Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30061413›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Distinguishing neural correlates of context-dependent advantageous- and disadvantageous-inequity aversion.

Xiaoxue Gao, Hongbo Yu, Ignacio Sáez, Philip R Blue, Lusha Zhu, Ming Hsu, Xiaolin Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

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

  1. Country-level gender inequality is associated with structural differences in the brains of women and men.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Decision-Making with Predictions of Others' Likely and Unlikely Choices in the Human Brain.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Xiaoxue GaoCenter for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8901-6137
Hongbo YuCenter for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3384-7772
Ignacio SáezHaas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Philip R BlueCenter for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.
Lusha ZhuSchool of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.
Ming HsuHaas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.ORCID 0000-0001-7195-3579
Xiaolin ZhouCenter for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China; xz104@pku.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-7363-4360

Funding

Neurobiological Substrates of Social Behavior: A Neuroeconomic FrameworkR01MH098023 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI HSU, MING · 2013 to 2017
$1.5M
CRCNS: Neurocomputational substrates of monetary exchangeR01DA043196 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI HSU, MING · 2016 to 2018
$474k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA043196NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH098023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans can integrate social contextual information into decision-making processes to adjust their responses toward inequity. This context dependency emerges when individuals receive more (i.e., advantageous inequity) or less (i.e., disadvantageous inequity) than others. However, it is not clear whether context-dependent processing of advantageous and disadvantageous inequity involves differential neurocognitive mechanisms. Here, we used fMRI to address this question by combining an interactive game that modulates social contexts (e.g., interpersonal guilt) with computational models that enable us to characterize individual weights on inequity aversion. In each round, the participant played a dot estimation task with an anonymous coplayer. The coplayer would receive pain stimulation with 50% probability when either of them responded incorrectly. At the end of each round, the participant completed a variant of dictator game, which determined payoffs for him/herself and the coplayer. Computational modeling demonstrated the context dependency of inequity aversion: when causing pain to the coplayer (i.e., guilt context), participants cared more about the advantageous inequity and became more tolerant of the disadvantageous inequity, compared with other conditions. Consistently, neuroimaging results suggested the two types of inequity were associated with differential neurocognitive substrates. While the context-dependent processing of advantageous inequity was associated with social- and mentalizing-related processes, involving left anterior insula, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, the context-dependent processing of disadvantageous inequity was primarily associated with emotion- and conflict-related processes, involving left posterior insula, right amygdala, and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. These results extend our understanding of decision-making processes related to inequity aversion.

Indexed as

Social BehaviorCerebral CortexComputer SimulationDecision MakingFemaleGames, ExperimentalHumansMaleadvantageous inequitydisadvantageous inequityfMRIguilt contextinsula

Identifiers

PMID30061413
PMCPMC6099874

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.