ArticleScientific reports2019
Neurocognitive mechanisms of reactions to second- and third-party justice violations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Brain responses to social punishment: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Acute stress during witnessing injustice shifts third-party interventions from punishing the perpetrator to helping the victim.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Neurocomputational Substrates Underlying the Effect of Identifiability on Third-Party Punishment.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Neural mechanisms of the mood effects on third-party responses to injustice after unfair experiences.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- An fMRI investigation of the intention-outcome interactions in second- and third-party punishment.Brain imaging and behavior · 2022Article
- The prefrontal cortex and (uniquely) human cooperation: a comparative perspective.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022Review
- Intrinsic functional connectivity of the frontoparietal network predicts inter-individual differences in the propensity for costly third-party punishment.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2021Article
- Does unfairness sound wrong? A cross-domain investigation of expectations in music and social decision-making.Royal Society open science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the current study was threefold: (i) understand people's willingness to engage in either punishment of the perpetrator or compensation of the victim in order to counteract injustice; (ii) look into the differences between victims of and witnesses to injustice; (iii) investigate the different role played by social preference and affective experience in determining these choices. The sample tested here showed an equal preference for punishment and compensation; neuroimaging findings suggested that compensation, as opposed to punishment, was related to Theory of Mind. Partially supporting previous literature, choosing how to react to an injustice as victims, rather than witnesses, triggered a stronger affective response (striatal and prefrontal activation). Moreover, results supported the idea that deciding whether or not to react to an injustice and then how severely to react are two distinct decisional stages underpinned by different neurocognitive mechanisms, i.e., sensitivity to unfairness (anterior insula) and negative affectivity (amygdala). These findings provide a fine-grained description of the psychological mechanisms underlying important aspects of social norm compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.