Limits...
Lower dorsal striatum activation in association with neuroticism during the acceptance of unfair offers.

Servaas MN, Aleman A, Marsman JB, Renken RJ, Riese H, Ormel J - Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci (2015)

Bottom Line: Furthermore, we found more activation in parietal and temporal regions for the two most common decisions (fair accept and unfair reject), involving areas related to perceptual decision-making.High compared to low neurotic individuals did not show differential activation patterns during the proposal of unfair offers; however, they did show lower activation in the right dorsal striatum (putamen) during the acceptance of unfair offers.In conclusion, the findings suggest that both high and low neurotic individuals recruit brain regions signaling social norm violations in response to unfair offers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Neuroimaging Center, Department of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 196, 9700 AD, Groningen, The Netherlands, m.n.servaas@umcg.nl.

ABSTRACT
Unfair treatment may evoke more negative emotions in individuals scoring higher on neuroticism, thereby possibly impacting their decision-making in these situations. To investigate the neural basis of social decision-making in these individuals, we examined interpersonal reactions to unfairness in the Ultimatum Game (UG). We measured brain activation with fMRI in 120 participants selected based on their neuroticism score, while they made decisions to accept or reject proposals that were either fair or unfair. The anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex were more activated during the processing of unfair offers, consistent with prior UG studies. Furthermore, we found more activation in parietal and temporal regions for the two most common decisions (fair accept and unfair reject), involving areas related to perceptual decision-making. Conversely, during the decision to accept unfair offers, individuals recruited more frontal regions previously associated with decision-making and the implementation of reappraisal in the UG. High compared to low neurotic individuals did not show differential activation patterns during the proposal of unfair offers; however, they did show lower activation in the right dorsal striatum (putamen) during the acceptance of unfair offers. This brain region has been involved in the formation of stimulus-action-reward associations and motivation/arousal. In conclusion, the findings suggest that both high and low neurotic individuals recruit brain regions signaling social norm violations in response to unfair offers. However, when it comes to decision-making, it seems that neural circuitry related to reward and motivation is altered in individuals scoring higher on neuroticism, when accepting an unfair offer.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Task outline. First, participants were presented with a fixation cross (1 sec). Second, a movie clip was played in which participants could observe their opponent making a decision behind a computer (6 sec). Third, a fair proposal (€5:€5) or an unfair proposal (€9:€1, €8:€2, and €7:€3) was randomly presented (6 sec). Fourth, participants were able to accept or reject the proposal (6 sec). Fifth, the outcome was presented, that is, the amount of money that each participant earned for that particular trial
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526587&req=5

Fig1: Task outline. First, participants were presented with a fixation cross (1 sec). Second, a movie clip was played in which participants could observe their opponent making a decision behind a computer (6 sec). Third, a fair proposal (€5:€5) or an unfair proposal (€9:€1, €8:€2, and €7:€3) was randomly presented (6 sec). Fourth, participants were able to accept or reject the proposal (6 sec). Fifth, the outcome was presented, that is, the amount of money that each participant earned for that particular trial

Mentions: Participants acted as responders in a series of 24 trials of the UG, wherein splits of €10 were proposed. A trial consisted of the following five subcomponents. First, participants were presented with a fixation cross for one second. Second, a movie clip was played in which participants observed a female opponent (the same for every trial) sitting behind a computer screen and moving the mouse with her right hand in order to propose a division. We presented movie clips instead of pictures, to make the design more ecologically valid. The movie clips were played in a serial order and had a duration of six seconds (see Appendix A for more details on the movie clips). Third, participants were randomly presented with either a fair proposal (€5:€5) or an unfair proposal (€9:€1, €8:€2 and €7:€3) for six seconds. Fourth, participants were able to accept or reject the proposal during a six-second time window. When participants accepted the proposal, money was divided according to the offer. However, when participants rejected the proposal, both players did not receive any money. Participants were instructed to press the left button on the button box to accept the proposal and the second button on the left to reject the proposal. Fifth, the outcome was shown, that is, the amount of money that each participant earned for that particular trial. The outcome screen had a duration of six seconds, after which a new trial started. Participants were told that they would be paid a percentage (10 %) of the money they had earned during the game, in addition to a fixed amount for their participation in the experiment. However, all participants received the same amount of money due to guidelines from the local ethical committee. In total, four blocks were presented, including the following offer rates per block: 3 × (€5:€5), 1 × (€9:€1), 1 × (€8:€2) and 1 × (€7:€3). Rest periods with a duration of 15 seconds, in which a fixation cross was shown, were presented at the beginning of the task, the end of the task and in between the four blocks. The duration of a trial was 25 seconds, and the total duration of the experimental paradigm was 11.7 minutes (see Fig. 1 for the task outline and Appendix B for an overview of the full fMRI session).Fig. 1


Lower dorsal striatum activation in association with neuroticism during the acceptance of unfair offers.

Servaas MN, Aleman A, Marsman JB, Renken RJ, Riese H, Ormel J - Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci (2015)

Task outline. First, participants were presented with a fixation cross (1 sec). Second, a movie clip was played in which participants could observe their opponent making a decision behind a computer (6 sec). Third, a fair proposal (€5:€5) or an unfair proposal (€9:€1, €8:€2, and €7:€3) was randomly presented (6 sec). Fourth, participants were able to accept or reject the proposal (6 sec). Fifth, the outcome was presented, that is, the amount of money that each participant earned for that particular trial
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526587&req=5

Fig1: Task outline. First, participants were presented with a fixation cross (1 sec). Second, a movie clip was played in which participants could observe their opponent making a decision behind a computer (6 sec). Third, a fair proposal (€5:€5) or an unfair proposal (€9:€1, €8:€2, and €7:€3) was randomly presented (6 sec). Fourth, participants were able to accept or reject the proposal (6 sec). Fifth, the outcome was presented, that is, the amount of money that each participant earned for that particular trial
Mentions: Participants acted as responders in a series of 24 trials of the UG, wherein splits of €10 were proposed. A trial consisted of the following five subcomponents. First, participants were presented with a fixation cross for one second. Second, a movie clip was played in which participants observed a female opponent (the same for every trial) sitting behind a computer screen and moving the mouse with her right hand in order to propose a division. We presented movie clips instead of pictures, to make the design more ecologically valid. The movie clips were played in a serial order and had a duration of six seconds (see Appendix A for more details on the movie clips). Third, participants were randomly presented with either a fair proposal (€5:€5) or an unfair proposal (€9:€1, €8:€2 and €7:€3) for six seconds. Fourth, participants were able to accept or reject the proposal during a six-second time window. When participants accepted the proposal, money was divided according to the offer. However, when participants rejected the proposal, both players did not receive any money. Participants were instructed to press the left button on the button box to accept the proposal and the second button on the left to reject the proposal. Fifth, the outcome was shown, that is, the amount of money that each participant earned for that particular trial. The outcome screen had a duration of six seconds, after which a new trial started. Participants were told that they would be paid a percentage (10 %) of the money they had earned during the game, in addition to a fixed amount for their participation in the experiment. However, all participants received the same amount of money due to guidelines from the local ethical committee. In total, four blocks were presented, including the following offer rates per block: 3 × (€5:€5), 1 × (€9:€1), 1 × (€8:€2) and 1 × (€7:€3). Rest periods with a duration of 15 seconds, in which a fixation cross was shown, were presented at the beginning of the task, the end of the task and in between the four blocks. The duration of a trial was 25 seconds, and the total duration of the experimental paradigm was 11.7 minutes (see Fig. 1 for the task outline and Appendix B for an overview of the full fMRI session).Fig. 1

Bottom Line: Furthermore, we found more activation in parietal and temporal regions for the two most common decisions (fair accept and unfair reject), involving areas related to perceptual decision-making.High compared to low neurotic individuals did not show differential activation patterns during the proposal of unfair offers; however, they did show lower activation in the right dorsal striatum (putamen) during the acceptance of unfair offers.In conclusion, the findings suggest that both high and low neurotic individuals recruit brain regions signaling social norm violations in response to unfair offers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Neuroimaging Center, Department of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 196, 9700 AD, Groningen, The Netherlands, m.n.servaas@umcg.nl.

ABSTRACT
Unfair treatment may evoke more negative emotions in individuals scoring higher on neuroticism, thereby possibly impacting their decision-making in these situations. To investigate the neural basis of social decision-making in these individuals, we examined interpersonal reactions to unfairness in the Ultimatum Game (UG). We measured brain activation with fMRI in 120 participants selected based on their neuroticism score, while they made decisions to accept or reject proposals that were either fair or unfair. The anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex were more activated during the processing of unfair offers, consistent with prior UG studies. Furthermore, we found more activation in parietal and temporal regions for the two most common decisions (fair accept and unfair reject), involving areas related to perceptual decision-making. Conversely, during the decision to accept unfair offers, individuals recruited more frontal regions previously associated with decision-making and the implementation of reappraisal in the UG. High compared to low neurotic individuals did not show differential activation patterns during the proposal of unfair offers; however, they did show lower activation in the right dorsal striatum (putamen) during the acceptance of unfair offers. This brain region has been involved in the formation of stimulus-action-reward associations and motivation/arousal. In conclusion, the findings suggest that both high and low neurotic individuals recruit brain regions signaling social norm violations in response to unfair offers. However, when it comes to decision-making, it seems that neural circuitry related to reward and motivation is altered in individuals scoring higher on neuroticism, when accepting an unfair offer.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus