Regional homogeneity of intrinsic brain activity correlates with justice sensitivity

Personality and Individual Differences 117 (2017) 111–116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Regional homogeneity of intrinsic brain activity correlates with justice sensitivity WuYan a,b,⁎, TianXuehong a,b a b

Department of Psychology, College of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China Zhejiang Key Laboratory for Research in Assessment of Cognitive Impairments, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 31 October 2016 Received in revised form 29 March 2017 Accepted 13 April 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Justice sensitivity Victim sensitivity Observer sensitivity Beneficiary sensitivity Perpetrator sensitivity Regional homogeneity

a b s t r a c t Individuals differ systematically in their vulnerability to injustice. Previous studies have developed the efficient measurement of justice sensitivity from four perspectives (victim, observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator), and examined its effect on interpersonal interactions, but little is known about the neural correlates of justice sensitivity. The present study used regional homogeneity (ReHo) as an index in resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) to identify brain regions correlated with individual differences in justice sensitivity. Results showed that victim sensitivity was positively associated with ReHo of the paracentral lobule; observer sensitivity was positively associated with the temporal pole; beneficiary sensitivity was positively associated with bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and negatively correlated with the amygdala; and perpetrator sensitivity was negatively associated with bilateral orbital frontal cortex (OFC), and positively correlated with the dorsal striatum. Our results revealed the associations between individual differences in justice sensitivity and intrinsic brain activity, and implicated the underlying differences among the four perspectives. © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction Justice is a central issue in people's social lives. Previous studies evidence the existence of stable individual differences in reactions to unfair situations (Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005). The concept of justice sensitivity has been introduced as a personality trait that reflects the sensitivity (e.g. cognitive, emotional and behavioral reactions) to experiences of injustice and unfairness (Schmitt, 1996). Individuals can experience injustice from four different perspectives: from a victim's perspective in which a person is the victim of an unfair behavior by others (victim sensitivity), from an observer's perspective in which a person observes unfair behavior by another person without being personally involved (observer sensitivity), from a beneficiary's perspective in which a person passively takes advantage of the unfair behavior (beneficiary sensitivity), or from a perpetrator's perspective in which a person actively exploits a victim (perpetrator sensitivity). These sensitivities can be measured reliably with valid self-report scales (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010). Though reflecting a common concern for justice, the four justice-sensitivity perspectives correlate differently with other personality traits and behavioral outcomes.

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, College of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Wu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.038 0191-8869/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Victim sensitivity captures individuals' differences in how they react towards unfairness at their own expense. Victim sensitivity was significantly correlated with self-related concerns such as machiavellianism, paranoia, suspiciousness, vengeance, jealousy, interpersonal trust (Schmitt et al., 2005), hostile (Schmitt et al., 2010), provocation sensitivity, hostile attribute bias, trait anger, and aggression (Bondü & Krahé, 2015; Bondü & Richter, 2016a, 2016b). Moreover, victim-sensitive individuals are more likely to form expectancies of injustice in ambiguous situations (Maltese, Baumert, Schmitt, & MacLeod, 2016), more sensitive towards mean intentions (Gollwitzer & Rothmund, 2011), less likely to trust others and more likely to behave uncooperatively (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Maltese et al., 2016), and less forgiveness (Gerlach, Allemand, Agroskin, & Denissen, 2012). They underestimated others' cooperativeness (Gollwitzer, Rothmund, Alt, & Jekel, 2012), showed more intergroup anger and intergroup angst (Sussenbach & Gollwitzer, 2015), and contributed less to the public good (Gollwitzer, Rothmund, Pfeiffer, & Ensenbach, 2009). In addition, high victim sensitivity groups displayed enhanced memory performance for both unjust and just information (Baumert, Otto, Thomas, Bobocel, & Schmitt, 2012). These results suggest that victim sensitivity was a self-oriented mixture of self-protective motives and moral concerns (Schmitt et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2010). In contrast, observer sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity correlate more highly with other-related concerns such as role taking, empathy, social responsibility, modesty, agreeableness (Schmitt et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2010), and real moral courage (Baumert, Halmburger, &

112

Y. Wu, X. Tian / Personality and Individual Differences 117 (2017) 111–116

Schmitt, 2013). Furthermore, observer sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity correlate positively with cooperative and prosocial behaviors (Lotz, Schlosser, Cain, & Fetchenhauer, 2013). For example, individuals high in observer sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity offered more money in the dictator game (Edele, Dziobek, & Keller, 2013) and in the solidarity game (Stavrova & Schlosser, 2015), contributed more to the public good (Gollwitzer et al., 2009), and were more likely to follow norms of equality (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004). Individuals high in observer sensitivity had better memory for the cheating information (Bell & Buchner, 2010), attended more strongly to unjust stimuli and displayed a memory advantage for unjust information (Baumert, Gollwitzer, Staubach, & Schmitt, 2011). These findings suggest that observer sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity represent a genuine moral concern for justice for others. Although observer sensitivity and beneficiary sensitivity have more psychological elements in common, each justice sensitivity component has unique links with personality traits. For example, while beneficiary sensitivity is more strongly linked with modesty, observer sensitivity is linked with assertiveness (Schmitt et al., 2010). Individuals high in perpetrator sensitivity are in particular sensitive to injustice that she/he provides to others (e.g. she/he treats someone else unfairly). Perpetrator sensitivity can be regarded as a protective factor for behavioral problems such as aggressive behavior (Bondü & Krahé, 2015; Bondü & Richter, 2016b). Neural biological research has revealed that individuals high in perpetrator sensitivity demonstrated larger P3 differences between stimuli requiring deceptive responses and irrelevant stimuli (Leue & Beauducel, 2015), suggesting that perpetrator sensitive individuals attended more strongly to ethically-salient information. Although justice sensitivity has been established as a stable personality trait, and has been shown to be powerful predictors of reactions to perceived injustice, the precise neural correlates of dispositional justice sensitivity remain unclear. Therefore, in this study, we explored the neural correlates underlying individual differences in four justice sensitivity traits. Behavioral studies suggest that the four justice sensitivity traits can be clearly discriminated from each other. We therefore aimed to locate the brain regions that each justice sensitivity trait was associated with. Several researchers have explored the neural correlates of justice decision making via task-based fMRI. For example, a meta-analysis of 11 fMRI studies using the ultimatum game (UG, a widely studied social decision-making task, which models responses to unfairness) showed that injustice treatments were consistently associated with increased activations in the anterior insula, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and cerebellum (Gabay, Radua, Kempton, & Mehta, 2014). Using fMRI, a recent study examined how dispositional justice sensitivity could modulate the neural response when participants evaluate good and bad everyday actions (Yoder & Decety, 2014). Results showed that justice sensitivity influenced activations in the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), right dorsolateral and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC, DMPFC). This study suggests that individual differences in justice sensitivity impact neural responses associated with moral judgment. However, the differential neural correlates of four justice sensitivity traits remain unclear. To directly test the correlations between the four justice sensitivity traits and the brain, we recorded baseline brain activity using resting state fMRI. Regional homogeneity (ReHo) measures the temporal synchronization of the time series of an area's nearest neighbors (Zang, Jiang, Lu, He, & Tian, 2004). As an index of baseline brain activity, ReHo has been widely used in the resting-state literature. In healthy subjects, ReHo measures have been proven to be an effective tool for investigating the neural basis of individual differences in behavior (Tian, Ren, & Zang, 2012), and personality traits (Xiang, Kong, Wen, Wu, & Mo, 2016). In the present study, we used the ReHo-justice sensitivity correlations to explore how the individual variability in the local connectivity in the baseline brain activity associated with the four justice

sensitivity traits. Significant ReHo-justice sensitivity correlations demonstrated that a higher (positive correlation) or lower (negative correlation) regional synchronization of certain areas correlates with higher sensitivity scores. Because of the lack of existing literature, the present study was exploratory, and no specific hypothesis could be made. 2. Method 2.1. Participants Seventy-four right-handed healthy adults (35 men and 39 women, mean age 22.26 ± 2.55 years) participated. All participants had no history of mental or neurological illness and gave written informed consent for participation in the study. This study was approved by the Imaging Center Institutional Review Board. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Trait justice sensitivity Four justice sensitivity traits were assessed through a Chinese translation of the 40-item, 6-point Justice Sensitivity Inventory developed by Schmitt et al. (2010). Examples of statements include, “It makes me angry when others are undeservingly better off than me” (victim sensitivity), “I am upset when someone is undeservingly worse off than others” (observer sensitivity), “I feel guilty when I am better off than others for no reason” (beneficiary sensitivity), and “I feel guilty when I enrich myself at the cost of others” (perpetrator sensitivity). Each item was scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale, in which 0 = not at all, 5 = Exactly. The Chinese version showed adequate internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.85 to 0.90) (Wu et al., 2014), and had acceptable reliability with the present sample (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.805 to 0.872). 2.3. Data acquisition The rs-fMRI scan was collected on a 3.0 GE Discovery MRI-750 scanner. Rs-fMRI sequences lasted about 6 min (corresponding to 180 brain volumes). The scanning parameters were as follows: TR = 2000 ms; TE = 30 ms; flip angle = 90°; 43 slices; matrix = 64 × 64; FOV = 220 × 220 mm; slice thickness = 3.2 mm; acquisition voxel size = 3.4 × 3.4 × 3.2 mm. A high-resolution T1-weighted anatomical image was also acquired using a magnetization prepared gradient echo sequence (3D MPRAGE, 176 sagittal slices; TR = 8100 ms; TE = 3.1 ms; T1 = 450; flip angle = 8°; FOV = 250 × 250 mm; slice thickness = 1 mm). During resting state scanning, participants were instructed to just lie quietly in the scanner, keep their eyes closed, and stay awake. 2.4. Image preprocessing fMRI data were preprocessed by DPARSF (Data Processing Assistant for Resting-State fMRI software; http://www.restfmri.net/forum/ DPARSF) using functions of SPM 8 (www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/ software/spm8) on the MATLAB platform (The MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA), comprising the following steps: 1) discarding the first 10 volumes to ameliorate the possible effects of scanner instability, 2) slice timing correction, 3) realignment, 4) co-registering the T1-weighted image to the corresponding mean functional image after realignment, 5) segmentation, 6) spatial normalization, 7) detrending, 8) regressing out the variance of nuisance covariates, and 9) filtering (0.01 b f b 0.1 Hz). 2.5. ReHo analysis ReHo valuates the synchronization within the time series of a given voxel and its nearest neighbors (Zang et al., 2004). ReHo was performed on a voxel-by-voxel basis by calculating the Kendall's coefficient of the

Y. Wu, X. Tian / Personality and Individual Differences 117 (2017) 111–116

time series concordance of a given cluster of neighboring voxels. A larger ReHo value for a given voxel indicated a higher local synchronization of rs-fMRI signals among neighboring voxels. To minimize the wholebrain effect, voxel ReHo values were scaled by dividing each participant's value by the mean value of his or her whole-brain ReHo. The mean ReHo images were then spatially smoothed using a Gaussian kernel of FWHM 6.0 mm. All of these procedures were performed with REST toolbox (http://www.restfmri.net/forum/REST). 2.6. ReHo-justice sensitivity correlation analysis Pearson's correlation analysis between the mean ReHo values and the four justice sensitivity scores were performed in a voxel-wise manner. To control for Type I error, a corrected significance level of p b 0.05 was obtained using AlphaSim with cluster size N26 mm3 and an individual voxel height threshold of p b 0.005. The ReHo-justice sensitivity correlation maps were visualized with the BrainNet Viewer (http://www. nitrc.org/projects/bnv/) and MRIcron software (http://www.nitrc.org/ projects/mricron); all significant correlations were presented in MNI coordinates.

113

Table 2 Significant associations between brain regions and justice sensitivity scores. Brain regions

Hemisphere Broadmann MNI coordinates area x y z

Voxels in the cluster

R-value

77

0.479⁎⁎⁎

Victim sensitivity Paracentral R lobule

4

1

Observer sensitivity Temporal L pole

38

−51 18

−24 32

0.452⁎⁎⁎

Beneficiary sensitivity DLPFC L DLPFC R Amygdala L

8 9 34

−21 12 21 42 −24 0

51 30 39 30 −15 14

409⁎⁎⁎ 0.434⁎⁎⁎ −0.309⁎⁎

Perpetrator sensitivity OFC R OFC R OFC L OFC L Caudate L Putamen L

47 11 47 11 0 0

34 19 −45 −26 −16 −18

−12 −12 −12 −12 10 9

−0.473⁎⁎⁎ −0.373⁎⁎ −0.366⁎⁎ −0.353⁎⁎ 0.359⁎⁎ 0.382⁎⁎

−26 71

56 57 49 42 15 12

101 43 72 49 17 9

⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

3. Results 3.1. Behavioral assessments Descriptive item statistics and scale statistics with the present sample were presented in Table 1. The means of the four justice sensitivity scales differed noticeably. Participants described themselves as being more perpetrator sensitive than beneficiary and victim sensitive. Observer, beneficiary and perpetrator sensitivity were positively correlated with each other. All scales were found to be consistent (Cronbach's alpha N 0.80). 3.2. ReHo-justice sensitivity correlations After controlling for age and gender and head motion parameters, victim sensitivity was positively associated with whole-brain cluster located in the paracentral lobule (see Table 2 and Fig. 1). Observer sensitivity was positively associated with regional activity of the temporal pole. Beneficiary sensitivity was positively associated with bilateral DLPFC and negatively correlated with the amygdala. Perpetrator sensitivity was negatively associated with bilateral orbital frontal cortex (OFC), and positively correlated with dorsal striatum (caudate and putamen). 4. Discussion This exploratory rs-fMRI study has established that regional activity in the specific brain regions underpins the observed range of individual

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the justice sensitivity scales and correlations among the scales. Victim

Observer

Descriptive statistics of the justice sensitivity scales M 27.38 23.43 SD 7.008 7.985 Skewness −0.195 −0.484 Kurtosis 0.186 0.189 Cronbach's alpha 0.843 0.872 Correlations among the scales Observer 0.027 Beneficiary 0.058 Perpetrator −0.161 ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

0.389⁎⁎ 0.263⁎

Beneficiary

Perpetrator

28.50 6.996 −0.388 0.748 0.832

34.74 6.050 −0.721 1.525 0.805

0.580⁎⁎⁎

differences in justice sensitivity traits in a large sample of young adults. We observed significant correlations between ReHo and four justice sensitivity traits: victim sensitivity was positively correlated with ReHo in the paracentral lobule; observer sensitivity was positively correlated with the temporal pole; beneficiary sensitivity was positively correlated with bilateral DLPFC and negatively correlated with the amygdala; perpetrator sensitivity was positively correlated with the dorsal striatum (caudate and putamen) and negatively correlated with bilateral OFC. These results supported that the four justice sensitivity traits are distinct from each other. Individual differences in these personality traits were reflected in the regional activity during the resting state. 4.1. Relationship between victim sensitivity and ReHo of brain regions implicated in somatosensory processes We observed that victim sensitivity was positively correlated with regional activity of the paracentral lobule. The paracentral lobule is specialized in the control of motor and sensory information (Spasojević, Malobabic, Pilipović-Spasojević, Djukić-Macut, & Maliković, 2013). Enhanced activation in the paracentral lobule has been observed in healthy volunteers when encoding the perceived level of pain (Favilla et al., 2014). In addition, cortical thickening in the paracentral lobule positively correlated with individual sensitivity to cool stimuli (Erpelding, Moayedi, & Davis, 2012). The paracentral lobule, therefore, appears to play a role in the process of pain-related sensory information. In the present study, the result that ReHo in the paracentral lobule positively linked with victim sensitivity may reflect a relationship between victim sensitivity and pain processing. Experiences of injustice (towards oneself) are painful. It can be speculated that this correlation may reflect a more sensitivity to painful stimuli among individuals with higher victim sensitivity. This speculation needs to be tested in future studies. 4.2. Relationship between observer sensitivity and ReHo of brain regions implicated in theory of mind Observer sensitivity showed a positive correlation with the temporal pole. The temporal pole is involved in different cognitive functions such as perception, emotion, attention, behavior, and memory (Blaizot et al., 2010). There is evidence that the temporal pole plays a role in theory of mind processing (Bodden, Dodel, & Kalbe, 2010; Jimura, Konishi, Asari, & Miyashita, 2010; Park et al., 2011). Though several distinct brain

114

Y. Wu, X. Tian / Personality and Individual Differences 117 (2017) 111–116

Fig. 1. Brain regions that were significantly correlated with four justice sensitivity traits. (A) ReHo of the right paracentral lobule was positively correlated with victim sensitivity. (B) ReHo of bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was positively correlated with beneficiary sensitivity; ReHo of the amygdala was negatively correlated with beneficiary sensitivity. (C) ReHo of the left temporal pole was positively correlated with observer sensitivity. (D) ReHo of bilateral orbital frontal cortex (OFC) was negatively correlated with perpetrator sensitivity; ReHo of the dorsal striatum was positively correlated with perpetrator sensitivity. All correlations were based on whole-brain analysis.

regions may be activated during theory of mind, a review of neuroimaging literature suggests that the superior temporal regions are core regions in the network and are associated with theory of mind reasoning in 50% of the studies (Carrington & Bailey, 2009). It might be suggested, therefore, that stronger local connectivity in the temporal pole – functionally responsible for understanding other persons' mental states – might explain the biological variance which leads to the high sensitivity to other's disadvantage injustice. 4.3. Relationship between beneficiary sensitivity and ReHo of brain regions implicated in impulse control and emotional representation Beneficiary sensitivity showed a positive correlation with bilateral DLPFC. The DLPFC is implicated in a wide range of cognitive or behavioral control (Cohen & Lieberman, 2010). Developmental study found that developmental differences in response inhibition or impulse control were correlated with the left DLPFC region in terms of both cortical thickness and BOLD response (Steinbeis, Bernhardt, & Singer, 2012). This study concluded that egoistic behavior in younger children is caused by the inability to implement behavioral control when tempted to act selfishly. In line with this finding, previous studies that temporarily stimulated the DLPFC with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) showed that disruption of the right DLPFC leads to increased acceptance of unfair offers in the UG game (Knoch, PascualLeone, Meyer, Treyer, & Fehr, 2006), while excitation of the left DLPFC decreased the amount of spontaneous lying in simple behavioral tasks (Karton, Palu, Jõks, & Bachmann, 2014). These studies suggest that the DLPFC is involved in overriding or weakening self-interested impulses in order for participants to behave in reasonable and morally

appropriate ways. Thus, together with previous functional and anatomical research, the present findings indicate that stronger regional connectivity in the DLPFC through inhibition of the selfish impulse contributes to increased beneficiary sensitivity. Beneficiary sensitivity scores were negatively correlated with regional activity of the amygdala. The amygdala is active in a wide variety of tasks with an emotional component. Evidence from neurophysiological, lesion/inactivation, as well as neuroimaging studies suggests that the amygdala is necessary for representation of state value in an affective/emotional context (Morrison & Salzman, 2010). Reviews also suggests that the amygdala is part of an “impulsive” habit type system that triggers autonomic responses to a variety of appetitive or aversive emotionally salient stimuli (Gupta, Koscik, Bechara, & Tranel, 2011), which allows individuals to both secure pleasure and to avoid pain (Fernando, Murray, & Milton, 2013). The relatively lower level of regional activity in the amygdala might underline a degree of inhibition for self-centered pleasure seeking in people high in beneficiary sensitivity. 4.4. Relationship between perpetrator sensitivity and ReHo of brain regions implicated in reward processing Perpetrator sensitivity showed a negative correlation with bilateral OFC and positive correlation with dorsal striatum. The OFC plays a critical role in representing the subjective values of options depend on how relevant it is for optimal decision-making (Rich & Wallis, 2016), and has been strongly implicated in self-referential processing (Herold, Spengler, Sajonz, Usnich, & Bermpohl, 2016) and self-evaluation (Yang, Xu, Chen, Shi, & Han, 2016). Recent study revealed a stronger

Y. Wu, X. Tian / Personality and Individual Differences 117 (2017) 111–116

signal in the OFC in computing values for self-regarding choices than other-regarding choices, and a stronger OFC signal in selfish individuals than prosocial individuals (Sul et al., 2015). Along with such findings, the current results suggest that the diminished regional activity in the OFC may imply a weaker egocentric value representation in people high in perpetrator sensitivity. We observed that the strength of regional activity in regions associated with reward was positively associated with trait perpetrator sensitivity. Increased activation in the dorsal striatum, including the caudate, has been associated with cooperate decisions (Rilling, 2015), calculation of subjective value of rewards (Civai, Hawes, DeYoung, & Rustichini, 2016), and altruistic punishment (de Quervain et al., 2004; White, Brislin, Sinclair, & Blair, 2014). Therefore, the caudate plays a critical role in coding the representation of social reward values. The stronger regional activity in the dorsal striatum may underline a more concern for social reward in people high in perpetrator sensitivity. In sum, our findings add to a growing literature demonstrating that individual differences in personality traits or behavioral tendencies are reflected in the brain's intrinsic functional architecture. Specifically, we observed that individual differences in justice sensitivity were associated with variability in regional activity of brain regions that associated with theory of mind, impulse control and reward processing. Whether the association is causal needs to be followed up by future studies. Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 31471073] and the Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Foundation for Zhijiang Youth Scholar [grant number 13ZJQN106YB]. References Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., Staubach, M., & Schmitt, M. (2011). Justice sensitivity and the processing of justice-related information. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 386–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.800. Baumert, A., Otto, K., Thomas, N., Bobocel, D. R., & Schmitt, A. (2012). Processing of unjust and just information: Interpretation and memory performance related to dispositional victim sensitivity. European Journal of Personality, 26(2), 99–110. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/per.1844. Baumert, A., Halmburger, A., & Schmitt, M. (2013). Interventions against norm violations: Dispositional determinants of self-reported and real moral courage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 1053–1068. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167213490032. Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2010). Justice sensitivity and source memory for cheaters. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(6), 677–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.011. Blaizot, X., Mansilla, F., Insausti, A. M., Constans, J. M., Salinas-Alamán, A., Pró-Sistiaga, P., ... Insausti, R. (2010). The human parahippocampal region: I. Temporal pole cytoarchitectonic and MRI correlation. Cerebral Cortex, 20(9), 2198–2212. http://dx. doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp289. Bodden, M. E., Dodel, R., & Kalbe, E. (2010). Theory of mind in Parkinson's disease and related basal ganglia disorders: A systematic review. Movement Disorders, 25(1), 13–27. Bondü, R., & Krahé, B. (2015). Links of justice and rejection sensitivity with aggression in childhood and adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 41(4), 353–368. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/ab.21556. Bondü, R., & Richter, P. (2016a). Interrelations of justice, rejection, provocation, and moral disgust sensitivity and their links with the hostile attribution bias, trait anger, and aggression. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00795. Bondü, R., & Richter, P. (2016b). Linking forms and functions of aggression in adults to justice and rejection sensitivity. Psychology of Violence, 6(2), 292–302. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0039200. Carrington, S. J., & Bailey, A. J. (2009). Are there theory of mind regions in the brain? A review of the neuroimaging literature. Human Brain Mapping, 30(8), 2313–2335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20671. Civai, C., Hawes, D. R., DeYoung, C. G., & Rustichini, A. (2016). Intelligence and Extraversion in the neural evaluation of delayed rewards. Journal of Research in Personality, 61, 99–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.006. Cohen, J. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010). The common neural basis of exerting self-control in multiple domains.

115

Edele, A., Dziobek, I., & Keller, M. (2013). Explaining altruistic sharing in the dictator game: The role of affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and justice sensitivity. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 96–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2012.12.020. Erpelding, N., Moayedi, M., & Davis, K. D. (2012). Cortical thickness correlates of pain and temperature sensitivity. Pain, 153(8), 1602–1609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain. 2012.03.012. Favilla, S., Huber, A., Pagnoni, G., Lui, F., Facchin, P., Cocchi, M., & Porro, C. A. (2014). Ranking brain areas encoding the perceived level of pain from fMRI data. NeuroImage, 90, 153–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.001. Fernando, A., Murray, J., & Milton, A. (2013). The amygdala: Securing pleasure and avoiding pain. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(190). http://dx.doi.org/10. 3389/fnbeh.2013.00190. Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justice sensitivity and distributive decisions in experimental games. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(5), 1015–1029. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00197-1. Gabay, A. S., Radua, J., Kempton, M. J., & Mehta, M. A. (2014). The Ultimatum Game and the brain: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 549–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.10.014. Gerlach, T. M., Allemand, M., Agroskin, D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2012). Justice sensitivity and forgiveness in close interpersonal relationships: The mediating role of mistrustful, legitimizing, and pro-relationship cognitions. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1373–1413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00762.x. Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2011). What exactly are victim-sensitive persons sensitive to? Journal of Research in Personality, 45(5), 448–455. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jrp.2011.05.003. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 999–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.003. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Alt, B., & Jekel, M. (2012). Victim sensitivity and the accuracy of social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(8), 975–984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212440887. Gupta, R., Koscik, T. R., Bechara, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The amygdala and decision-making. Neuropsychologia, 49(4), 760–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2010.09.029. Herold, D., Spengler, S., Sajonz, B., Usnich, T., & Bermpohl, F. (2016). Common and distinct networks for self-referential and social stimulus processing in the human brain. Brain Structure and Function, 221(7), 3475–3485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00429-0151113-9. Jimura, K., Konishi, S., Asari, T., & Miyashita, Y. (2010). Temporal pole activity during understanding other persons' mental states correlates with neuroticism trait. Brain Research, 1328, 104–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.016. Karton, I., Palu, A., Jõks, K., & Bachmann, T. (2014). Deception rate in a “lying game”: Different effects of excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex not found with inhibitory stimulation. Neuroscience Letters, 583, 21–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2014.09.020. Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K., Treyer, V., & Fehr, E. (2006). Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science, 314(5800), 829–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1129156. Leue, A., & Beauducel, A. (2015). Effects of injustice sensitivity and sex on the P3 amplitude during deception. Biological Psychology, 109, 29–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.biopsycho.2015.04.004. Lotz, S., Schlosser, T., Cain, D. M., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2013). The (in)stability of social preferences: Using justice sensitivity to predict when altruism collapses. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 141–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo. 2013.07.012. Maltese, S., Baumert, A., Schmitt, M. J., & MacLeod, C. (2016). How victim sensitivity leads to uncooperative behavior via expectancies of injustice. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02059. Morrison, S. E., & Salzman, C. D. (2010). Re-valuing the amygdala. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(2), 221–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.007. Park, I. H., Ku, J., Lee, H., Kim, S. Y., Kim, S. I., Yoon, K. J., & Kim, J. J. (2011). Disrupted theory of mind network processing in response to idea of reference evocation in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 123(1), 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.16000447.2010.01597.x. de Quervain, D. J., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A., & Fehr, E. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305(5688), 1254–1258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1100735. Rich, E. L., & Wallis, J. D. (2016). Decoding subjective decisions from orbitofrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 19(7), 973–980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.4320http://www. nature.com/neuro/journal/v19/n7/abs/nn.4320.html#supplementary-information. Rilling, J. K. (2015). Cooperation and fairness A2—toga. In W. Arthur (Ed.), Brain mapping (pp. 9–13). Waltham: Academic Press. Schmitt, M. (1996). Individual differences in sensitivity to befallen injustice (SBI). Personality and Individual Differences, 21(1), 3–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/01918869(96)00028-1. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 202–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/10155759.21.3.202. Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Maes, J. (2010). The justice sensitivity inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23(2–3), 211–238. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s11211-010-0115-2. Spasojević, G., Malobabic, S., Pilipović-Spasojević, O., Djukić-Macut, N., & Maliković, A. (2013). Morphology and digitally aided morphometry of the human paracentral lobule. Folia Morphologica, 72(1), 10–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/FM.2013.0002.

116

Y. Wu, X. Tian / Personality and Individual Differences 117 (2017) 111–116

Stavrova, O., & Schlosser, T. (2015). Solidarity and social justice: Effect of individual differences in justice sensitivity on solidarity behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 29(1), 2–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1981. Steinbeis, N., Bernhardt, B. C., & Singer, T. (2012). Impulse control and underlying functions of the left DLPFC mediate age-related and age-independent individual differences in strategic social behavior. Neuron, 73(5), 1040–1051. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.neuron.2011.12.027. Sul, S., Tobler, P. N., Hein, G., Leiberg, S., Jung, D., Fehr, E., & Kim, H. (2015). Spatial gradient in value representation along the medial prefrontal cortex reflects individual differences in prosociality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(25), 7851–7856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423895112. Sussenbach, P., & Gollwitzer, M. (2015). Us(ed): The role of victim sensitivity in potentially exploitative intergroup relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(2), 241–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430214556700. Tian, L., Ren, J., & Zang, Y. (2012). Regional homogeneity of resting state fMRI signals predicts Stop signal task performance. NeuroImage, 60(1), 539–544. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.098. White, S. F., Brislin, S. J., Sinclair, S., & Blair, J. R. (2014). Punishing unfairness: Rewarding or the organization of a reactively aggressive response? Human Brain Mapping, 35(5), 2137–2147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22316.

Wu, M. S., Schmitt, M., Zhou, C., Nartova-Bochaver, S., Astanina, N., & Khachatryan, N. (2014). Examining self-advantage in the suffering of others: Cross-cultural differences in beneficiary and observer justice sensitivity among Chinese, Germans, and Russians. Social Justice Research, 27(2), 231–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211014-0212-8. Xiang, Y., Kong, F., Wen, X., Wu, Q., & Mo, L. (2016). Neural correlates of envy: Regional homogeneity of resting-state brain activity predicts dispositional envy. NeuroImage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.08.003. Yang, J., Xu, X. F., Chen, Y., Shi, Z. H., & Han, S. H. (2016). Trait self-esteem and neural activities related to self-evaluation and social feedback. Scientific Reports, 6. Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2014). The good, the bad, and the just: Justice sensitivity predicts neural response during moral evaluation of actions performed by others. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(12), 4161–4166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.4648-13.2014. Zang, Y., Jiang, T., Lu, Y., He, Y., & Tian, L. (2004). Regional homogeneity approach to fMRI data analysis. NeuroImage, 22(1), 394–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage. 2003.12.030.