Gender as a moderator of the fair process effect

This paper examines gender as a moderator of the fair-process effect in an ultimatum game setting. Results from games with 112 German high-school students support the hypothesis that fair procedures can decrease rejection behavior in unfair human allocation decisions. Furthermore, procedural fairness results in a statistically significant difference for women in accepting an unfair distribution. In contrast, procedural fairness appears to have no significant impact on men’s rejection behavior. However, we found no significant gender differences in the perception of procedural fairness. We conclude that, although men perceive procedural fairness similarly to women, this aspect is less important for determining their subsequent behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)

Hybrid bodies in cyborg sports? The case of Oscar Pistorius

The capabilities of postmodern biotechnology inevitably lead to questioning if it is morally acceptable to use all possibilities offered by technology. In sport, this very complex issue is dealt with by drawing clear boundaries between naturalness and artificiality. Currently, new biotechnology is constantly being produced and with this, boundaries between naturalness and artificiality, between normal and abnormal, human and hybrid are constantly shifting . “Human enhancement” is a fascinating prism that reflects contemporary questions of participation, justice, equality and the autonomy of the subject in all social fields. The area of elite sports is particularly affected by “human enhancement”, according to the principle of exceeding what has come before, of aiming higher, faster and further. This paper analyses the postulated “naturalness” in the regulative and normalising function in the area of elite sports, in connection with Foucault’s theory of governmentality. The example of the South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius appears to be particularly suited to illustrate current definition difficulties in the area of disabled and non-disabled people in differentiated competitive sports. His is a vivid example of a multifaceted body-sociological analysis of current sport culture and the construction of reality or naturalness in the framework of the discourse of drafting and negotiating the accreditation for sprint competitions of non-disabled athletes, most recently in the London Olympics 2012. Using the case study of Oscar Pistorius, the negotiating processes in relation to the argumentation logic, dynamics and resistance in shifting distinctions are presented in detail using the fundamental documents of the IOC, IPC, CAS and IAAF. Represented through the inclusion and exclusion processes are hierarchies of the body that are (re)consolidated and transformed. The central question emerges as to how the worth of equal opportunity and fairness in regard to “naturalness” can be reconsolidated or transformed.

Impartiality in humans is predicted by brain structure of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.

The moral force of impartiality (i.e. the equal treatment of all human beings) is imperative for providing justice and fairness. Yet, in reality many people become partial during intergroup interactions; they demonstrate a preferential treatment of ingroup members and a discriminatory treatment of outgroup members. Some people, however, do not show this intergroup bias. The underlying sources of these inter-individual differences are poorly understood. Here we demonstrate that the larger the gray matter volume and thickness of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), the more individuals in the role of an uninvolved third-party impartially punish outgroup and ingroup perpetrators. Moreover, we show evidence for a possible mechanism that explains the impact of DMPFC's gray matter volume on impartiality, namely perspective-taking. Large gray matter volume of DMPFC seems to facilitate equal perspective-taking of all sides, which in turn leads to impartial behavior. This is the first evidence demonstrating that brain structure of the DMPFC constitutes an important source underlying an individual's propensity for impartiality.

Dopaminergic stimulation increases selfish behavior in the absence of punishment threat.

RATIONALE People often face decisions that pit self-interested behavior aimed at maximizing personal reward against normative behavior such as acting cooperatively, which benefits others. The threat of social sanctions for defying the fairness norm prevents people from behaving overly selfish. Thus, normative behavior is influenced by both seeking rewards and avoiding punishment. However, the neurochemical processes mediating the impact of these influences remain unknown. Several lines of evidence link the dopaminergic system to reward and punishment processing, respectively, but this evidence stems from studies in non-social contexts. OBJECTIVES The present study investigates dopaminergic drug effects on individuals' reward seeking and punishment avoidance in social interaction. METHODS Two-hundred one healthy male participants were randomly assigned to receive 300 mg of L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (L-DOPA) or a placebo before playing an economic bargaining game. This game involved two conditions, one in which unfair behavior could be punished and one in which unfair behavior could not be punished. RESULTS In the absence of punishment threats, L-DOPA administration led to more selfish behavior, likely mediated through an increase in reward seeking. In contrast, L-DOPA administration had no significant effect on behavior when faced with punishment threats. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study broaden the role of the dopaminergic system in reward seeking to human social interactions. We could show that even a single dose of a dopaminergic drug may bring selfish behavior to the fore, which in turn may shed new light on potential causal relationships between the dopaminergic system and norm abiding behaviors in certain clinical subpopulations.

Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex.

Humans restrain self-interest with moral and social values. They are the only species known to exhibit reciprocal fairness, which implies the punishment of other individuals' unfair behaviors, even if it hurts the punisher's economic self-interest. Reciprocal fairness has been demonstrated in the Ultimatum Game, where players often reject their bargaining partner's unfair offers. Despite progress in recent years, however, little is known about how the human brain limits the impact of selfish motives and implements fair behavior. Here we show that disruption of the right, but not the left, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) by low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation substantially reduces subjects' willingness to reject their partners' intentionally unfair offers, which suggests that subjects are less able to resist the economic temptation to accept these offers. Importantly, however, subjects still judge such offers as very unfair, which indicates that the right DLPFC plays a key role in the implementation of fairness-related behaviors.

The effect of superiors' exogenous constraints on budget negotiations

In a world characterized by increasing pressure from financial and product markets, the question of how exogenous constraints affect internal coordination and control processes has become increasingly important. This experiment investigates how two exogenous constraints that superiors can face in budget negotiation settings, increased opportunity costs and financial pressure to meet unit targets, affect budget negotiations and subordinate effort. The results show that both constraints induce more cooperation, but in different ways. Financial pressure on the superior leads to more cooperative negotiation behavior by superiors and subordinates than increased opportunity costs. Specifically, subordinates do not take advantage of the superior's increased financial pressure to enforce lower budgets. After negotiation, both constraints strongly mitigate the negative effects of superior budget imposition on subordinate effort because exogenous constraints eliminate the effect of procedural fairness considerations on subordinate effort.

Promoting gender-fair language: The impact of arguments on language use, attitudes, and cognitions

The present research investigates whether arguments encourage speakers to use and to approve of gender-fair language. We collected and pretested arguments regarding gender-fair language and masculine generics and created four messages which supported either gender-fair usage or masculine generics (strong and weak arguments) as well as two control texts. Results showed that speakers changed their language behavior more in the direction of gender-fairness when they had been exposed to arguments for gender-fair language than after control texts. We did not find any effect of arguments promoting masculine generics and no effect on cognitive responses and attitudes. Taken together, these results show that arguments promoting gender-fair language can motivate speakers to use gender-fair wording, a new and important finding in the context of implementing gender equality in language.

Gender-fairness in schoolbooks revisited: Did improvements in gender equality make a difference?

The present research focuses on two countries differing in their policies of gender equality and gender-fair language use. Content analyses of schoolbooks investigate the gender-fair language use and the depiction of gender stereotypes in them.

Does gender-fair language pay off? The social perception of professions from a cross-linguistic perspective

In many languages, masculine forms (e.g., German Lehrer, “teachers, masc.”) have traditionally been used to refer to both women and men, although feminine forms are available, too. Feminine-masculine word pairs (e.g., German Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, “teachers, fem. and teachers, masc.”) are recommended as gender-fair alternatives. A large body of empirical research documents that the use of gender-fair forms instead of masculine forms has a substantial impact on mental representations. Masculine forms activate more male representations even when used in a generic sense, whereas word pairs (e.g., German Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, “teachers, fem. and teachers, masc.”) lead to a higher cognitive inclusion of women (i.e., visibility of women). Some recent studies, however, have also shown that in a professional context word pairs may be associated with lesser status. The present research is the first to investigate both effects within a single paradigm. A cross-linguistic (Italian and German) study with 391 participants shows that word pairs help to avoid a male bias in the gender-typing of professions and increase women's visibility; at the same time, they decrease the estimated salaries of typically feminine professions (but do not affect perceived social status or competence). This potential payoff has implications for language policies aiming at gender-fairness.