Cited by 18Action Observation and SynchronizationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Pain and social decision-making: New insights from the social framing effect

Open access
Gu, Ruolei, Liu, Jie, Cui, Fang·2019·Brain Science Advances

Abstract

This paper focuses on the social function of painful experience as revealed by recent studies on social decision-making. Observing others suffering from physical pain evokes empathic reactions that can lead to prosocial behavior (e.g., helping others at a cost to oneself), which might be regarded as the social value of pain derived from evolution. Feelings of guilt may also be elicited when one takes responsibility for another’s pain. These social emotions play a significant role in various cognitive processes and may affect behavioral preferences. In addition, the influence of others’ pain on decision-making is highly sensitive to social context. Combining neuroimaging techniques with a novel decision paradigm, we found that when asking participants to trade-off personal benefits against providing help to other people, verbally describing the causal relationship between their decision and other people’s pain (i.e., framing) significantly changed participants’ preferences. This social framing effect was associated with neural activation in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), which is a brain area that is important in social cognition and in social emotions. Further, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on this region successfully modulated the magnitude of the social framing effect. These findings add to the knowledge about the role of perception of others’ pain in our social life.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.26599/bsa.2019.9050020

Cites

159 of 159 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Pain-processing areas of the brain can be activated by social rejection or by observing another individual in pain, and the intensity of such empathetic pain correlates with social closeness to the partner.

    “Pain-processing areas of the brain can be activated not only by stimuli that are directly (or potentially) physically harmful, but also by social rejection [51] or by observing another individual in pain [52], and the intensity of such empathetic pain correlates with social closeness to the partner (reviewed in [53]).”

    From The social origins of consciousness (2025) · cites this paper as [53]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gu, R., Liu, J., & Cui, F.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Shenzhen University (CN)
Corresponding author
Cui, Fang
Venue
Brain Science Advances
Published
2019-12
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
221-238
ISSN
2096-5958 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3017374925
Cited by
18
References
157
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5
FWCI
4.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Science Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
social decision-making, pain perception, empathy, prosocial behavior, guilt, temporoparietal junction, transcranial direct current stimulation, social emotions, helping behavior, social cognition

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