image: Most and least economic players show differential cognitive control as measured by the N2 brainwave. view more
Credit: Wim De Neys
Money can make people act crazy, but there is a small group of people that act more rationally than most, and this behavior may be due to their high "cognitive control," according to a new study being published in the Nov. 9 issue of the online journal PLoS ONE.
The researchers, led by Wim De Neys of National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France, tested subjects' behavior in the Ultimatum Game, in which two players have to split a sum of money. One player makes an offer, and the other must accept or refuse the offer. If it is declined, neither receives any money. The rational choice, and the scenario predicted by most economic models, would be for the first player to offer only a small amount to the second player, and for the second player to accept this offer, since something is better than nothing. However, most people do not behave this way. The first player often offers an even split, and the second player often rejects an offer of an uneven split, likely due to strong emotional motives.
There are, however, a small group of people who behave as expected by the models. When the researchers studied this population further, they found that they had high "cognitive control," as measured by a simple computer task, brain-imaging during a simple computer task, relative to the non-rational players. In other words, they have a generally greater capacity to override impulsive tendencies, which allowed them to behave more in accordance with traditional economic models and make more money in the end.
Citation: De Neys W, Novitskiy N, Geeraerts L, Ramautar J, Wagemans J (2011) Cognitive Control and Individual Differences in Economic Ultimatum Decision- Making. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27107. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027107
Financial Disclosure: This work was supported by Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacio´n (MICINN) Grant FIS2010-18639, James S. McDonnell Foundation Research Award, European Union Grant PIRG-GA-2010-277166 (to R.G.), and European Union Grant PIRG-GA-2010-268342 (to M.S.-P.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interest Statement: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
PLEASE LINK TO THE SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE IN ONLINE VERSIONS OF YOUR REPORT (URL goes live after the embargo ends): http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027107
Disclaimer: This press release refers to upcoming articles in PLoS ONE. The releases have been provided by the article authors and/or journal staff. Any opinions expressed in these are the personal views of the contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of PLoS. PLoS expressly disclaims any and all warranties and liability in connection with the information found in the release and article and your use of such information.
About PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE is the first journal of primary research from all areas of science to employ a combination of peer review and post-publication rating and commenting, to maximize the impact of every report it publishes. PLoS ONE is published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), the open-access publisher whose goal is to make the world's scientific and medical literature a public resource.
All works published in PLoS ONE are Open Access. Everything is immediately available—to read, download, redistribute, include in databases and otherwise use—without cost to anyone, anywhere, subject only to the condition that the original authors and source are properly attributed. For more information about PLoS ONE relevant to journalists, bloggers and press officers, including details of our press release process and our embargo policy, see the everyONE blog at http://everyone.plos.org/media.
Journal
PLoS ONE