M, Gromann PM, et al. To trust or not to trust: the dynamics of social interaction in psychosis. Brain. 2012;135(3):976–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awr359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Todorov A, Baron SG, Oosterhof NN. Evaluating face trustworthiness: a model based approach. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2008;3(2):119–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Todorov A, Pakrashi M, Oosterhof NN. Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Soc Cogn. 2009;27(6):813–33. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Freeman JB, Stolier RM, Ingbretsen ZA, Hehman EA. Amygdala responsivity to high-level social information from unseen faces. J Neurosci. 2014;34(32):10573–81. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5063-13.2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Kim H, Choi M-J, Jang I-J. Lateral OFC activity predicts decision bias due to first impressions during ultimatum games. J Cogn Neurosci. 2012;24(2):428–39. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Rezlescu C, Duchaine B, Olivola CY, Chater N. Unfakeable facial configurations affect strategic choices in trust games with or without information about past behavior. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e34293. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034293.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. van’t Wout M, Sanfey AG. Friend or foe: the effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition. 2008;108(3):796–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Delgado MR, Frank RH, Phelps EA. Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(11):1611–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Fareri DS, Chang LJ, Delgado MR. Computational substrates of social value in interpersonal collaboration. J Neurosci. 2015;35(21):8170–80. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4775-14.2015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Hackel LM, Doll BB, Amodio DM. Instrumental learning of traits versus rewards: dissociable neural correlates and effects on choice. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(9):1233–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Gaertig C, Moser A, Alguacil S, Ruz M. Social information and economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Front Neurosci. 2012;6(July):1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00103.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Ruz M, Moser A, Webster K. Social expectations bias decision-making in uncertain inter-personal situations. PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e15762. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015762.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Moser A, Gaertig C, Ruz M. Social information and personal interests modulate neural activity during economic decision-making. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8(February):31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00031.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Campanhã C, Minati L, Fregni F, Boggio PS. Responding to unfair offers made by a friend: neuroelectrical activity changes in the anterior medial prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2011;31(43):15569–74. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1253-11.2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Knoch D, Pascual-Leone A, Meyer K, Treyer V, Fehr E. Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science. 2006;314(5800):829–32. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1129156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Baumgartner T, Knoch D, Hotz P, Eisenegger C, Fehr E. Dorsolateral and ventromedial prefrontal cortex orchestrate normative choice. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(11):1468–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Paxton JM, Ungar L, Greene JD. Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cogn Sci. 2012;36(1):163–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01210.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Greene JD, Nystrom LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen JD. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron. 2004;44(2):389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Tassy S, Oullier O, Duclos Y, Coulon O, Mancini J, Deruelle C, et al. Disrupting the right prefrontal cortex alters moral judgement. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012;7(3):282–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Frith C, Singer T. The role of social cognition in decision making. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1511):3875–86. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Ochsner KN, Gross JJ. The cognitive control of emotion. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9(5):242–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Levens SM, Phelps EA. Insula and orbital frontal cortex activity underlying emotion interference resolution in working memory. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010;22(1978):2790–803. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Etkin A, Egner T, Peraza DM, Kandel ER, Hirsch J. Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron. 2006;51(6):871–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.07.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Alguacil S, Madrid E, Espín AM, Ruz M. Facial identity and emotional expression as predictors during economic decisions. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0481-9.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Egner T, Hirsch J. Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(12):1784–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Fouragnan E, Chierchia G, Greiner S, Neveu R, Avesani P, Coricelli G. Reputational priors magnify striatal responses to violations of trust. J Neurosci. 2013;33(8):3602–11. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3086-12.2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Dosenbach NUF, Fair DA, Cohen AL, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. A dual-networks architecture of top-down control. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(3):99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Raichle M. The brain’s default network. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015;8(38):433–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Cáceda R, James GA, Gutman DA, Kilts CD. Organization of intrinsic functional brain connectivity predicts decisions to reciprocate social behavior. Behav Brain Res. 2015;292:478–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.07.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Hollmann M, Rieger JW, Baecke S, Lützkendorf R, Müller C, Adolf D, et al. Predicting decisions in human social interactions using real-time fMRI and pattern classification. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25304. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Duncan J. The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behavior. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010;14(4):172–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Crittenden BM, Mitchell DJ, Duncan J. Recruitment of the default mode network during a demanding act of executive control. elife. 2015;2015(4):e06481. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06481.

    Google Scholar 

  136. González-García C, Arco JE, Palenciano AF, Ramírez J, Ruz M. Encoding, preparation and implementation of novel complex verbal instructions. NeuroImage. 2017;148:264–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Mars RB, Neubert F-X, Noonan MP, Sallet J, Toni I, Rushworth MFS. On the relationship between the “default mode network” and the “social brain”. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:189. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00189.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. Li W, Mai X, Liu C. The default mode network and social understanding of others: what do brain connectivity studies tell us. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;24(8):74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00074.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Margulies DS, Ghosh SS, Goulas A, Falkiewicz M, Huntenburg JM, Langs G, et al. Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(44):12574–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608282113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. Gilam G, Hendler T. With love, from me to you: embedding social interactions in affective neuroscience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;68:690–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Oliver D, Tachtsidis I, Hamilton AF. The role of parietal cortex in overimitation: a study with fNIRS. Soc Neurosci. 2017:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2017.1285812.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center, University of Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Paloma Díaz-Gutiérrez, Sonia Alguacil & María Ruz

  2. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Paloma Díaz-Gutiérrez, Sonia Alguacil & María Ruz

Authors
  1. Paloma Díaz-Gutiérrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sonia Alguacil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María Ruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Ruz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience (INCYT) INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Agustín Ibáñez

  2. Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience (INCYT) INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Lucas Sedeño

  3. Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience (INCYT) INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Adolfo M. García

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Díaz-Gutiérrez, P., Alguacil, S., Ruz, M. (2017). Bias and Control in Social Decision-Making. In: Ibáñez, A., Sedeño, L., García, A. (eds) Neuroscience and Social Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation