Maximin principle, emotional aversion, and integrative judgment in the NIMBY context, including social dilemma and moral dilemma: The roles of the amygdala, angular gyrus, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Social Neuroscience Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-06 DOI:10.1080/17470919.2023.2280060
Hiroshi Nonami, Kentaro Oba, Yutaka Tashiro, Toshiaki Aoki, Shoji Ohtomo
{"title":"Maximin principle, emotional aversion, and integrative judgment in the NIMBY context, including social dilemma and moral dilemma: The roles of the amygdala, angular gyrus, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.","authors":"Hiroshi Nonami, Kentaro Oba, Yutaka Tashiro, Toshiaki Aoki, Shoji Ohtomo","doi":"10.1080/17470919.2023.2280060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Public facilities that have NIMBY (not in my backyard) structure involve both a social dilemma, in which individuals' decisions to prevent the worst outcomes for themselves undermine the public interest, and a moral dilemma focused on the majority versus the minority. This study examined the cognitive-neural processes in judging whether to prioritize the site residents or the citizenry as a whole within the context of NIMBY. Our ROIs were the right angular gyrus being related to concern about the worst possible outcomes for others and oneself, the amygdala associating with emotional aversion to prioritizing the majority, and the vmPFC, which integrates the aversion into \"all things considered\" judgments. As a result of comparing ingroup conditions for which a NIMBY facility may make participants worst-off position and outgroup conditions for which this possibility is denied, the right angular gyrus was activated in both conditions. The amygdala was activated only in the ingroup, and the vmPFC exhibited a stronger tendency in the ingroup. We concluded that the cognitive-neural processes in judgments on NIMBY facilities are common to both decision-making to avoid the worst-off position for others and for oneself and moral judgments between the majority and the minority.</p>","PeriodicalId":49511,"journal":{"name":"Social Neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":"282-291"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2023.2280060","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public facilities that have NIMBY (not in my backyard) structure involve both a social dilemma, in which individuals' decisions to prevent the worst outcomes for themselves undermine the public interest, and a moral dilemma focused on the majority versus the minority. This study examined the cognitive-neural processes in judging whether to prioritize the site residents or the citizenry as a whole within the context of NIMBY. Our ROIs were the right angular gyrus being related to concern about the worst possible outcomes for others and oneself, the amygdala associating with emotional aversion to prioritizing the majority, and the vmPFC, which integrates the aversion into "all things considered" judgments. As a result of comparing ingroup conditions for which a NIMBY facility may make participants worst-off position and outgroup conditions for which this possibility is denied, the right angular gyrus was activated in both conditions. The amygdala was activated only in the ingroup, and the vmPFC exhibited a stronger tendency in the ingroup. We concluded that the cognitive-neural processes in judgments on NIMBY facilities are common to both decision-making to avoid the worst-off position for others and for oneself and moral judgments between the majority and the minority.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
邻避情境下包括社会困境和道德困境在内的Maximin原则、情绪厌恶和综合判断:杏仁核、角回和腹内侧前额叶皮层的作用
具有邻避(不是在我家后院)结构的公共设施既涉及社会困境,即个人为防止最坏结果而做出的决定损害了公共利益,也涉及关注多数人与少数人的道德困境。本研究考察了在邻避的背景下,判断是否优先考虑场地居民或作为一个整体的公民的认知神经过程。我们的roi是与对他人和自己可能出现的最坏结果的担忧有关的右角脑回,与优先考虑大多数人的情绪厌恶相关的杏仁核,以及将厌恶整合到“考虑所有事情”判断中的vmPFC。通过比较邻避设施可能使参与者处于最不利地位的群体内条件和不存在这种可能性的群体外条件,两种情况下右角回都被激活。杏仁核仅在内组中被激活,vmPFC在内组中表现出更强的倾向。我们得出结论,邻避设施判断的认知神经过程在避免他人和自己处于最坏境地的决策和多数与少数之间的道德判断中是共同的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Neuroscience
Social Neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Neuroscience features original empirical Research Papers as well as targeted Reviews, Commentaries and Fast Track Brief Reports that examine how the brain mediates social behavior, social cognition, social interactions and relationships, group social dynamics, and related topics that deal with social/interpersonal psychology and neurobiology. Multi-paper symposia and special topic issues are organized and presented regularly as well. The goal of Social Neuroscience is to provide a place to publish empirical articles that intend to further our understanding of the neural mechanisms contributing to the development and maintenance of social behaviors, or to understanding how these mechanisms are disrupted in clinical disorders.
期刊最新文献
Executive functions in adolescence: A longitudinal study comparing evaluations before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Social group size alters social behavior and dopaminergic and serotonergic systems. How does teaching experience impact brain processes underlying the theory of mind? Study on primary school educators. Embodied hyperscanning for studying social interaction: A scoping review of simultaneous brain and body measurements. Social and perceptual decisions predict differences in face inversion neural correlates: Implications for development and face perception methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1