Method

Sixty students from Cardiff University were recruited to participate in a study in exchange for £3. In addition, there was a lottery in which four participants could win up to a maximum of £30 in Amazon vouchers. The lottery is further explained in the Method section

(under Allocation Behaviour). Of the 60 students (43 females, 17 males; Mage= 22.03, SD = 6.16), 30 were psychology students and 30 were business students. The questionnaire was administered online using Qualtrics.

2.2.1.2 Materials

Index of Cooperative and Competitive Emotions (ICE) Measure. Participants were presented with six scenarios in each of which they had to imagine that they had made a division of tokens between themselves and an anonymous other (see Appendix A for details of how an item from the ICE measure was presented to participants). It was explained that the tokens were to be converted to points according to different exchange rates (1:1, 2:1 and 1:2), but the other person was not aware of these exchange rates. In this way, we created scenarios that differed in the level of fairness of the allocation: one altruistic (the receiver receiving twice as much as the participant), two fair (equal outcomes for both players), two unfair (the participant receiving twice as much as the other person), and one very unfair (participant receiving four times as much as the other person). The fair allocation conditions had two exchange rates: 1) 1:1, whereby a division of 18allocator:18recipient remained the same after applying the exchange rate; and 2) 1:2, whereby an allocation of 24allocator:12recipientresulted in an outcome of 24allocator:24recipient after applying the exchange rate. The unfair allocation conditions also had two exchange rates: 1) 1:1, whereby an allocation of 24allocator:12recipient

remained the same after applying the exchange rate; and 2) 2:1, whereby an allocation of 18allocator:18recipient resulted in an outcome of 36allocator:18recipient after applying the exchange rate. The very fair allocation condition applied an exchange rate of 1:2 to a division of 18allocator:18recipient which resulted in an outcome of 18allocator:36recipient. The very unfair allocation condition applied an exchange rate of 2:1 to a division of 24allocator:12recipient which resulted in an outcome 48allocator:12recipient.

An example from the ICE measure is a scenario in which participants are asked to imagine that there are 36 tokens at stake, and the participant proposes taking 24 tokens for him/herself and giving 12 tokens to the anonymous other. With an exchange rate of 2:1, the participant would receive 48 points and the anonymous other would receive 12 points. This depicts the very unfair allocation scenario.

Participants are then asked to rate how they would feel about the allocation in the scenario, using a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The ten emotions that were measured were pleased, proud, satisfied, regretful, sorry, disappointed, embarrassed, foolish, guilty, and ashamed. Theoretically, these ten emotions were chosen to capture three emotion constructs: pride, regret and guilt. The terms pleased, proud and satisfied were expected to cluster together and index pride; the terms regretful, sorry, and disappointed were expected to cluster together and index regret; and the terms embarrassed, foolish, guilty, and ashamed were expected to cluster together and index guilt. These expectations were based on the shared positive valence of the terms pleased, proud and satisfied (Tracy & Robins, 2007; Van Osch et al., 2018); the shared counterfactual character of regretful, sorry, and disappointed (where the person experiencing the emotion can imagine a better state of affairs if he or she had acted or chosen differently) (Zeelenberg & Pieters, 2007); and the shared self-blame character of the terms embarrassed, foolish, guilty and ashamed (where the person appears to feel that he or she is responsible for bringing about an unwanted state of affairs) (Haidt, 2003;

Niedenthal et al., 1994).

Social Value Orientation. Participants' SVO was assessed using the SVO-SM (Murphy et al., 2011). As noted above, the SVO-SM consists of 15 items and each item involves 9 allocation options. Participants are expected to choose the most preferred allocation between themselves and the recipient (an anonymous other). From participants' choices, an SVO ‘angle’ can be computed. Larger angles reflect greater prosociality.

Specifically, altruists would have an angle greater than 57.15°; prosocials would score angles between 22.45° and 57.15°; individualists would have angles between -12.4° and 22.45°; and competitive individuals would have an angle less than -12.04°. In this study, I treat the SVO angle score as a continuous variable.

Allocation behaviour. The Dictator Game (DG; Kahneman et al., 1986) and the Ultimatum Game (UG; Güth et al., 1982) were used to measure allocation behaviour. In both games, the participant played the role of allocator and was given a total of 30 tokens to divide between him/herself and an anonymous other. Participants were also asked to state the minimum offer that they would accept if they were in the role of the recipient in the UG. The participants were told that the tokens had real monetary value, in the sense that at the end of the study, two pairs of participants would be randomly selected and would be paid out according to the allocation made in the economic games. For the pair of participants chosen under the DG, the payout would simply be based on the allocator’s proposal. For the pair of participants chosen under the UG, the minimum that the player would accept as a recipient was used to determine the outcome of the UG. For example, if the participant selected as the allocator had proposed 20allocator:10recipient, and the minimum acceptable offer indicated by the recipient was 15allocator:15recipient, then the pair would receive nothing, but if the minimum acceptable offer indicated by the recipient was 25allocator:5recipient then the pair would receive the amount of money proposed by the allocator.

2.2.1.3 Procedure

Participants first completed a consent form. Next, they completed a demographic questionnaire (assessing age, gender, self-reported fluency in English, university course and year of study). Participants then completed the ICE measure, reporting their anticipated emotions for the six different allocation scenarios, which were presented in a randomized order. Then they made their own allocations in each of two economic games, the DG and the

UG, which were presented in a counter-balanced order. Next, participants responded to an attention check that tested whether participants were actually paying attention to the content of the questionnaire. Specifically, the attention check asked them to skip a question and move onto the next phase of the questionnaire. If participants clicked on any of the response options, it would show that they had not read the full question carefully and they would fail the attention check. Participants then completed the SVO-SM, followed by the TDM.

Participants were next asked to state the minimum offer that they would accept if they were the recipient rather than the allocator. Next, participants were asked if they had taken their participation in the study seriously. Finally, participants were thanked, debriefed and received their reward.

2.2.2 Results