The MBTI scores were computed and participants were categorized into different categories. Since sensing/intuition (S/N) are on the same axis and thinking/feeling (T/F) are on the same axis. Participants who scores higher on sensing or thinking will be categorized into sensing group or thinking group rather than intuition group or feeling group and vice versa. The mean scores of the response of the ultimatum game story were compared between groups. Three main effects were found. It showed participants who are sensing type rated higher score on feeling angrier than participants who are intuition type (F(1,176) = 4.287, P <.05). Also, it showed sensing participants rated higher score on not feeling good than participants who are intuition type (F(1,176) = 7.598, P <.01).
On the other hand thinking type of participants also rated higher score on not feeling good than participants who are feeling type (F(1,165) = 5.787, P <.05). On the results of SVO, three categorizes were created base on the method provided by Murphy, R., Ackermann, K., and Handgraaf, M. (2011), prosocial, individual and competitive. Only one significant effect was found on feeling good (F(2,173) = 10.854, P <.000). It showed the competitive type rated higher on feeling bad than the other two types (see table 1).
Table 1 The statistical table for MBTI and SVO
Mean 4.566 4.585 3.462 4.028 2.613 2.519
N 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000
Std.
Deviation 0.827 0.964 1.410 1.054 1.036 0.899
Sensing Type
Mean 4.286 4.496 3.654 3.528 2.794 2.548
N 124.000 124.000 123.000 124.000 124.000 124.000
Std.
Deviation 0.822 0.864 1.255 1.127 0.990 0.790
Thinking Type
Mean 4.465 4.675 3.395 3.974 2.684 2.500
N 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.000 57.000
Std.
Deviation 0.990 0.971 1.423 1.276 1.113 0.950
Feeling Type
Mean 4.353 4.445 3.704 3.528 2.780 2.546
N 109.000 109.000 108.000 109.000 109.000 109.000
Std.
Deviation 0.743 0.862 1.257 1.054 0.968 0.750
SVO
Prosocial
Mean 4.360 4.543 3.691 3.496 2.740 2.530
N 128.000 128.000 128.000 128.000 128.000 128.000
Std.
Deviation 0.708 0.809 1.217 1.068 0.926 0.715
Individual
Mean 4.290 4.368 3.342 3.684 2.740 2.680
N 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000
Std.
Deviation 1.058 1.091 1.191 1.057 0.903 0.885
Competitive
Mean 4.480 4.630 3.241 4.537 2.830 2.560
N 27.000 27.000 27.000 27.000 27.000 27.000
Std.
Deviation 1.156 1.123 1.619 0.990 1.345 1.155
3.4 Experiment IV: Empathy and the ultimatum game METHOD
Participants
Twelve undergraduates from National Cheng-chi University participated in experiment IV. All participants were right-handed and had normal or corrected to normal vision. They were recruited by advertisements, signed an informed
consent form and were debriefed at the end of the experiment.
Material
The observation ultimatum task
In the observation ultimatum task the participants did not need to actual play the game but only observe the others play. During the game, the participants were told some of the responders were from poor family and the rest of the players were from normal family. The responders’ pictures that were from poor family were marked by red frame and the rest were marked by yellow frame (see Fig. 1). No information of proposers was provided. However, there are two kinds of proposers, fair vs. unfair. The fair proposers will only propose offer 30 and offer 50, in the other hand the unfair proposer will only propose offer 30 and offer 10.
The real play ultimatum task
The real ultimatum task was as same as Experiment I and II. However, during this task, the participants were playing the game with the people who were playing in the observation ultimatum task. Participants were told that they will be randomly choose to be a responder or a proposer, but the default setting of the experiment were the participants will be a responder.
Procedure
In this experiment, there were two steps in order to induce empathy (step 1, observation) and to see how the empathy interacts with fairness (step 2, real play). Participants were told that they are going to participate a two days experiment. In the first day, their task is to observe others play the ultimatum game, and the next day they will play the ultimatum game with those people who they observe.
During the first day, the participants were first told to read the confirm consent and sign for it if they all agree with the experiment detail. For the reason to make participants to believe that they are going to play the game with real persons, the researcher told them they were observing one of our formal experiments. Then they were told they will be our next experiment’s responder
or proposer so the researcher will take picture of her/him. After then, they were led to the experiment room and seated in a comfortable chair. The researcher explained about how the brain activity will be recorded and the general purpose of this study then attached the electrodes. Next, participants began to observe the ultimatum game, the game was began with one practice block in three practice trials and then three experimental blocks in 80 trials of each. After each trail, the participants were asked to rated the fairness of the offer (1: very unfair, 7 :very fair).
At the second day, the participants were directly led to the experiment room and seated in a comfortable chair and then attached the electrodes. Next,
participants began to play the ultimatum game, the game was began with one practice block in six practice trials and then three experimental blocks in 80 trials of each. They were allowed to make the decision based on their own pace but were told to try not blink their eyes while the stimuli of offer shows.
ERP recording and data analysis
Continuous EEG was recorded during the experiment with a sintered Ag/AgCl 64-electrode Quick-Cap and amplified using Neuroscan Synamps 2 with an A/D conversion rate of 500 Hz. A 0.1-30 Hz band-pass filter was also using during the recording and impedance was kept below 10 kΩ. Moreover, the EEG was initially referenced to reference point in between CZ and CPZ but converted to an average reference off-line. In the Off-line analysis, the EEG was first filtered with high-pass filter 0.01HZ and then low-pass filter 30HZ. After filtering, the EEG was cut into epochs time-locked to offer presentation (-200 pre-stimulus and 1000ms post-stimulus). Following baseline correction to the 200 ms interval preceding the stimulus, epochs containing excessive noise (60μ V) were rejected and the remaining epochs were averaged to create the
event-related potentials (ERPs). Subjects with fewer than 16 artifact free trials in any conditions were eliminated from ERP analyses in the study. In the average ERP data, FRN amplitude was defined as the difference between the most positive peak within 160–240 ms time window and the most negative potential within 240–320 ms time window.
RESULTS