Moral judgment modulates neural responses to the perception of other’s pain: an ERP study
Open accessAbstract
Morality and empathy are both crucial in building human society. Yet the relationship between them has been merely explored. The present study revealed how the morality influenced empathy for pain by comparing the ERPs elicited by pictures showing the targets’ in pain primed by different moral information about the targets. We found that when the target was a moral one or a neutral one, the painful pictures elicited significantly larger amplitude in N2 than the non-painful pictures, but when the target was an immoral one, the difference between the amplitudes of N2 component elicited by painful and non-painful pictures became insignificant. We proposed that this effect was induced by the decreased affective arousal when observing an immoral person in pain. The reduced neural response towards the immoral one’s pain can keep us alert when we face the potentially dangerous people thereby increasing our chance of survival. SLORTEA results showed the source of this difference in N2 localized in the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC) areas.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The difference in brain responses to painful and non-painful stimuli is decreased compared to when the person in pain is moral or neutral to the observer.
“The difference in brain responses to painful and non-painful stimuli being decreased compared to when the person in pain is moral or neutral to the observer.156”
From <p>Pain and Evil: From Local Nociception to Misery Following Social Harm</p> (2020) · cites this paper as [156]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 82
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Mehrabian A. Relations among personality scales of aggression, violence, and empathy: validational evidence bearing on the Risk of Eruptive Violence Scale. Aggress. Behav. 23, 445 (1997).
- Authors
- Cui, F., Ma, N., & Luo, Y.-J.
- Affiliations
- Shenzhen University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Cui, Fang
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2016-02-11
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20851-20851
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4749990
- OpenAlex
- W2417306687
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 4.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (91132704, 31500877)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- moral judgment, empathy for pain, pain perception, N2 component, event-related potentials, emotional arousal, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, rostral anterior cingulate cortex
- MeSH terms
- Electroencephalography, Empathy, Evoked Potentials, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Judgment, Male, Morals, Pain, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review