Dyadic interactions often involve a dynamic process of mutual reciprocity; to steer a series of exchanges towards a desired outcome, both interactants must adapt their own behaviour according to that of their interaction partner. Understanding the brain processes behind such bidirectional reciprocity is therefore central to social neuroscience, but this requires measurement of both individuals' brains during real-world exchanges. We achieved this by performing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) on pairs of male individuals simultaneously while they interacted in a modified iterated Ultimatum Game (iUG). In this modification, both players could express their intent and maximise their own monetary gain by reciprocating their partner's behaviour - they could promote generosity through cooperation and/or discourage unfair play with retaliation. By developing a novel model of reciprocity adapted from behavioural economics, we then show that each player's choices can be predicted accurately by estimating expected utility (EU) not only in terms of immediate payoff, but also as a reaction to their opponent's prior behaviour. Finally, for the first time we reveal that brain signals implicated in social decision making are modulated by these estimates of EU, and become correlated more strongly between interacting players who reciprocate one another.

CEITEC Central European Institute of Technology Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Economics Faculty of Economics and Administration Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Psychology Aston University Birmingham B4 7ET United Kingdom

Department of Public Economics Faculty of Economics and Administration Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Institute of Psychology Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Brno Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Koike T, Tanabe HC, Sadato N. Hyperscanning neuroimaging technique to reveal the ‘two-in-one’ system in social interactions. Neurosci. Res. 2015;90:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2014.11.006. PubMed DOI

Schilbach L, et al. A second-person neuroscience in interaction. Behav. Brain Sci. 2013;36:441–462. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12002452. PubMed DOI

Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1982;3:367–388. doi: 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7. DOI

Henrich J, et al. ‘Economic man’ in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 2005;28:795–815. PubMed

Yamagishi T, et al. Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2012;109:20364–20368. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212126109. PubMed DOI PMC

Lamm C, Decety J, Singer T. Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Neuroimage. 2011;54:2492–2502. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.014. PubMed DOI

Apps MAJ, Rushworth MFS, Chang SWC. The Anterior Cingulate Gyrus and Social Cognition: Tracking the Motivation of Others. Neuron. 2016;90:692–707. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.018. PubMed DOI PMC

Feng C, Luo YJ, Krueger F. Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2015;36:591–602. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22649. PubMed DOI PMC

Gabay AS, Radua J, Kempton MJ, Mehta MA. The Ultimatum Game and the brain: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014;47:549–558. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.10.014. PubMed DOI

Billeke P, Zamorano F, Cosmelli D, Aboitiz F. Oscillatory brain activity correlates with risk perception and predicts social decisions. Cereb. Cortex. 2013;23:2872–2883. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs269. PubMed DOI

Billeke P, et al. Someone has to give in: Theta oscillations correlate with adaptive behavior in social bargaining. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2014;9:2041–2048. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu012. PubMed DOI PMC

Wang G, Li J, Li Z, Wei M, Li S. Medial frontal negativity reflects advantageous inequality aversion of proposers in the ultimatum game: An ERP study. Brain Res. 2016;1639:38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2016.02.040. PubMed DOI

Avrahami J, Güth W, Hertwig R, Kareev Y, Otsubo H. Learning (not) to yield: An experimental study of evolving ultimatum game behavior. J. Socio. Econ. 2013;47:47–54. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2013.08.009. DOI

Camerer, C. Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. (Princeton University Press, 2003).

van Damme E, et al. How Werner Güth’s ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2014;108:292–318. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.10.014. DOI

Haruno M, Kawato M. Activity in the Superior Temporal Sulcus Highlights Learning Competence in an Interaction Game. J. Neurosci. 2009;29:4542–4547. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2707-08.2009. PubMed DOI PMC

Montague PR, et al. Hyperscanning: Simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions. Neuroimage. 2002;16:1159–1164. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1150. PubMed DOI

Hari R, Himberg T, Nummenmaa L, Hämäläinen M, Parkkonen L. Synchrony of brains and bodies during implicit interpersonal interaction. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2013;17:105–106. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.01.003. PubMed DOI

Babiloni F, Astolfi L. Social neuroscience and hyperscanning techniques: Past, present and future. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014;44:76–93. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.07.006. PubMed DOI PMC

Scholkmann F, Holper L, Wolf U, Wolf M. A new methodical approach in neuroscience: assessing inter-personal brain coupling using functional near-infrared imaging (fNIRI) hyperscanning. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013;7:1–6. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00813. PubMed DOI PMC

Hasson, U., Frith, C. D. & Frith, C. D. Mirroring and beyond: coupled dynamics as a generalized framework for modelling social interactions, 10.1098/rstb.2015.0366 (2016). PubMed PMC

Hasson U, Ghazanfar AA, Galantucci B, Garrod S, Keysers C. Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2012;16:114–121. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007. PubMed DOI PMC

Tang H, et al. Interpersonal brain synchronization in the right temporo-parietal junction during face-to-face economic exchange. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2015;11:23–32. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsv092. PubMed DOI PMC

Cox JC, Friedman D, Gjerstad S. A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness. Games Econ. Behav. 2007;59:17–45. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2006.05.001. DOI

Adolphs R, Nummenmaa L, Todorov A, Haxby JV. Data-driven approaches in the investigation of social perception. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016;371:20150367. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0367. PubMed DOI PMC

Chen YH, et al. Strategic Motives Drive Proposers to Offer Fairly in Ultimatum Games: An fMRI Study. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-016-0028-x. PubMed DOI PMC

Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U. On the Nature of Fair Behaviour. Econ. Inq. 2003;41:20–26. doi: 10.1093/ei/41.1.20. DOI

Inaba M, Inoue Y, Akutsu S, Takahashi N, Yamagishi T. Preference and strategy in proposer’s prosocial giving in the ultimatum game. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0193877. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193877. PubMed DOI PMC

Falk A, Fischbacher U. A Theory of Reciprocity. Games Econ. Behav. 2006;54:293–315. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001. DOI

Erev BI, Roth AE. Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria. Am. Econ. Rev. 1998;88:848–881.

Kuhl, J. Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). In Volition and personality: action versus state orientation (ed. Kuhl, J. & Beckmann, J.) 47–56 (Hogrefe Huber, 1994).

Davis MH. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983;44:113–126. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113. DOI

Xiang T, Lohrenz T, Montague PR. Computational Substrates of Norms and Their Violations during Social Exchange. J. Neurosci. 2013;33:1099–1108. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1642-12.2013. PubMed DOI PMC

Fehr E, Schmidt KM. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 1999;114:817–868. doi: 10.1162/003355399556151. DOI

White SF, Brislin SJ, Sinclair S, Blair JR. Punishing unfairness: Rewarding or the organization of a reactively aggressive response? Hum. Brain Mapp. 2014;35:2137–2147. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22316. PubMed DOI PMC

Gu X, et al. Necessary, Yet Dissociable Contributions of the Insular and Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortices to Norm Adaptation: Computational and Lesion Evidence in Humans. J. Neurosci. 2015;35:467–473. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2906-14.2015. PubMed DOI PMC

Weiland S, Hewig J, Hecht H, Mussel P, Miltner WHR. Neural correlates of fair behavior in interpersonal bargaining. Soc. Neurosci. 2012;7:537–551. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2012.674056. PubMed DOI

Winter E, Zamir S. An experiment with ultimatum bargaining in a changing environment. Japanese Econ. Rev. 2005;56:363–385. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5876.2005.00329.x. DOI

Slembeck, T. Reputations and Fairness in Bargaining - Experimental Evidence from a Repeated Ultimatum Game With Fixed Opponents. Univ. St. Gall. Discuss. Pap. (1999).

Barraza JA, Zak PJ. Empathy toward strangers triggers oxytocin release and subsequent generosity. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009;1167:182–189. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04504.x. PubMed DOI

Shamay-Tsoory SG, Suleiman R, Aharon-Peretz J, Gohary R, Hirschberger G. Sensitivity to fairness and intentions of others in the ultimatum game in patients with ventromedial prefontal lesions. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2012;18:952–961. doi: 10.1017/S1355617712001257. PubMed DOI

Lockwood PL, Apps MAJ, Valton V, Viding E, Roiser JP. Neurocomputational mechanisms of prosocial learning and links to empathy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2016;113:9763–9768. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1603198113. PubMed DOI PMC

Hutcherson CA, Bushong B, Rangel A. A Neurocomputational Model of Altruistic Choice and Its Implications. Neuron. 2015;87:451–463. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.06.031. PubMed DOI PMC

Apps MAJ, Lockwood PL, Balsters JH. The role of the midcingulate cortex in monitoring others’decisions. Front. Neurosci. 2013;7:1–7. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00251. PubMed DOI PMC

Behrens TEJ, Hunt LT, Woolrich MW, F.S. M. Associative learning of social value. Nature. 2008;456:245–249. doi: 10.1038/nature07538. PubMed DOI PMC

Lockwood PL, Apps MAJ, Valton V, Viding E, Roiser JP. Neurocomputational mechanisms of prosocial learning and links to empathy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2016;113:9763–9768. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1603198113. PubMed DOI PMC

Rushworth MFS, Behrens TEJ. Choice, uncertainty and value in prefrontal and cingulate cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2008;11:389–397. doi: 10.1038/nn2066. PubMed DOI

Astolfi L, et al. Neuroelectrical hyperscanning measures simultaneous brain activity in humans. Brain Topogr. 2010;23:243–256. doi: 10.1007/s10548-010-0147-9. PubMed DOI

Babiloni, F. et al. Cortical activity and connectivity of human brain during the prisoner’s dilemma: An EEG hyperscanning study. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. - Proc. 4953–4956, 10.1109/IEMBS.2007.4353452 (2007). PubMed

Tomlin D, et al. Agent-specific responses in the cingulate cortex during economic exchanges. Science (80-.). 2006;312:1047–1050. doi: 10.1126/science.1125596. PubMed DOI

King-Casas B, et al. Getting to know you: Reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science (80-.). 2005;308:78–83. doi: 10.1126/science.1108062. PubMed DOI

Yamagishi T, et al. Cortical thickness of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex predicts strategic choices in economic games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2016;113:5582–5587. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523940113. PubMed DOI PMC

Yamagishi T, et al. Response time in economic games reflects different types of decision conflict for prosocial and proself individuals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2017;114:6394–6399. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608877114. PubMed DOI PMC

Stevens JS, Hamann S. Sex differences in brain activation to emotional stimuli: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50:1578–1593. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.011. PubMed DOI

Wager TD, Nichols TE. Optimization of experimental design in fMRI: A general framework using a genetic algorithm. Neuroimage. 2003;18:293–309. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8119(02)00046-0. PubMed DOI

Bolton BGE, Ockenfels A. A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000;90:166–193. doi: 10.1257/aer.90.1.166. DOI

Charness G, Rabin M. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Q. J. Econ. 2002;117:817–869. doi: 10.1162/003355302760193904. DOI

Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TEJ, Woolrich MW, Smith SM. Fsl. Neuroimage. 2012;62:782–790. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015. PubMed DOI

Cognitive Processing Impacts High Frequency Intracranial EEG Activity of Human Hippocampus in Patients With Pharmacoresistant Focal Epilepsy

A neuroscientific evaluation of driver rehabilitation: Functional neuroimaging demonstrates the effectiveness of empathy induction in altering brain responses during social information processing

Getting into sync: Data-driven analyses reveal patterns of neural coupling that distinguish among different social exchanges

Dissecting social interaction: dual-fMRI reveals patterns of interpersonal brain-behavior relationships that dissociate among dimensions of social exchange