ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026
Moral conformity: Neurocognitive mechanisms of social influence in dyadic harmful decisions.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social influence, including obedience, compliance, and conformity, strongly shapes human behavior, particularly in moral contexts. While the neurocognitive mechanisms of obedience and compliance have been extensively studied, those underlying moral conformity remain underexplored. We conducted an experiment in which two agents sequentially decided whether to administer painful shocks to a victim in exchange for a shared monetary reward. We examined how the first agent's choice influenced the second agent's behavior and the neurocognitive processes involved. Key variables included personal and shared responsibility ratings, sense of agency, and three electroencephalography components: frontal-midline theta power (FMθ) during the partner's decision-a maker of auditory attention; FMθ during one's own decision-a marker of cognitive conflict; and centroparietal P3-LPP amplitude during shock observation-an index of empathic neural response. Results showed that the second agent's decisions were significantly influenced by first agent's choices, especially toward the antisocial direction. Greater FMθ during the auditory processing of the partner's choice was associated with higher overall conformity. FMθ during decision-making was lower when conforming prosocially compared with antisocially, while larger P3-LPP amplitudes to observed pain were associated with reduced antisocial conformity. Prosocial conformity was associated with greater feelings of personal and shared responsibility, higher subjective empathy, increased sense of agency, and reduced conflict during decision making. These findings show that people exhibit a clear tendency to align with others' moral decisions, and the effects of social influence are shaped by the moral valence of observed behavior. This suggests a distinction between processes of diffusion of responsibility in immoral contexts and shared responsibility in prosocial ones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41239127What 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.