Bias and Control in Social Decision-Making

  • Paloma Díaz-Gutiérrez
  • Sonia Alguacil
  • María Ruz


Social decisions are crucial in our life. Many of these include interactions between agents in scenarios of varying complexity, where trust and cooperation are essential and multiple sources of information influence our choices. In this chapter we review the contributions from social neuroscience to understanding the sources of bias and control mechanisms in social decisions, integrating insights from diverse methodologies and analyses. These biases include individual influences (both stable and transient) and other stimulus-driven factors, such as social stereotypes, emotion displays, or information regarding personality traits. This information modulates different stages of processing, with control-related influences playing crucial roles to override conflicts between automatic tendencies and goals.


Social neuroscience Decision-making Social bias Control mechanisms Neuroimaging 


  1. 1.
    Sanfey AG. Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science. 2007;318(5850):598–602. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adolphs R, Anderson D. Social and emotional neuroscience. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23(3):291–3. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fehr E, Gachter S. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am Econ Rev. 2000;90(4):980–94. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruff CC, Fehr E. The neurobiology of rewards and values in social decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014;15(8):549–62. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frith CD, Frith U. Implicit and explicit processes in social cognition. Neuron. 2008;60(3):503–10. Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Kleef GA. How emotions regulate social life. Curr Dir Psychol. 2009;18(3):184–8. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunne S, O’Doherty JP. Insights from the application of computational neuroimaging to social neuroscience. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23(3):387–92. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science. 2003;300(5626):1755–8. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stolier RM, Freeman JB. Functional and temporal considerations for top-down influences in social perception. Psychol Inq. 2016;27(4):352–7. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG. Social psychological contributions to the decade of the brain. Doctrine of multilevel analysis. Am Psychol. 1992;47(8):1019–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ochsner KN, Lieberman M. The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. Am Psychol. 2001;56(9):717–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Kosfeld M. Neuroeconomic foundations of trust and social preferences neuroeconomic foundations of trust and social preferences. Am Econ Rev. 2005;95(2):346–51. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanfey AG, Chang LJ. Multiple systems in decision making. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1128:53–62. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leotti LA, Delgado MR. The value of exercising control over monetary gains and losses. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(2):596–604. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berkman ET, Cunningham WA, Lieberman MD. Research methods in social and affective neuroscience. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, editors. Handbook of research methods in personality and social psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 123–58.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Camerer CF. Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interactions. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruz M, Acero JJ, Tudela P. What does the brain tell us about the mind? Psicológica. 2006;29:149–57.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J Econ Behav Organ. 1982;3(4):367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sally D. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Ration Soc. 1995;7(1):58–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gilam G, Lin T, Raz G, Azrielant S, Fruchter E, Ariely D, et al. Neural substrates underlying the tendency to accept anger-infused ultimatum offers during dynamic social interactions. NeuroImage. 2015;120:400–11. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heijne A, Sanfey AG. How social and nonsocial context affects stay/leave decision-making: the influence of actual and expected rewards. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135226. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stolier RM, Freeman JB. Neural pattern similarity reveals the inherent intersection of social categories. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19(6):795–7. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greenwald AG, Mcghee DE, Schwartz JLK. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(6):1464–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amodio DM. The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nat Rev. 2014;15(10):670–82. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schiller D, Freeman JB, Mitchell JP, Uleman JS, Phelps EA. A neural mechanism of first impressions. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12(4):508–14. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greene J, Haidt J. How (and where) does moral judgement work? Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6(12):517–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greene JD, Morelli SA, Lowenberg K, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition. 2008;107(3):1144–54. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luck SJ. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cutini S, Basso Moro S, Bisconti S. Functional near infrared optical imaging in cognitive neuroscience: an introductory review. J Near Infrared Spectrosc. 2012;20:75–92. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haxby JV, Gobbini MI, Furey ML, Ishai A, Schouten JL, Pietrini P. Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science. 2001;293(5539):2425–30. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kriegeskorte N, Mur M, Bandettini P. Representational similarity analysis – connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Front Syst Neurosci. 2008;2:4. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tamir DI, Thornton MA, Contreras JM, Mitchell JP. Neural evidence that three dimensions organize mental state representation: rationality, social impact, and alence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(1):194–9. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glover SH, Bumpus MA, Sharp GF, Munchus GA. Gender differences in ethical decision making. Women Manag Rev. 2002;17(5):217–27. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Andreoni J, Vesterlund L. Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Q J Econ. 2001;116(1):293–312. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosen JB, Brand M, Kalbe E. Empathy mediates the effects of age and sex on altruistic moral decision making. Front Behav Neurosci. 2016;10:67. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Singer T, Seymour B, Doherty JPO, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature. 2006;439(7075):466–9. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moore C. Fairness in children’s resource allocation depends on the recipient. Psychol Sci. 2009;20(8):944–8. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weller D, Hansen Lagattuta K. Helping the in-group feels better: children’s judgments and emotion attributions in response to prosocial dilemmas. Child Dev. 2013;84(1):253–68. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bailey PE, Ruffman T, Rendell PG. Age-related differences in social economic decision making: the ultimatum game. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2012;68(3):356–63. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harlé KM, Sanfey AG. Social economic decision-making across the lifespan: an fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(7):1416–24. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lim KTK, Yu R. Aging and wisdom: age-related changes in economic and social decision making. Front Aging Neurosci. 2015;7:120. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fehr E, Schmidt KM. The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism – experimental evidence and new theories. In: Kolm SC, Ythier JM, editors. Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2006. p. 615–91.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Murphy R, Ackermann K. A review of measurement methods for social preferences. ETH Zurich Chair of decision theory and behavioral game theory, working paper.
  44. 44.
    Murphy RO, Ackermann KA, Handgraaf MJJ. Measuring social value orientation. Judgm Decis Mak. 2011;6(8):771–81. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Au WT, Kwong JY. Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas. In: Suleiman R, Budescu DV, Fischer I, Messick DM, editors. Contemporary research on social dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 71–98.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bogaert S, Boone C, Declerck C, Bogaert Boone C, Declerck CHS. Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a review and conceptual model. Br J Soc Psychol. 2008;47(3):453–80. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Emonds G, Declerck CH, Boone C, Vandervliet EJM, Parizel PM. Comparing the neural basis of decision making in social dilemmas of people with different social value orientations, a fMRI study. J Neurosci Psychol Econ. 2011;4(1):11–24. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Emonds G, Declerck CH, Boone C, Seurinck R, Achten R. Establishing cooperation in a mixed-motive social dilemma. An fMRI study investigating the role of social value orientation and dispositional trust. Soc Neurosci. 2014;9(1):10–22. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wang WH, Shih YH, Yu HY, Yen DJ, Lin YY, Kwan SY, et al. Theory of mind and social functioning in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2015;56(7):1117–23. Scholar
  50. 50.
    Koscik TR, Tranel D. The human amygdala is necessary for developing and expressing normal interpersonal trust. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(4):602–11. Scholar
  51. 51.
    Koenigs M, Young L, Adolphs R, Tranel D, Cushman F, Hauser M, et al. Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature. 2007;446(7138):908–11. Scholar
  52. 52.
    Moll J, de Oliveira-Souza R. Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11(8):319–21. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gleichgerrcht E, Ibanez A, Roca M, Torralva T, Manes F. Decision-making cognition in neurodegenerative diseases. Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6(11):611–23. Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gleichgerrcht E, Torralva T, Roca M, Pose M, Manes F. The role of social cognition in moral judgment in frontotemporal dementia. Soc Neurosci. 2011;6(2):113–22. Scholar
  55. 55.
    O’Callaghan C, Bertoux M, Irish M, Shine JM, Wong S, Spiliopoulos L, et al. Fair play: social norm compliance failures in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain. 2016;139(1):204–16. Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ. Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science. 2006;313(5787):684–7. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang XT, Rao L, Zheng H. Neural substrates of framing effects in social contexts: a meta-analytical approach. Soc Neurosci. 2016;28:1–12. Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zheng H, Wang XT, Zhu L. Framing effects: behavioral dynamics and neural basis. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(11):3198–204. Scholar
  60. 60.
    Forgas JP. Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychol Bull. 1995;117(1):39–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Harlé KM, Chang LJ, van’t Wout M, Sanfey AG. The neural mechanisms of affect infusion in social economic decision-making: a mediating role of the anterior insula. NeuroImage. 2012;61(1):32–40. Scholar
  62. 62.
    Forgas J. On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(3):565–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mislin A, Williams LV, Shaughnessy BA. Motivating trust: can mood and incentives increase interpersonal trust? J Behav Exp Econ. 2015;58:11–9. Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rand DG, Kraft-Todd G, Gruber J. The collective benefits of feeling good and letting go: positive emotion and (dis) inhibition interact to predict cooperative behavior. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):1–12. Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nygren TE, Isen AM, Taylor PJ, Dulin J. The influence of positive affect on the decision rule in risk situations: focus on outcome (and especially avoidance of loss) rather than probability. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;66(1):59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tan HB, Forgas JP. When happiness makes us selfish, but sadness makes us fair: affective influences on interpersonal strategies in the dictator game. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46(3):571–6. Scholar
  67. 67.
    Szekely RD, Miu AC. Incidental emotions in moral dilemmas: the influence of emotion regulation. Cognit Emot. 2015;29(1):64–75. Scholar
  68. 68.
    Grecucci A, Giorgetta C, Bonini N, Sanfey AG. Reappraising social emotions: the role of inferior frontal gyrus, temporo-parietal junction and insula in interpersonal emotion regulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:523. Scholar
  69. 69.
    Grecucci A, Giorgetta C, Van’t Wout M, Bonini N, Sanfey AG. Reappraising the ultimatum: an fMRI study of emotion regulation and decision making. Cereb Cortex. 2013;23(2):399–410. Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bar M, Neta M, Linz H. Very first impressions. Emotion. 2008;6(2):269–78. Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bickart KC, Dickerson BC, Feldman Barrett L. The amygdala as a hub in brain networks that support social life. Neuropsychologia. 2014;63:235–48. Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C. Social categorization and intergroup behavior. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1971;1(2):149–78. Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fiske ST. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The handbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998. p. 357–411.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Quadflieg S, Turk DJ, Waiter GD, Mitchell JP, Jenkins AC, Macrae CN. Exploring the neural correlates of social stereotyping. J Cogn Neurosci. 2009;21(8):1560–70. Scholar
  75. 75.
    Freeman JB, Ma Y, Barth M, Young SG, Han S, Ambady N. The neural basis of contextual influences on face categorization. Cereb Cortex. 2015;25(2):415–22. Scholar
  76. 76.
    Frith CD, Frith U. How we predict what other people are going to do. Brain Res. 2006;1079(1):36–46. Scholar
  77. 77.
    Stanley DA, Sokol-Hessner P, Fareri DS, Perino MT, Delgado MR, Banaji MR, et al. Race and reputation: perceived racial group trustworthiness influences the neural correlates of trust decisions. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2012;367(1589):744–53. Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gilbert SJ, Swencionis JK, Amodio DM. Evaluative vs. trait representation in intergroup social judgments: distinct roles of anterior temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50(14):3600–11. Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ito T, Urland G. Race and gender on the brain. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(4):616–26. Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ofan RH, Rubin N, Amodio DM. Seeing race: N170 responses to race and their relation to automatic racial attitudes and controlled processing. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011;23(10):3153–61. Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tortosa M, Lupiáñez J, Ruz M. Race, emotion and trust: an ERP study. Brain Res. 2013;1494:44–55. Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bentin S, Allison T, Pruce A, Perez E, Mccarthy G. Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. J Cogn Neurosci. 1996;8(6):551–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ibáñez A, Gleichgerrcht E, Hurtado E, Gonzalez R, Haye A, Manes F. Early neural markers of implicit attitudes: N170 modulated by intergroup and evaluative contexts in IAT. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010;4:188. Scholar
  84. 84.
    Haxby JV, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI. The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4(6):223–33. Scholar
  85. 85.
    Contreras JM, Banaji MR, Mitchell JP. Multivoxel patterns in fusiform face area differentiate faces by sex and race. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69684. Scholar
  86. 86.
    Brosch T, Bar-David E, E a P. Implicit race bias decreases the similarity of neural representations of black and white faces. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(2):160–6. Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mendoza SA, Lane SP, Amido DM, Amodio DM. For members only: ingroup punishment of fairness norm violations in the ultimatum game. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2014;5(6):662–70. Scholar
  88. 88.
    Stanley DA, Sokol-Hessner P, Banaji MR, Phelps EA. Implicit race attitudes predict trustworthiness judgments and economic trust decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(19):7710–5. Scholar
  89. 89.
    Freeman JB, Ambady N. A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychol Rev. 2011;118(2):247–79. Scholar
  90. 90.
    Adolphs R. Perception and emotion: how we recognize facial expressions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(5):222–6. Scholar
  91. 91.
    Oosterhof NN, Todorov A. The functional basis of face evaluation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(32):11087–92. Scholar
  92. 92.
    Todorov A, Said CP, Engell AD, Oosterhof NN. Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(12):455–60. Scholar
  93. 93.
    G a v K. The emerging view of emotion as social information. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2010;4(5):331–43. Scholar
  94. 94.
    Scharlemann JPW, Eckel CC, Kacelnik A, Wilson RK. The value of a smile: game theory with a human face. J Econ Psychol. 2001;22(5):617–40. doi: Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mussel P, Göritz AS, Hewig J. The value of a smile: facial expression affects ultimatum-game responses. Judgm Decis Mak. 2013;8(3):1–5.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hareli S, Hess U. What emotional reactions can tell us about the nature of others: an appraisal perspective on person perception. Cognit Emot. 2010;24(1):128–40. Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ibañez A, Kotz SA, Barrett L, Moll J, Ruz M. Situated affective and social neuroscience. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:547. Scholar
  98. 98.
    de Melo CM, Carnevale PJ, Read SJ, Gratch J. Reading people’s minds from emotion expressions in interdependent decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014;106(1):73–88. Scholar
  99. 99.
    van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR. The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;86(1):57–76. Scholar
  100. 100.
    Alguacil S, Tudela P, Ruz M. Ignoring facial emotion expressions does not eliminate their influence on cooperation decisions. Psicológica. 2015;36(2):309–35.
  101. 101.
    Ruz M, Tudela P. Emotional conflict in interpersonal interactions. NeuroImage. 2011;54(2):1685–91. Scholar
  102. 102.
    Ruz M, Madrid E, Tudela P. Interactions between perceived emotions and executive attention in an interpersonal game. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013;8(7):838–44. Scholar
  103. 103.
    Gobbini MI, Haxby JV. Neural systems for recognition of familiar faces. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45(1):32–41. Scholar
  104. 104.
    Fett AKJ, Shergill SS, Joyce DW, Riedl A, Strobel M, Gromann PM, et al. To trust or not to trust: the dynamics of social interaction in psychosis. Brain. 2012;135(3):976–84. Scholar
  105. 105.
    Todorov A, Baron SG, Oosterhof NN. Evaluating face trustworthiness: a model based approach. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2008;3(2):119–27. Scholar
  106. 106.
    Todorov A, Pakrashi M, Oosterhof NN. Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Soc Cogn. 2009;27(6):813–33. Scholar
  107. 107.
    Freeman JB, Stolier RM, Ingbretsen ZA, Hehman EA. Amygdala responsivity to high-level social information from unseen faces. J Neurosci. 2014;34(32):10573–81. Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kim H, Choi M-J, Jang I-J. Lateral OFC activity predicts decision bias due to first impressions during ultimatum games. J Cogn Neurosci. 2012;24(2):428–39. Scholar
  109. 109.
    Rezlescu C, Duchaine B, Olivola CY, Chater N. Unfakeable facial configurations affect strategic choices in trust games with or without information about past behavior. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e34293. Scholar
  110. 110.
    van’t Wout M, Sanfey AG. Friend or foe: the effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition. 2008;108(3):796–803. Scholar
  111. 111.
    Delgado MR, Frank RH, Phelps EA. Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(11):1611–8. Scholar
  112. 112.
    Fareri DS, Chang LJ, Delgado MR. Computational substrates of social value in interpersonal collaboration. J Neurosci. 2015;35(21):8170–80. Scholar
  113. 113.
    Hackel LM, Doll BB, Amodio DM. Instrumental learning of traits versus rewards: dissociable neural correlates and effects on choice. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(9):1233–5. Scholar
  114. 114.
    Gaertig C, Moser A, Alguacil S, Ruz M. Social information and economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Front Neurosci. 2012;6(July):1–8. Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ruz M, Moser A, Webster K. Social expectations bias decision-making in uncertain inter-personal situations. PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e15762. Scholar
  116. 116.
    Moser A, Gaertig C, Ruz M. Social information and personal interests modulate neural activity during economic decision-making. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8(February):31. Scholar
  117. 117.
    Campanhã C, Minati L, Fregni F, Boggio PS. Responding to unfair offers made by a friend: neuroelectrical activity changes in the anterior medial prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2011;31(43):15569–74. Scholar
  118. 118.
    Knoch D, Pascual-Leone A, Meyer K, Treyer V, Fehr E. Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science. 2006;314(5800):829–32. Scholar
  119. 119.
    Baumgartner T, Knoch D, Hotz P, Eisenegger C, Fehr E. Dorsolateral and ventromedial prefrontal cortex orchestrate normative choice. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14(11):1468–74. Scholar
  120. 120.
    Paxton JM, Ungar L, Greene JD. Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cogn Sci. 2012;36(1):163–77. Scholar
  121. 121.
    Greene JD, Nystrom LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen JD. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron. 2004;44(2):389–400. Scholar
  122. 122.
    Tassy S, Oullier O, Duclos Y, Coulon O, Mancini J, Deruelle C, et al. Disrupting the right prefrontal cortex alters moral judgement. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012;7(3):282–8. Scholar
  123. 123.
    Frith C, Singer T. The role of social cognition in decision making. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1511):3875–86. Scholar
  124. 124.
    Ochsner KN, Gross JJ. The cognitive control of emotion. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9(5):242–9. Scholar
  125. 125.
    Levens SM, Phelps EA. Insula and orbital frontal cortex activity underlying emotion interference resolution in working memory. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010;22(1978):2790–803. Scholar
  126. 126.
    Etkin A, Egner T, Peraza DM, Kandel ER, Hirsch J. Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron. 2006;51(6):871–82. Scholar
  127. 127.
    Alguacil S, Madrid E, Espín AM, Ruz M. Facial identity and emotional expression as predictors during economic decisions. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016:1–15. Scholar
  128. 128.
    Egner T, Hirsch J. Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(12):1784–90. Scholar
  129. 129.
    Fouragnan E, Chierchia G, Greiner S, Neveu R, Avesani P, Coricelli G. Reputational priors magnify striatal responses to violations of trust. J Neurosci. 2013;33(8):3602–11. Scholar
  130. 130.
    Dosenbach NUF, Fair DA, Cohen AL, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. A dual-networks architecture of top-down control. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(3):99–105. Scholar
  131. 131.
    Raichle M. The brain’s default network. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015;8(38):433–47. Scholar
  132. 132.
    Cáceda R, James GA, Gutman DA, Kilts CD. Organization of intrinsic functional brain connectivity predicts decisions to reciprocate social behavior. Behav Brain Res. 2015;292:478–83. Scholar
  133. 133.
    Hollmann M, Rieger JW, Baecke S, Lützkendorf R, Müller C, Adolf D, et al. Predicting decisions in human social interactions using real-time fMRI and pattern classification. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25304. Scholar
  134. 134.
    Duncan J. The multiple-demand (MD) system of the primate brain: mental programs for intelligent behavior. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010;14(4):172–9. Scholar
  135. 135.
    Crittenden BM, Mitchell DJ, Duncan J. Recruitment of the default mode network during a demanding act of executive control. elife. 2015;2015(4):e06481. Scholar
  136. 136.
    González-García C, Arco JE, Palenciano AF, Ramírez J, Ruz M. Encoding, preparation and implementation of novel complex verbal instructions. NeuroImage. 2017;148:264–73. Scholar
  137. 137.
    Mars RB, Neubert F-X, Noonan MP, Sallet J, Toni I, Rushworth MFS. On the relationship between the “default mode network” and the “social brain”. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:189. Scholar
  138. 138.
    Li W, Mai X, Liu C. The default mode network and social understanding of others: what do brain connectivity studies tell us. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;24(8):74. Scholar
  139. 139.
    Margulies DS, Ghosh SS, Goulas A, Falkiewicz M, Huntenburg JM, Langs G, et al. Situating the default-mode network along a principal gradient of macroscale cortical organization. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(44):12574–9. Scholar
  140. 140.
    Gilam G, Hendler T. With love, from me to you: embedding social interactions in affective neuroscience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;68:690–701. Scholar
  141. 141.
    Oliver D, Tachtsidis I, Hamilton AF. The role of parietal cortex in overimitation: a study with fNIRS. Soc Neurosci. 2017:1–12. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paloma Díaz-Gutiérrez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sonia Alguacil
    • 1
    • 2
  • María Ruz
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Mind, Brain and Behavior Research CenterUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations