Abstract

Despite the growing interest on the effect of the social context on pain, whether and how different facets of interpersonal interactions modulate pain are still unclear. We tested whether personal (i.e., convenient for the self), moral (i.e., equitability of the transaction) or social (i.e., positive vs. negative feedback from others) valence of an interpersonal interaction differentially affects pain and the perceived fairness. Thirty-two healthy participants played the role of Receivers in a Dictator Game, where a player, the Dictator, determined how to divide a payoff between her/himself and the other player, the Receiver. We manipulated the payoff (pain vs. money), the personal valence (favorable vs. unfavorable offer to participants), the moral valence of the offer (from very iniquitous to equitable), and social valence of the Dictator (social acceptance vs. rejection). Moral and personal valence differentially modulated pain. Lower pain was elicited by iniquity, but also by favorable offers. Moreover, unfavorable offers in the economic game were rated as more unfair, whereas only very iniquitous offers elicited such ratings in the pain game, suggesting that participants valued when Dictators endured extra pain for their benefit. Together, we show that the valence of a social interaction at different levels can independently modulate pain and fairness perception.

Highlights

  • We report a lack of significance for the social rejection vs. acceptance manipulation and no significant interactions between the regressors

  • Our findings showed that the moral and personal valence of an offer affect pain perception and perceived fairness

  • An allocation of an equitable proportion of pain by the Dictator triggered higher pain perception, whereas more iniquitous offers were associated with pain reduction

Read more

Summary

Aims

The aim of this study was to try and reconcile some of the discrepancies in the existent literature regarding the influence of moral, personal and social variables on pain perception. We developed a novel economical paradigm based on different versions of the Dictator Game, a game in which a player, the Dictator, allocates an object (e.g., money) at will, while another player, the Receiver, can only accept the decision. Such bargaining games were initially used in the field of economics to test the profit maximization hypothesis, which proposes that self-interest is the basis of economic decisions[24]. In order to manipulate the personal and moral valence of each offer we variate the apportion of money/ pain between the two participants. In order to modulate the valence of the object of the offer as well, we included both versions of the game: the economic (money as payoff), and the pain (pain as payoff) version respectively

Results
Discussion
Methods
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call