Accepting unfairness by a significant other is associated with reduced connectivity between medial prefrontal and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex

Abstract

Conflict is a ubiquitous feature of interpersonal relationships, yet many of these relationships preserve their value following conflict. Our ability to refrain from punishment despite the occurrence of conflict is a characteristic of human beings. Using a combination of behavioral and neuroimaging techniques, we show that prosocial decision-making is modulated by relationship closeness. In an iterated social exchange, participants were more likely to cooperate with their partner compared to an unknown person by accepting unfair exchanges. Importantly, this effect was not influenced by how resources were actually being shared with one's partner. The medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) was activated when the partner, rather than the unknown person, behaved unfairly and, in the same context, the MPFC demonstrated greater functional connectivity with the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (DACC). MPFC-DACC connectivity was inversely associated with participants' tendency to "forgive" their partner for unfairness as well as performance outside the scanner on a behavioral measure of forgiveness. We conclude that relationship closeness modulates a neural network comprising the MPFC/DACC during economic exchanges.

Perceived ambiguity of social interactions increases coupling between frontal and temporal nodes of the social brain

“…W. Chang, Gariepy, & Platt, 2013;Rudebeck et al, 2006). Adjacent areas of cingulate cortex and other medial frontal regions have also been implicated in tracking the behaviour and intentions of other agents (Fatfouta, Meshi, Merkl, & Heekeren, 2018;Haroush & Williams, 2015;Hill, Boorman, & Fried, 2016;Wittmann et al, 2016;Kyoko Yoshida et al, 2011;K. Yoshida et al, 2012).…”

Social comparison in the brain: A coordinate‐based meta‐analysis of functional brain imaging studies on the downward and upward comparisons

“…Kr€ amer et al [2007] 15 Self-won/other-lost > Self-lost/other-won 11.03 Ligneul et al [2016] 28 win > loss compared to anotherwin > loss in control condition 14.61 Votinov et al [2015] 69 Self-gain/other-no gain > self loss/other-no loss; 21.26 self-no loss/other-loss > self-no gain/other-gain Upward Social Comparison dACC Baumgartner et al [2012] 32 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 0.39 Cikara et al [2011] 18 Favored team's failure/rival team's success > control 0.42 Civai et al [2012] 19 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 9.14 Corradi-Dell'Acqua et al [2016] 19 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 0.79 Fatfouta et al [2016] 23 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 4.12 Feng et al [2016] 40 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 3.35 Guo et al [2013a] 18 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 4.32 Guo et al [2013b] 21 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.73 G€ uroglu et al [2011] 68 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 5.32 Halko et al [2009] 23 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.83 Harle and Sanfey [2012] 38 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 3.40 Haruno & Frith [2010] 52 Parametric analysis, positive correlation with absoluate differences between two peoeple (other > self)…”

“…Lindner et al [2014] 30 Performed worse > performed better 1.90 Sanfey et al [2003] 19 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 5.18 Servaas et al [2015] 114 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 8.72 Takahashi et al [2009] 19 Superior others (high related) > average others; Superior others (low related)> average others Zheng et al [2015] 25 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.97 Self-unequal/other-equal > Self-unequal/other-unequal Zhou et al [2014] 28 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.95 R AI Baumgartner et al [2012] 32 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 9.86 Beyer et al [2014a] 40 Self-lost/other-won > Self-won/other-lost 2.07 Beyer et al [2014b] 41 Self-lost/other-won > Self-won/other-lost 3.08 Cikara et al [2011] 18 Favored team's failure/rival team's success > control 1.78 Civai et al [2012] 19 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 6.42 Corradi-Dell'Acqua et al [2016] 19 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 1.33 Fatfouta et al [2016] 23 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 5. 13 Feng et al [2016] 40 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.95 Guo et al [2013a] 18 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.53 Guo et al [2013b] 21 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.93 Halko et al [2009] 23 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 6.15 Harle and Sanfey [2012] 38 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 3.00 Haruno & Frith [2010] 52 Parametric analysis, positive correlation with absoluate differences between two peoeple (other > self)…”

“…Wu et al [2015] 27 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.97 Zheng et al [2015] 25 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 3.64 Self-unequal/other-equal > Self-unequal/ other-unequal Zhou et al [2014] 28 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 3.55 Zink et al [2008] 24 Self-lost/other-won > Self-lost/other-lost 3.25 L AI Baumgartner et al [2012] 32 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 3.89 Beyer et al [2014a] 40 Self-lost/other-won > Self-won/other-lost 2.37 Civai et al [2012] 19 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 8.94 Corradi-Dell'Acqua et al [2016] 19 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 2.49 Fatfouta et al [2016] 23 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 3. 74 Feng et al [2016] 40 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 4.71 Gospic et al [1983] 17 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 4.25 Gradin et al [2015] 25 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 0.98 Guo et al [2013a] 18 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 3.80 Guo et al [2013b] 21 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 4.04 Halko et al [2009] 23 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 4.68 Harle and Sanfey [2012] 38 disadvantageous outcomes > equal outcomes 4.98 Haruno & Frith [2010] 52 Parametric analysis, positive correlation with absoluate differences between two peoeple (other > self)…”

The Neural Association between Tendency to Forgive and Spontaneous Brain Activity in Healthy Young Adults

“…Imaging studies investigating neural activation concerning forgiveness have found activity of the lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), medial PFC (mPFC), temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and precuneus which play a vital role in cognitive control and mentalizing (Will et al, 2015 , 2016 ; Fatfouta et al, 2016 ; Billingsley and Losin, 2017 ). For example, forgiving judgments of one’s crime evoked elevated activation of superior frontal gyrus and precuneus (Farrow et al, 2001 ).…”