ArticleBrain sciences2025
A BIO-EEG Hyperscanning Study of Moral Dyadic Negotiation.
Article in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRecent social neuroscience research has increasingly shifted from individual moral decision-making to the study of how people negotiate moral dilemmas in interpersonal contexts. This multimethod hyperscanning study investigated whether initial differences in moral decision-making orientation within a dyad influence neural and autonomic synchronization during a joint moral negotiation.
methodsFourteen dyads were classified as homologous or heterologous based on the similarity or dissimilarity of their individual decision-making orientations. Each dyad was asked to negotiate and reach a shared decision on a moral dilemma involving a realistic health emergency scenario. Electroencephalography (EEG) and autonomic signals were recorded simultaneously. Dissimilarity indices were computed to assess inter-brain and autonomic synchronization.
resultsEEG analyses revealed a significant effect only in the delta frequency band: all dyads, regardless of orientation, showed greater dissimilarity in the left frontal region compared to the left temporo-central and right parieto-occipital regions. In addition, autonomic data indicated greater heart rate variability (HRV) dissimilarity in homologous dyads than in heterologous ones. However, these results did not confirm our initial hypotheses, indicating the opposite pattern.
conclusionsLeft frontal delta dissimilarity emerged as an exploratory candidate marker of moral negotiation across dyads. Greater HRV dissimilarity in homologous dyads suggests that, in these dyads, successful negotiation may be supported by complementary rather than synchronized autonomic responses. This multimethod hyperscanning approach highlights the complex and partially dissociable contributions of neural and autonomic processes to the regulation of shared moral decision-making.
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.