IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0196503.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The “social brain” is highly sensitive to the mere presence of social information: An automated meta-analysis and an independent study

Author

Listed:
  • Ivy F Tso
  • Saige Rutherford
  • Yu Fang
  • Mike Angstadt
  • Stephan F Taylor

Abstract

How the human brain processes social information is an increasingly researched topic in psychology and neuroscience, advancing our understanding of basic human cognition and psychopathologies. Neuroimaging studies typically seek to isolate one specific aspect of social cognition when trying to map its neural substrates. It is unclear if brain activation elicited by different social cognitive processes and task instructions are also spontaneously elicited by general social information. In this study, we investigated whether these brain regions are evoked by the mere presence of social information using an automated meta-analysis and confirmatory data from an independent study of simple appraisal of social vs. non-social images. Results of 1,000 published fMRI studies containing the keyword of “social” were subject to an automated meta-analysis (http://neurosynth.org). To confirm that significant brain regions in the meta-analysis were driven by a social effect, these brain regions were used as regions of interest (ROIs) to extract and compare BOLD fMRI signals of social vs. non-social conditions in the independent study. The NeuroSynth results indicated that the dorsal and ventral medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, bilateral amygdala, bilateral occipito-temporal junction, right fusiform gyrus, bilateral temporal pole, and right inferior frontal gyrus are commonly engaged in studies with a prominent social element. The social–non-social contrast in the independent study showed a strong resemblance to the NeuroSynth map. ROI analyses revealed that a social effect was credible in 9 out of the 11 NeuroSynth regions in the independent dataset. The findings support the conclusion that the “social brain” is highly sensitive to the mere presence of social information.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivy F Tso & Saige Rutherford & Yu Fang & Mike Angstadt & Stephan F Taylor, 2018. "The “social brain” is highly sensitive to the mere presence of social information: An automated meta-analysis and an independent study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196503
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196503
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196503
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196503&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0196503?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Koenigs & Liane Young & Ralph Adolphs & Daniel Tranel & Fiery Cushman & Marc Hauser & Antonio Damasio, 2007. "Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements," Nature, Nature, vol. 446(7138), pages 908-911, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Barbosa & William Jiménez-Leal, 2017. "It’s not right but it’s permitted: Wording effects in moral judgement," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 308-313, May.
    2. Büsra Aktas & Onurcan Yilmaz & Hasan G. Bahçekapili, 2017. "Moral pluralism on the trolley tracks: Different normative principles are used for different reasons in justifying moral judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 297-307, May.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:3:p:308-313 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Bruno B Averbeck & Moonsang Seo, 2008. "The Statistical Neuroanatomy of Frontal Networks in the Macaque," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(4), pages 1-11, April.
    5. Matteo Cervellati & Joan-Maria Esteban & Laurence Kranich, 2010. "Work Values, Endogenous Sentiments and Redistribution," Working Papers 434, Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2016. "Antisocial Attitudes, Gender and Moral Judgments: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 1630, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    7. Juergen Bracht & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2016. "Moral Judgments, Gender, and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study," Working Papers halshs-01382464, HAL.
    8. Ferguson, Eamonn & Flynn, Niall, 2016. "Moral relativism as a disconnect between behavioural and experienced warm glow," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 163-175.
    9. Cervellati, Matteo & Vanin, Paolo, 2013. "“Thou shalt not covet”: Prohibitions, temptation and moral values," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 15-28.
    10. Rosalba Morese & Daniela Rabellino & Fabio Sambataro & Felice Perussia & Maria Consuelo Valentini & Bruno G Bara & Francesca M Bosco, 2016. "Group Membership Modulates the Neural Circuitry Underlying Third Party Punishment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    11. Lucas C. Coffman, 2019. "Expectations do not affect punishment," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 182-196, December.
    12. Marcus Holmes & Costas Panagopoulos, 2014. "The social brain paradigm and social norm puzzles," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(3), pages 384-404, July.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:3:p:297-307 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. repec:qut:qubewp:wp003 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Zachary Horne & Derek Powell, 2016. "How Large Is the Role of Emotion in Judgments of Moral Dilemmas?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Ed Love & Tara Ceranic Salinas & Jeff D. Rotman, 2020. "The Ethical Standards of Judgment Questionnaire: Development and Validation of Independent Measures of Formalism and Consequentialism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 115-132, January.
    17. Cervellati, Matteo & Esteban, Joan & Kranich, Laurence, 2010. "Work values, endogenous sentiments redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 612-627, October.
    18. Rui Miguel Silva & José António Filipe & Ana Costa, 2012. "Investor Behavior in Extreme Situations of Speculation and Crash: An Approach based on Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 2(3), pages 169-169.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:478-487 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Bence Bago & Marton Kovacs & John Protzko & Tamas Nagy & Zoltan Kekecs & Bence Palfi & Matus Adamkovic & Sylwia Adamus & Sumaya Albalooshi & Nihan Albayrak-Aydemir & Ilham N. Alfian & Sinan Alper & Sa, 2022. "Situational factors shape moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 880-895, June.
    21. Janet Geipel & Constantinos Hadjichristidis & Luca Surian, 2015. "The Foreign Language Effect on Moral Judgment: The Role of Emotions and Norms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    22. Antonio Cabrales & Antonio M. Espín & Praveen Kujal & Stephen Rassenti, 2017. "Humans’ (incorrect) distrust of reflective decisions," Working Papers 17-05, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    23. Netta Barak-Corre & Chia-Jung Tsay & Fiery Cushman & Max H. Bazerman, 2018. "If You’re Going to Do Wrong, At Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1528-1540, April.
    24. Ana T. Martins & Luis M. Faisca & Francisco Esteves & Angelica Muresan & Alexandra Reis, 2012. "Atypical moral judgment following traumatic brain injury," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 478-487, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196503. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.