The neural basis of the Machiavellians’ decision making in fair and unfair situations

Dark triads, tetrads, tents, and cores: Why navigate (research) the jungle of dark personality models without a compass (criterion)?

This comprehensive review summarizes and evaluates the present state of the Dark Triad research literature (or more broadly, the dark personality trait literature), and as such serves both a pedagogical purpose, by providing an introduction or primer on the dark personality literature and a scientific purpose by directing future research on key issues that still have not been sufficiently addressed. In this review, we discuss and critique current operational conceptualizations of what it means for a personality trait to be classified as 'dark'. Also discussed is the Dark Core, as well as quantitative issues such as limitations of commonly used statistical treatments, such as multivariate analyses, bifactor modeling, and composite measures, and proposed solutions to some of these issues. Based on a comprehensive and critical appraisal of the literature, future directions are suggested to drive the dark trait field towards a more organized, parsimonious, and productive future.

What Deception Tasks Used in the Lab Really Do: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Ecological Validity of fMRI Deception Tasks

Interpretation of the neural findings of deception without considering the ecological validity of the experimental tasks could lead to biased conclusions. In this study we classified the experimental tasks according to their inclusion of three essential components required for ecological validity: intention to lie, social interaction and motivation. First, we carried out a systematic review to categorize fMRI deception tasks and to weigh the degree of ecological validity of each one. Second, we performed a meta-analysis to identify if each type of task involves a different neural substrate and to distinguish the neurocognitive contribution of each component of ecological validity essential to deception. We detected six categories of deception tasks. Intention to lie was the component least frequently included, followed by social interaction. Monetary reward was the most frequent motivator. The results of the meta-analysis, including 59 contrasts, revealed that intention to lie is associated with activation in the left lateral occipital cortex (superior division) whereas the left angular gyrus and right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) are engaged during lying under instructions. Additionally, the right IFG appears to participate in the social aspect of lying including simulated and real interactions. We found no effect of monetary reward in our analysis. Finally, tasks with high ecological validity recruited fewer brain areas (right insular cortex and bilateral anterior cingulate cortex (ACC)) compared to less ecological tasks, perhaps because they are more natural and realistic, and engage a wide network of brain mechanisms, as opposed to specific tasks that demand more centralized processes.

Bending Our Ethics Code

Abstract. Deception of research participants has long been and remains a hot-button issue in the behavioral sciences. At the same time, the field of psychology is fortunate to have an ethics code to rely on in determining whether and how to use and report on deception of participants. Despite ongoing normative controversies, the smallest common denominator among psychologists is that deception ought to be a last resort – to be used only when there is no other defensible way to study a question or phenomenon. Going beyond previous normative discussions or inquiries into the mere prevalence of deception, we ask the fundamental question whether common practice is compatible with this interpretation of our field’s ethical standards. Findings from an empirical literature review – focusing on the feasibility of nondeceptive alternative procedures and the presence of explicit justifications for the use of deception – demonstrate that there is a notable gap between the last resort interpretation of our ethical standards and common practice in psychological research. The findings are discussed with the aim of identifying viable ways in which researchers, journal editors, and the scientific associations crafting our ethics codes may narrow this gap.

Neural Signatures of Gender Differences in Interpersonal Trust

Trust plays a critical role in nearly every aspect of social life. Parental investment theory and social role theory predict that women trust less than men due to a higher sensitivity to risk and betrayal, while men trust more than women to maximize resources and to signal their willingness to lose something. However, the underlying neuropsychological underpinnings for this gender difference are still obscure. In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the neural signatures of gender differences in trust by simultaneously scanning 11 male and 11 female same-gender, fixed dyads who played a multi-round binary trust game with varying levels of payoff (low/moderate/high) as an indicator of social risk. Our results showed that men trusted more than women and payoff level moderated the effect of gender on trust. While men trusted the same at all payoff levels, women trusted less with higher payoff levels. This pattern was supported by our neuroimaging finding: men showed a higher activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (ventrolateral prefrontal cortex) and right precuneus than women, indicating that men exert more effort to inhibit the information of payoff levels and to use self-referencing to infer the strategies of partners with the goal of maximizing profit. Furthermore, men showed equivalent activation in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex across payoff levels, whereas women showed a decreased activation with increasing payoff level - indicating decreased group bonding with higher risk in women. In conclusion, our results imply that women are more sensitive to social risk while trusting, which has implications for financial interactions, interpersonal relationships, and social involvement.

Different Paths to Different Strategies? Unique Associations Among Facets of the Dark Triad, Empathy, and Trait Emotional Intelligence

Emotional deficits, such as limited empathy, are considered a fundamental aspect of the Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). However, the nature and extent of such deficiencies seem to vary among dark personalities. By applying multidimensional measures of empathy, emotional intelligence, and the Dark Triad, we aimed to investigate in more detail how individuals high in various dark traits understand and evaluate emotions. Results indicated that each trait, and, moreover, each facet thereof entailed unique emotional deficiencies. Narcissism was positively associated with trait emotional intelligence, whereas the secondary factor of psychopathy was associated negatively. With respect to empathy, only primary psychopathy was linked to an overall deficit, while a positive relationship was found between Machiavellianism and the perspective-taking facet of cognitive empathy. We argue that the specific emotional limitations of the Dark Triad traits might contribute to the successful deployment of different socially aversive strategies.

Machiavellian tendencies increase following damage to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Machiavellianism - a personality trait that is characterized by a tendency to distrust, deceive and exploit others - has been the focus of growing attention in psychological research. Neuroimaging studies of Machiavellianism highlight the influence of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) on Machiavellianism tendencies. However, knowledge regarding the causal role of the left and right dlPFC on Machiavellianism is still obscure. Here, we measured general Machiavellian tendencies, as well as two subscales (i.e., Machiavellian Views and Machiavellian Tactics) in a large sample of brain-injured patients (N = 129) and non-brain-injured control participants (N = 37) to determine whether Machiavellianism tendencies can be altered by brain damage. We analyzed Machiavellianism tendencies as a function of lesion location, with patients separated into four groups based on dlPFC damage: left dlPFC damage, right dlPFC damage, non-dlPFC damage, and healthy controls. We found that left dlPFC damage increased Machiavellianism in general, and Machiavellian perspective (views) in particular, but did not modulate behavior (tactics). Critically, left dlPFC damage predicted higher levels of Machiavellianism after controlling for general and emotional intelligence, linguistic abilities, empathy and psychopathology. These findings establish a causal role of the left dlPFC in modulating Machiavellian views, and indicate that one can hold Machiavellian views without necessarily endorsing Machiavellian tactics.

Is there a T.R.U.M.P. brain? Implications for mental health and world peace

Highlights

Specific mind-brain processes are associated with political attitudes.The risks of a T.R.U.M.P. mindset are highlighted.An alternative G.A.N.D.H.I. mindset is suggested.

Abstract

Neuroscientists have begun to investigate whether different political attitudes are associated with specific mind-brain markers. In this article, we build on political neuroscience research to briefly illustrate the structure and function of a Threatening, Reactionary, Unforgiving, Machiavellian, and Partisan (T.R.U.M.P.) mindset. Additionally, we discussed, building on neuroscience and clinical evidence, how to counteract the T.R.U.M.P. mindset.

Gender Differences in Behavioral and Neural Responses to Unfairness Under Social Pressure

Numerous studies have revealed the key role of social pressure on individuals' decision-making processes. However, the impact of social pressure on unfairness-related decision-making processes remains unclear. In the present study, we investigated how social pressure modulated men's and women's responses in an ultimatum game. Twenty women and eighteen men played the ultimatum game as responders in the scanner, where fair and unfair offers were tendered by proposers acting alone (low pressure) or by proposers endorsed by three supporters (high pressure). Results showed that men rejected more, whereas women accepted more unfair offers in the high versus low pressure context. Neurally, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex activation in women positively predicted their acceptance rate difference between contexts. In men, stronger right anterior insula activation and increased connectivity between right anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex were observed when they receiving unfair offers in the high than low pressure context. Furthermore, more bilateral anterior insula and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activations were found when men rejected (relative to accepted) unfair offers in the high than low pressure context. These findings highlighted gender differences in the modulation of behavioral and neural responses to unfairness by social pressure.

Neural signatures of trust in reciprocity: A coordinate-based meta-analysis

Trust in reciprocity (TR) is defined as the risky decision to invest valued resources in another party with the hope of mutual benefit. Several fMRI studies have investigated the neural correlates of TR in one-shot and multiround versions of the investment game (IG). However, an overall characterization of the underlying neural networks remains elusive. Here, a coordinate-based meta-analysis was employed (activation likelihood estimation method, 30 articles) to investigate consistent brain activations in each of the IG stages (i.e., the trust, reciprocity and feedback stage). Results showed consistent activations in the anterior insula (AI) during trust decisions in the one-shot IG and decisions to reciprocate in the multiround IG, likely related to representations of aversive feelings. Moreover, decisions to reciprocate also consistently engaged the intraparietal sulcus, probably involved in evaluations of the reciprocity options. On the contrary, trust decisions in the multiround IG consistently activated the ventral striatum, likely associated with reward prediction error signals. Finally, the dorsal striatum was found consistently recruited during the feedback stage of the multiround IG, likely related to reinforcement learning. In conclusion, our results indicate different neural networks underlying trust, reciprocity, and feedback learning. These findings suggest that although decisions to trust and reciprocate may elicit aversive feelings likely evoked by the uncertainty about the decision outcomes and the pressing requirements of social standards, multiple interactions allow people to build interpersonal trust for cooperation via a learning mechanism by which they arguably learn to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy partners. Hum Brain Mapp 38:1233-1248, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The manipulative skill: Cognitive devices and their neural correlates underlying Machiavellian's decision making

Until now, Machiavellianism has mainly been studied in personality and social psychological framework, and little attention has been paid to the underlying cognitive and neural equipment. In light of recent findings, Machiavellian social skills are not limited to emotion regulation and "cold-mindedness" as many authors have recently stated, but linked to specific cognitive abilities. Although Machiavellians appear to have a relatively poor mindreading ability and emotional intelligence, they can efficiently exploit others which is likely to come from their flexible problem solving processes in changing environmental circumstances. The author proposed that Machiavellians have specialized cognitive domains of decision making, such as monitoring others' behavior, task orientation, reward seeking, inhibition of cooperative feelings, and choosing victims. He related the relevant aspects of cognitive functions to their neurological substrates, and argued why they make Machiavellians so successful in interpersonal relationships.