道德基础理论的功能神经影像学研究。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Ari Khoudary, Eleanor Hanna, Kevin O'Neill, Vijeth Iyengar, Scott Clifford, Roberto Cabeza, Felipe De Brigard, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
{"title":"道德基础理论的功能神经影像学研究。","authors":"Ari Khoudary,&nbsp;Eleanor Hanna,&nbsp;Kevin O'Neill,&nbsp;Vijeth Iyengar,&nbsp;Scott Clifford,&nbsp;Roberto Cabeza,&nbsp;Felipe De Brigard,&nbsp;Walter Sinnott-Armstrong","doi":"10.1080/17470919.2022.2148737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) posits that the human mind contains modules (or \"foundations\") that are functionally specialized to moralize unique dimensions of the social world: Authority, Loyalty, Purity, Harm, Fairness, and Liberty. Despite this strong claim about cognitive architecture, it is unclear whether neural activity during moral reasoning exhibits this modular structure. Here, we use spatiotemporal partial least squares correlation (PLSC) analyses of fMRI data collected during judgments of foundation-specific violations to investigate whether MFT's cognitive modularity claim extends to the neural level. A mean-centered PLSC analysis returned two latent variables that differentiated between social norm and moral foundation violations, functionally segregated Purity, Loyalty, Physical Harm, and Fairness from the other foundations, and suggested that Authority has a different neural basis than other binding foundations. Non-rotated PLSC analyses confirmed that neural activity distinguished social norm from moral foundation violations, and distinguished individualizing and binding moral foundations if Authority is dropped from the binding foundations. Purity violations were persistently associated with amygdala activity, whereas moral foundation violations more broadly tended to engage the default network. Our results constitute partial evidence for neural modularity and motivate further research on the novel groupings identified by the PLSC analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":49511,"journal":{"name":"Social Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A functional neuroimaging investigation of Moral Foundations Theory.\",\"authors\":\"Ari Khoudary,&nbsp;Eleanor Hanna,&nbsp;Kevin O'Neill,&nbsp;Vijeth Iyengar,&nbsp;Scott Clifford,&nbsp;Roberto Cabeza,&nbsp;Felipe De Brigard,&nbsp;Walter Sinnott-Armstrong\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17470919.2022.2148737\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) posits that the human mind contains modules (or \\\"foundations\\\") that are functionally specialized to moralize unique dimensions of the social world: Authority, Loyalty, Purity, Harm, Fairness, and Liberty. Despite this strong claim about cognitive architecture, it is unclear whether neural activity during moral reasoning exhibits this modular structure. Here, we use spatiotemporal partial least squares correlation (PLSC) analyses of fMRI data collected during judgments of foundation-specific violations to investigate whether MFT's cognitive modularity claim extends to the neural level. A mean-centered PLSC analysis returned two latent variables that differentiated between social norm and moral foundation violations, functionally segregated Purity, Loyalty, Physical Harm, and Fairness from the other foundations, and suggested that Authority has a different neural basis than other binding foundations. Non-rotated PLSC analyses confirmed that neural activity distinguished social norm from moral foundation violations, and distinguished individualizing and binding moral foundations if Authority is dropped from the binding foundations. Purity violations were persistently associated with amygdala activity, whereas moral foundation violations more broadly tended to engage the default network. Our results constitute partial evidence for neural modularity and motivate further research on the novel groupings identified by the PLSC analyses.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2022.2148737\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2022.2148737","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

道德基础理论(MFT)认为,人类的思维包含模块(或“基础”),这些模块在功能上专门用于对社会世界的独特维度进行道德化:权威、忠诚、纯洁、伤害、公平和自由。尽管有这种关于认知结构的强烈主张,但尚不清楚道德推理过程中的神经活动是否表现出这种模块化结构。在这里,我们使用时空偏最小二乘相关(PLSC)分析在判断基金会特异性违规期间收集的fMRI数据,以研究MFT的认知模块化主张是否延伸到神经层面。以均值为中心的PLSC分析结果显示,两个潜在变量区分了违反社会规范和违反道德基础,并在功能上将“纯洁”、“忠诚”、“身体伤害”和“公平”与其他基础区分开来,表明“权威”与其他约束基础具有不同的神经基础。非旋转PLSC分析证实,神经活动区分了社会规范和违反道德基础,并区分了个体化和约束性道德基础,如果权威从约束性基础中删除。纯洁性违犯始终与杏仁核活动有关,而道德基础违犯更广泛地倾向于参与默认网络。我们的研究结果构成了神经模块化的部分证据,并激发了对PLSC分析确定的新分组的进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A functional neuroimaging investigation of Moral Foundations Theory.

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) posits that the human mind contains modules (or "foundations") that are functionally specialized to moralize unique dimensions of the social world: Authority, Loyalty, Purity, Harm, Fairness, and Liberty. Despite this strong claim about cognitive architecture, it is unclear whether neural activity during moral reasoning exhibits this modular structure. Here, we use spatiotemporal partial least squares correlation (PLSC) analyses of fMRI data collected during judgments of foundation-specific violations to investigate whether MFT's cognitive modularity claim extends to the neural level. A mean-centered PLSC analysis returned two latent variables that differentiated between social norm and moral foundation violations, functionally segregated Purity, Loyalty, Physical Harm, and Fairness from the other foundations, and suggested that Authority has a different neural basis than other binding foundations. Non-rotated PLSC analyses confirmed that neural activity distinguished social norm from moral foundation violations, and distinguished individualizing and binding moral foundations if Authority is dropped from the binding foundations. Purity violations were persistently associated with amygdala activity, whereas moral foundation violations more broadly tended to engage the default network. Our results constitute partial evidence for neural modularity and motivate further research on the novel groupings identified by the PLSC analyses.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信