Rational choice theory predicts that humans always optimize the expected utility of options when making decisions. However, in decision-making games, humans often punish their opponents even when doing so reduces their own reward. We used the Ultimatum and Dictator games to examine the affective correlates of decision-making. We show that the feedback negativity, an event-related brain potential that originates in the anterior cingulate cortex that has been related to reinforcement learning, predicts the decision to reject unfair offers in the Ultimatum game. Furthermore, the decision to reject is positively related to more negative emotional reactions and to increased autonomic nervous system activity. These findings support the idea that subjective emotional markers guide decision-making and that the anterior cingulate cortex integrates instances of reinforcement and punishment to provide such affective markers.

Previous studies have identified a negative potential in the event-related potential (ERP), the error-related negativity (ERN), which is claimed to be triggered by a deviation from a reward expectation. Furthermore, this negativity is related to shifts in risk taking, strategic behavioral adjustments, and inhibition. We used a computer Blackjack gambling task to further examine the process associated with the ERN. Our findings are in line with the view that the ERN process is related to the degree of reward expectation. Furthermore, increased ERN amplitude is associated with the negative evaluation of ongoing decisions, and the amplitude of the ERN is directly related to risk-taking and decision-making behavior. However, the findings suggest that an explanation exclusively based on the deviation from a reward expectation may be insufficient and that the intention of the participants and the importance of a negative event for learning and behavioral change are crucial to the understanding of ERN phenomena.

Spider-phobic and nonphobic subjects searched for a feared/fear-relevant (spider) or neutral target (mushroom) presented in visual matrices of neutral objects (flowers). In half of the displays, the mushroom target was paired with a spider distractor, or a spider target was paired with a mushroom distractor. Although all subjects responded faster to the neutral target than to the feared/fear-relevant target, phobics were slower to respond than nonphobics when a mushroom target was presented with a spider distractor. Their eyes appeared to be drawn to the feared distractor before fixating neutral targets. A further experiment indicated no group differences when subjects merely judged the homogeneity of matrices. Thus, threat seems to capture the attention of phobics only when it is part of a background that subjects are explicitly instructed to ignore.

We assessed the influence of the variables outcome potential, feedback valence, magnitude, and probability on the amplitude of the feedback negativity (FN). Outcome potential was defined as the a priori valence of an upcoming feedback, that is, is there a potential win or potential loss? All these variables have been studied previously, although never together, but the findings have been contradictory. We analyzed the event-related potential (ERP) after feedback presentation in a reinforcement-learning task to examine the effects of all the variables on feedback negativity. Our results show that outcome potential, feedback valence, probability, and magnitude all influence feedback related ERPs. Taken together, the findings suggest that ERPs in the time range of the feedback negativity are primarily driven by positive outcomes (reinforcement) rather than negative outcomes (punishment).

No abstract