ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Stage 1 registered report examining agency and outcome valence on inter-brain synchrony during dyadic moral judgments.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inter-brain synchrony (IBS) has emerged as a promising marker of neural processes supporting social interaction, cooperation, and moral evaluation. Previous hyperscanning research shows that IBS increases during tasks involving joint attention, cooperation, or shared intentionality. Nevertheless, little is known about how agency-the extent to which individuals can influence outcomes-and outcome valence interact to shape neural alignment between people. Real-world social contexts often involve asymmetries in control and responsibility, and these dynamics may critically influence how individuals coordinate and evaluate one another's decisions. The present registered report outlines two experiments designed to examine the relationship between agency and outcome valence and IBS. In the first experiment, agency (high vs. low) and outcome valence (reward vs. punishment) are jointly manipulated during moral adjudications of economic game offers. We predict that high-agency contexts, especially when linked to punishing unfairness, will enhance IBS by fostering shared responsibility and coordinated evaluation. In the second experiment, asymmetric agency roles (equal, unilateral, none) are introduced to examine whether unequal distributions of control reduce IBS. We also explore directional influences from higher- to lower-agency partners. By systematically manipulating both the degree of agency and the valence of social outcomes, this research aims to advance theoretical accounts of joint moral decision-making and hierarchical social interaction. The findings will contribute to understanding how responsibility, fairness, and power dynamics shape neural alignment that underpins cooperative and moral behavior.
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.