DOI: 10.57760/sciencedb.psych.00951
title: DDM Uncovers the Pathways Through Which Inequality Suppresses Prosocial Behavior and the Remedial Role of AI Third-Party Punishment: Data from Four Experiments
title: DDM揭示不公平抑制亲社会行为的路径及AI第三方惩罚的修复作用：四项实验数据

description: This study aims to investigate in depth the inhibitory effect of unfair experiences on prosocial behavior and its remediation mechanisms. Using the Drift Diffusion Model (DDM), it distinguishes between "retrospective" and "immediate" unfair experiences from the perspective of cognitive processing, and further explores remediation strategies, with a focus on comparing the effectiveness of humans versus artificial intelligence (AI) as executors of third-party punishment.Experiment 1 recruited 136 valid participants via an online platform, collecting their perceived unfairness and emotional scores after reading descriptions of unfair situations, followed by reports of their prosocial behavioral intentions. Experiment 2 recruited 78 valid participants through convenience sampling. Participants first completed a writing task, recalling and describing experienced unfair events to induce a "retrospective unfairness" experience, and then performed a prosocial decision-making task. Experiment 3 recruited 65 valid participants through convenience sampling, who completed a dictator game to induce an "immediate unfairness" experience, followed by the same prosocial decision-making task. Combined with Experiment 2, the data were used for DDM analysis to distinguish the cognitive processing differences between the two types of unfair experiences. Experiment 4 recruited 98 valid participants to the laboratory through convenience sampling. After experiencing unfair allocation in a dictator game, participants were subjected to a third-party punisher before completing the prosocial decision-making task. The core of this experiment was to compare the effects of the two punishment sources on remediating prosocial behavior. In total, the four experiments involved 377 independent valid participant sessions (deduplicated), all recruited through convenience sampling or online questionnaire platforms. All experiments followed ethical standards and obtained informed consent from participants.Independent variables: type of retrospective unfair experience (personally experienced/witnessed/control group), immediate experience (fair/unfair), third-party punishment (human/AI/none).Dependent variables: prosocial decision threshold, perceived unfairness rating, emotional rating, DDM parameters.
description: This study aims to investigate in depth the inhibitory effect of unfair experiences on prosocial behavior and its remediation mechanisms. Using the Drift Diffusion Model (DDM), it distinguishes between "retrospective" and "immediate" unfair experiences from the perspective of cognitive processing, and further explores remediation strategies, with a focus on comparing the effectiveness of humans versus artificial intelligence (AI) as executors of third-party punishment.Experiment 1 recruited 136 valid participants via an online platform, collecting their perceived unfairness and emotional scores after reading descriptions of unfair situations, followed by reports of their prosocial behavioral intentions. Experiment 2 recruited 78 valid participants through convenience sampling. Participants first completed a writing task, recalling and describing experienced unfair events to induce a "retrospective unfairness" experience, and then performed a prosocial decision-making task. Experiment 3 recruited 65 valid participants through convenience sampling, who completed a dictator game to induce an "immediate unfairness" experience, followed by the same prosocial decision-making task. Combined with Experiment 2, the data were used for DDM analysis to distinguish the cognitive processing differences between the two types of unfair experiences. Experiment 4 recruited 98 valid participants to the laboratory through convenience sampling. After experiencing unfair allocation in a dictator game, participants were subjected to a third-party punisher before completing the prosocial decision-making task. The core of this experiment was to compare the effects of the two punishment sources on remediating prosocial behavior. In total, the four experiments involved 377 independent valid participant sessions (deduplicated), all recruited through convenience sampling or online questionnaire platforms. All experiments followed ethical standards and obtained informed consent from participants.Independent variables: type of retrospective unfair experience (personally experienced/witnessed/control group), immediate experience (fair/unfair), third-party punishment (human/AI/none).Dependent variables: prosocial decision threshold, perceived unfairness rating, emotional rating, DDM parameters.