Cited by 51Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesNonprofit Sector and Volunteering

A reward prediction error for charitable donations reveals outcome orientation of donators

Open access
Kuss, Katarina, Falk, Armin, Trautner, Peter, Elger, Christian E., Weber, Bernd, Fliessbach, Klaus·2013·Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Abstract

The motives underlying prosocial behavior, like charitable donations, can be related either to actions or to outcomes. To address the neural basis of outcome orientation in charitable giving, we asked 33 subjects to make choices affecting their own payoffs and payoffs to a charity organization, while being scanned by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). We experimentally induced a reward prediction error (RPE) by subsequently discarding some of the chosen outcomes. Co-localized to a nucleus accumbens BOLD signal corresponding to the RPE for the subject's own payoff, we observed an equivalent RPE signal for the charity's payoff in those subjects who were willing to donate. This unique demonstration of a neuronal RPE signal for outcomes exclusively affecting unrelated others indicates common brain processes during outcome evaluation for selfish, individual and nonselfish, social rewards and strongly suggests the effectiveness of outcome-oriented motives in charitable giving.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/scan/nsr088

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • People value vicarious rewards and exhibit increased ventral striatum activity even when they are not responsible for the reward.

    “Interestingly, people value vicarious rewards and exhibit increased ventral striatum activity even when they are not responsible for the reward 61–63.”
  • Several studies link activity in the striatum with giving behavior, suggesting that striatum activity signals the benefits of giving.

    “Several studies link activity in the striatum with giving behavior, suggesting that striatum activity signals the benefits of giving 59–63.”
  • Ventral and dorsal striatum appear to signal a vicarious reward when other parties (i.e., a charity or another person) receive rewards, regardless of whether any enhanced reputation can be gained.

    “That is, ventral and dorsal striatum appear to signal a vicarious reward when other parties (i.e., a charity or another person) receive rewards, regardless of whether any enhanced reputation can be gained 60–63.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuss, K., Falk, A., Trautner, P., Elger, C. E., Weber, B., & Fliessbach, K.
Affiliations
University of Bonn (DE)
Venue
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Published
2011-12-23
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
216-223
ISSN
  • 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-5024
OpenAlex
W2128441972
Cited by
51
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Keywords
reward prediction error, charitable giving, prosocial behavior, results orientation, nucleus accumbens, social reward
MeSH terms
Adult, Charities, Decision Making, Female, Goals, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Nucleus Accumbens, Reward, Social Behavior, Beneficence, 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