Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27605616›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2016

Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment.

Matthew R Ginther, Richard J Bonnie, Morris B Hoffman, Francis X Shen, Kenneth W Simons, Owen D Jones, René Marois

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Neurobiological Mechanisms of Responding to Injustice.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018
    Trial
  4. What people learn from punishment: A cognitive model.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Social cognitive processes explain bias in juror decisions.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The prefrontal cortex and (uniquely) human cooperation: a comparative perspective.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Cerebral responses to self-initiated action during social interactions.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matthew R GintherNeuroscience Graduate Program, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, Vanderbilt Law School, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, ginther@gmail.com owen.jones@vanderbilt.edu ginther@gmail.com rene.marois@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8109-0914
Richard J BonnieInstitute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903.ORCID 0000-0003-2945-7699
Morris B HoffmanDistrict Judge, Second Judicial District (Denver), State of Colorado, Denver, Colorado 80202.ORCID 0000-0002-2200-2010
Francis X ShenDepartment of Law, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.ORCID 0000-0002-9029-1686
Kenneth W SimonsDepartment of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law, Irvine, California 92697.ORCID 0000-0003-2516-7379
Owen D JonesVanderbilt Law School, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, Departments of Law and Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, Director, MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience, and ginther@gmail.com owen.jones@vanderbilt.edu ginther@gmail.com rene.marois@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9649-1005
René MaroisCenter for Integrative and Cognitive Neuroscience, and Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37240 ginther@gmail.com owen.jones@vanderbilt.edu ginther@gmail.com rene.marois@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2998-4712

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe evolved capacity for third-party punishment is considered crucial to the emergence and maintenance of elaborate human social organization and is central to the modern provision of fairness and justice within society. Although it is well established that the mental state of the offender and the severity of the harm he caused are the two primary predictors of punishment decisions, the precise cognitive and brain mechanisms by which these distinct components are evaluated and integrated into a punishment decision are poorly understood. Using fMRI, here we implement a novel experimental design to functionally dissociate the mechanisms underlying evaluation, integration, and decision that were conflated in previous studies of third-party punishment. Behaviorally, the punishment decision is primarily defined by a superadditive interaction between harm and mental state, with subjects weighing the interaction factor more than the single factors of harm and mental state. On a neural level, evaluation of harms engaged brain areas associated with affective and somatosensory processing, whereas mental state evaluation primarily recruited circuitry involved in mentalization. Harm and mental state evaluations are integrated in medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate structures, with the amygdala acting as a pivotal hub of the interaction between harm and mental state. This integrated information is used by the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at the time of the decision to assign an appropriate punishment through a distributed coding system. Together, these findings provide a blueprint of the brain mechanisms by which neutral third parties render punishment decisions. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Punishment undergirds large-scale cooperation and helps dispense criminal justice. Yet it is currently unknown precisely how people assess the mental states of offenders, evaluate the harms they caused, and integrate those two components into a single punishment decision. Using a new design, we isolated these three processes, identifying the distinct brain systems and activities that enable each. Additional findings suggest that the amygdala plays a crucial role in mediating the interaction of mental state and harm information, whereas the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plays a crucial, final-stage role, both in integrating mental state and harm information and in selecting a suitable punishment amount. These findings deepen our understanding of how punishment decisions are made, which may someday help to improve them.

Indexed as

Brain MappingAdolescentAdultBrainDecision MakingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleOxygenPunishmentTheory of MindTime FactorsYoung AdultOxygendecision-makingfMRIharmlawmental statepunishment

Identifiers

PMID27605616
PMCPMC5013189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.