Klaus Fliessbach, Courtney B. Phillipps, Peter Trautner, Marieke Schnabel, Christian E. Elger, Armin Falk, Bernd Weber
Abstract
In this paper we study neural responses to inequitable distributions of rewards despite equal performance. We specifically focus on differences between advantageous inequity (AI) and disadvantageous inequity (DI). AI and DI were realized in a hyperscanning functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiment with pairs of subjects simultaneously performing a task in adjacent scanners and observing both subjects' rewards. Results showed (1) hypoactivation of the ventral striatum (VS) under DI but not under AI; (2) inequity induced activation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) that was stronger under DI than under AI; (3) correlations between subjective evaluations of AI evaluation and bilateral ventrolateral prefrontal and left insular activity. Our study provides neurophysiological evidence for different cognitive processes that occur when exposed to DI and AI, respectively. One possible interpretation is that any form of inequity represents a norm violation, but that important differences between AI and DI emerge from an asymmetric involvement of status concerns.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 July 2012.
All research outputs
#18,309,495
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,038
of 7,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,952
of 244,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#251
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
