ION This study examined the moral dynamic of self-gain vs other-welfare during real and hypothetical conditions. Our behavioral results show that moral decisions with real consequences diverge from hypotheticalNeural basis for real moral decisionsTable 8 Correlation regression for increasing empathic concern (Real PvG Decide > order LY2510924 Imagine PvG Decide)Region Subgenal ACC A priori ROIs Subgenal ACCa 6 2 Peak MNI coordinates 28 MNI coordinates 36 ? ? z value 3.15 t-statistic 3.SCAN (2012)ROI ?regions of interest corrected at P < 0.05 FWE using a priori independent coordinates from previous study: aZahn et al. (2009).Table 9 Correlation regression for decreasing empathic concern and perspective taking (Real PvG Decide > Imagine PvG Decide)Region Left superior temporal sulcus Right superior temporal sulcus Left putamen dACC Right dlPFC Left dlPFC Left OFC Right OFC Right dlPFC Left dlPFC mPFC ?8 30 ?4 ? 32 ?2 ?4 30 30 ?4 16 Peak MNI coordinates ?4 ?4 10 36 6 4 42 58 24 16 50 44 48 2 34 46 54 2 8 48 52 4 z value 4.12 4.12 3.45 3.30 3.27 3.22 4.70 4.03 3.65 3.62 3.Table 10 Correlation regression for decreasing similarity ratings (Real PvG Decide > Imagine PvG Decide)Region Right anterior insula 44 Peak MNI coordinates 28 0 z value 3.Table 11 Correlation regression for increasing similarity ratings (Real PvG Decide > Imagine PvG Decide)Region Left middle frontal gyrus MPFC/rACC Left Hippocampus ?8 4 ?0 Peak MNI coordinates 18 38 ?0 44 ? ? z value 3.40 3.01 3.moral choices, verifying the `hypothetical bias’ effect (Kang et al., 2011). Compared with imagining their moral actions, people who make moral decisions under real conditions keep more money and inflict more pain on another subject. Although the research exploring real moral action is limited (Moll et al., 2006; Baumgartner et al., 2009; Greene and Paxton, 2009), our results stand in stark contrast to findings demonstrating that people act more morally than they think they will (Teper et al., 2011). Our results also contradict the accumulated research illustrating a basic aversion to harming others (Greene et al., 2001; Cushman et al., 2012). We contend that this is likely due to the fact that many of the moral scenarios used within the moral literature do not pit the fundamental motivation of not harming others (physically or psychological) against that of maximizing self-gain (Haidt,2007). Accordingly, our findings reveal that engaging the complex motivations of self-benefita force endemic to many moral decisionscan critically influence moral action. Our fMRI results identify a get Enasidenib common neural network for real and hypothetical moral cognition, as well as distinct circuitry specific to real and imagined moral choices. Moral decisionsregardless of conditionactivated the insula, MCC and dorsal TPJ, areas essential in higher order social processes, such as empathy (Singer et al., 2004). This neural circuitry is well instantiated in the social neuroscience literature and fits with the findings that moral choices are influenced by neural systems whose primary role is to facilitate cooperation (Rilling and Sanfey, 2011). The TPJ has been specifically implicated in decoding social cues, such as agency, intentionality and the mental states of others (Young and Saxe, 2008). For example, TPJ activation correlates with the extent to which another’s intentions are taken into account (Young and Saxe, 2009) and transiently disrupting TPJ activity leads to interference with using mental state information to ma.ION This study examined the moral dynamic of self-gain vs other-welfare during real and hypothetical conditions. Our behavioral results show that moral decisions with real consequences diverge from hypotheticalNeural basis for real moral decisionsTable 8 Correlation regression for increasing empathic concern (Real PvG Decide > Imagine PvG Decide)Region Subgenal ACC A priori ROIs Subgenal ACCa 6 2 Peak MNI coordinates 28 MNI coordinates 36 ? ? z value 3.15 t-statistic 3.SCAN (2012)ROI ?regions of interest corrected at P < 0.05 FWE using a priori independent coordinates from previous study: aZahn et al. (2009).Table 9 Correlation regression for decreasing empathic concern and perspective taking (Real PvG Decide > Imagine PvG Decide)Region Left superior temporal sulcus Right superior temporal sulcus Left putamen dACC Right dlPFC Left dlPFC Left OFC Right OFC Right dlPFC Left dlPFC mPFC ?8 30 ?4 ? 32 ?2 ?4 30 30 ?4 16 Peak MNI coordinates ?4 ?4 10 36 6 4 42 58 24 16 50 44 48 2 34 46 54 2 8 48 52 4 z value 4.12 4.12 3.45 3.30 3.27 3.22 4.70 4.03 3.65 3.62 3.Table 10 Correlation regression for decreasing similarity ratings (Real PvG Decide > Imagine PvG Decide)Region Right anterior insula 44 Peak MNI coordinates 28 0 z value 3.Table 11 Correlation regression for increasing similarity ratings (Real PvG Decide > Imagine PvG Decide)Region Left middle frontal gyrus MPFC/rACC Left Hippocampus ?8 4 ?0 Peak MNI coordinates 18 38 ?0 44 ? ? z value 3.40 3.01 3.moral choices, verifying the `hypothetical bias’ effect (Kang et al., 2011). Compared with imagining their moral actions, people who make moral decisions under real conditions keep more money and inflict more pain on another subject. Although the research exploring real moral action is limited (Moll et al., 2006; Baumgartner et al., 2009; Greene and Paxton, 2009), our results stand in stark contrast to findings demonstrating that people act more morally than they think they will (Teper et al., 2011). Our results also contradict the accumulated research illustrating a basic aversion to harming others (Greene et al., 2001; Cushman et al., 2012). We contend that this is likely due to the fact that many of the moral scenarios used within the moral literature do not pit the fundamental motivation of not harming others (physically or psychological) against that of maximizing self-gain (Haidt,2007). Accordingly, our findings reveal that engaging the complex motivations of self-benefita force endemic to many moral decisionscan critically influence moral action. Our fMRI results identify a common neural network for real and hypothetical moral cognition, as well as distinct circuitry specific to real and imagined moral choices. Moral decisionsregardless of conditionactivated the insula, MCC and dorsal TPJ, areas essential in higher order social processes, such as empathy (Singer et al., 2004). This neural circuitry is well instantiated in the social neuroscience literature and fits with the findings that moral choices are influenced by neural systems whose primary role is to facilitate cooperation (Rilling and Sanfey, 2011). The TPJ has been specifically implicated in decoding social cues, such as agency, intentionality and the mental states of others (Young and Saxe, 2008). For example, TPJ activation correlates with the extent to which another’s intentions are taken into account (Young and Saxe, 2009) and transiently disrupting TPJ activity leads to interference with using mental state information to ma.