↓ Skip to main content

Neurobiological Mechanisms of Responding to Injustice

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroscience, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
130 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
50 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neurobiological Mechanisms of Responding to Injustice
Published in
Journal of Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.1242-17.2018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirre Stallen, Filippo Rossi, Amber Heijne, Ale Smidts, Carsten K.W. De Dreu, Alan G. Sanfey

Abstract

People are particularly sensitive to injustice. Accordingly, deeper knowledge regarding the processes that underlie the perception of injustice, and the subsequent decisions to either punish transgressors or compensate victims, is of important social value. By combining a novel decision-making paradigm with functional neuroimaging, we identified specific brain networks that are involved with both the perception of, and response to, social injustice, with reward-related regions preferentially involved in punishment compared to compensation. Developing a computational model of punishment allowed for disentangling the neural mechanisms and psychological motives underlying decisions of whether to punish and, subsequently, of how severely to punish. Results show that the neural mechanisms underlying punishment differ depending on whether one is directly affected by the injustice, or whether one is a third-party observer of a violation occurring to another. Specifically, the anterior insula was involved in decisions to punish following harm, while, in third-party scenarios, we found amygdala activity associated with punishment severity. Additionally, we employed a pharmacological intervention using oxytocin, and found that oxytocin influenced participants' fairness expectations, and in particular enhanced the frequency of low punishments. Together, these results not only provide more insight into the fundamental brain mechanisms underlying punishment and compensation, but also illustrate the importance of taking an explorative, multi-method approach when unraveling the complex components of everyday decision-making.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTThe perception of injustice is a fundamental precursor to many disagreements, from small struggles at the dinner table to wasteful conflict between cultures and countries. Despite its clear importance, relatively little is known about how the brain processes these violations. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, we combine methods from neuroscience, psychology, and economics to explore the neurobiological mechanisms involved in both the perception of injustice as well as the punishment and compensation decisions that follow. Using a novel behavioral paradigm, we identified specific brain networks, developed a computational model of punishment and found that administrating the neuropeptide oxytocin increases the administration of low punishments of norm violations in particular. Results provide valuable insights into the fundamental neurobiological mechanisms underlying social injustice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 130 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 24%
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 30%
Neuroscience 21 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 27 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 219. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2020.
All research outputs
#105,709
of 19,152,125 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#127
of 21,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,386
of 288,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#5
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,152,125 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,831 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.