The obedient mind and the volitional brain: A neural basis for preserved sense of agency and sense of responsibility under coercion.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
25
09
2020
accepted:
07
10
2021
entrez:
28
10
2021
pubmed:
29
10
2021
medline:
30
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Milgram's classical studies famously suggested a widespread willingness to obey authority, even to the point of inflicting harm. Important situational factors supporting obedience, such as proximity with the victim, have been established. Relatively little work has focused on how coercion affects individual cognition, or on identifying the cognitive factors that underlie inter-individual differences in the tendency to yield to coercion. Here, we used fMRI to investigate the neural systems associated with changes in volitional processes associated with sense of agency and sense of responsibility under coercion. Participants either freely chose, or were instructed by the experimenter, to give mildly painful electric shocks to another participant, or to refrain from doing so. We have previously shown that coercion reduces temporal binding, which has been proposed as an implicit proxy measure of sense of agency. We tested how reduced agency under coercion related to differences in neural activity between free choice and coercion. In contrast to previous studies and to participants performing the task outside the MRI scanner, on average there was no effect of coercion on agency for participants in the scanner. However, greater activity in the medial frontal gyrus was reliably associated with greater agency under coercion. A similar association was found using explicit responsibility ratings. Our findings suggest that medial frontal processes, perhaps related to volition during action planning and execution, may help to preserve a sense of accountability under coercion. Further, participants who administered more shocks under free choice showed reduced activity during free choice trials in brain areas associated with social cognition. Possibly, this might reflect participants cognitively distancing themselves from the recipient of the shocks under free choice, whereas this was not observed under coercion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34710149
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258884
pii: PONE-D-20-30275
pmc: PMC8553174
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0258884Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Abnorm Psychol. 1963 Oct;67:371-8
pubmed: 14049516
Conscious Cogn. 2019 Jan;67:1-15
pubmed: 30471470
Exp Brain Res. 2018 Jan;236(1):129-139
pubmed: 29080100
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 26;13(9):e0204027
pubmed: 30256827
Front Psychol. 2016 Aug 29;7:1272
pubmed: 27621713
Front Psychol. 2017 Jan 17;8:20
pubmed: 28144228
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 May;42:9-34
pubmed: 24486722
Neuropsychologia. 2014 Mar;55:137-42
pubmed: 24036357
eNeuro. 2018 Mar 8;5(1):
pubmed: 29527568
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Mar;1124:181-207
pubmed: 18400931
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 16;9(10):e110118
pubmed: 25330184
Brain. 2000 Jun;123 ( Pt 6):1216-28
pubmed: 10825359
Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Dec 1;6(12):517-523
pubmed: 12475712
Conscious Cogn. 2019 Oct;75:102807
pubmed: 31494358
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0245191
pubmed: 33411838
Conscious Cogn. 2010 Mar;19(1):490-1
pubmed: 20045656
Cogn Neurodyn. 2011 Mar;5(1):67-76
pubmed: 22379496
Neuroimage. 2020 Nov 15;222:117251
pubmed: 32798682
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jan;4(1):14-21
pubmed: 10637618
Neuroimage. 2004 Apr;21(4):1407-15
pubmed: 15050566
Brain. 1993 Jun;116 ( Pt 3):695-715
pubmed: 8513398
Cortex. 2013 Jul-Aug;49(7):1935-42
pubmed: 23067726
Curr Biol. 2016 Mar 7;26(5):585-92
pubmed: 26898470
Cereb Cortex. 2013 May;23(5):1031-7
pubmed: 22510529
J Neurophysiol. 1999 Jun;81(6):3065-77
pubmed: 10368421
Cereb Cortex. 2008 Feb;18(2):254-61
pubmed: 17490989
J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Mar;18(3):388-98
pubmed: 16513004
Conscious Cogn. 2012 Mar;21(1):546-61
pubmed: 22240158
Curr Biol. 2005 Jan 26;15(2):122-8
pubmed: 15668167
J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Jul-Aug;16(6):988-99
pubmed: 15298786
Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Sep;30(9):2971-85
pubmed: 19172643
Conscious Cogn. 2015 May;33:226-36
pubmed: 25655206
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1999;3(3):193-209
pubmed: 15661671
Nat Neurosci. 2002 Apr;5(4):382-5
pubmed: 11896397
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15;104(20):8235-40
pubmed: 17485679
Psychol Sci. 2017 Jul;28(7):882-893
pubmed: 28488908
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2017 Oct;180:122-129
pubmed: 28942124
Neuroimage. 2009 May 15;46(1):290-8
pubmed: 19457378
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Jun;86(6):838-48
pubmed: 15149258
J Neurosci. 2007 Aug 22;27(34):9141-5
pubmed: 17715350
Nat Commun. 2020 Aug 31;11(1):4366
pubmed: 32868764
Psychol Sci. 2019 Jun;30(6):842-853
pubmed: 31023161
Neuroinformatics. 2009 Spring;7(1):73-82
pubmed: 19140033
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Aug 29;7:514
pubmed: 24009575
Exp Brain Res. 2019 May;237(5):1205-1212
pubmed: 30826847
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 Jan 1;12(1):138-145
pubmed: 27803288
Conscious Cogn. 2019 Aug;73:102759
pubmed: 31173998