Social preferences trump emotions in human responses to unfair offers.

People commonly reject unfair offers even if this leaves them worse off. Some explain this as a rational response based on social preferences. Others argue that emotions override self-interest in the determination of rejection behavior. We conducted an experiment in which we measured responders' biophysical reactions (EEG and EMG) to fair and unfair offers. We measured biophysical trait anger using resting-state EEG (frontal alpha-asymmetry), state anger using facial expressions, offer expectancy processing using event-related EEG (medial-frontal negativity; MFN) and self-reported emotions. We systematically varied whether rejections led proposers to lose their share (Ultimatum Game; UG) or not (Impunity Game; IG). Results favor preference-based accounts: Impunity minimizes rejection despite increasing subjectively reported anger. Unfair offers evoke frowning responses, but frowning does not predict rejection. Prosocial responders reject unfair UG offers more often after unmet fairness expectations. These results suggest that responders do not reject unfairness out of anger. Rather, people seem motivated to reject unfair offers when they violate their behavioral code but only when rejection has payoff consequences for the proposer, allowing them to reciprocate and restore equity. Thus, social preferences trump emotions when responding to unfair offers.