↓ Skip to main content

The Influence of Emotion on Fairness-Related Decision Making: A Critical Review of Theories and Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Influence of Emotion on Fairness-Related Decision Making: A Critical Review of Theories and Evidence
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01592
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ya Zheng, Zhong Yang, Chunlan Jin, Yue Qi, Xun Liu

Abstract

Fairness-related decision making is an important issue in the field of decision making. Traditional theories emphasize the roles of inequity aversion and reciprocity, whereas recent research increasingly shows that emotion plays a critical role in this type of decision making. In this review, we summarize the influences of three types of emotions (i.e., the integral emotion experienced at the time of decision making, the incidental emotion aroused by a task-unrelated dispositional or situational source, and the interaction of emotion and cognition) on fairness-related decision making. Specifically, we first introduce three dominant theories that describe how emotion may influence fairness-related decision making (i.e., the wounded pride/spite model, affect infusion model, and dual-process model). Next, we collect behavioral and neural evidence for and against these theories. Finally, we propose that future research on fairness-related decision making should focus on inducing incidental social emotion, avoiding irrelevant emotion when regulating, exploring the individual differences in emotional dispositions, and strengthening the ecological validity of the paradigm.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 20%
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Researcher 8 6%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 35 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 32%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 45 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,049,244
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,674
of 32,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,863
of 321,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#234
of 588 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 588 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.