What goes on in the brain of the groom who says “I do,” then has an affair? Or the friend who pledges to repay a loan but never does? Breaking a promise is a complex neurobiological event, a new study shows—and a brain scan may be able to predict those who are making false promises before they break their word.
Using functional MRI, scientists at the University of Zurich in Switzerland scanned the brains of subjects playing an investment game. Subjects assigned to be “investors” had to decide whether to pledge to share their money with other players who were “trustees.” This arrangement boosted the amount of money in the pot, but it also could result in a loss to the investor if the trustee chose not to share. Nearly all the subjects said they would give to the trustee—but in the end, not everyone kept this promise.
Based on the fMRI scans, the researchers were able to predict whether the players would break their promise before they actually had the chance to do so in the game. Promise breakers had more activity in certain brain regions, including the prefrontal cortex, an indication that planning and self-control were involved in suppressing an honest response, and the amygdala, perhaps a sign of conflicting and aversive emotions such as guilt and fear.
If the predictive ability of these scans is borne out in future studies, someday the technique could be of use to the justice system. “Brain imaging might be able to help psychologists or psychiatrists decide whether a criminal offender can be released or whether the risk of relapse is too high,” says lead author Thomas Baumgartner, who emphasizes that such scans would supplement assessments by health professionals, not replace them.
This article was originally published with the title Broken Promises.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add Comment“Brain imaging might be able to help psychologists or psychiatrists decide whether a criminal offender can be released or whether the risk of relapse is too high"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Is that the ONLY use the authors can see for this, potential criminal recidivism? How about applications in government, corporate executive ranks? It would be very useful to know who was capable of keeping a promise or not - which sounds suspiciously like a lie detector to me.
is anyone else frightened about this as I am? Culpability based on prediction rather than actual action is not a path i want to go down, whether it is for criminal justice or job security.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother useless experiment. When are these guys going to realize that "games" and real life are different environments, and that people behave differently in each? I wouldn't mind taking huge chances, lying or whatever in the silly investment game they propose, but I sure proceed differently when dealing with my IRA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Soccerdad -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease stop relating EVERYTHING to your simplistic, paranoid political views.
At the very least be UNBIASED and say: "Let's hook it up to some POLITICIANS and ..."
@Linus -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO, your concerns are valid.
Imagine that this can be take a couple steps farther, that an FMRI (or some advanced version of that) can be performed in real-time, wirelessly (remote to the subject) and can detect more than this article covers.
Then the "thought police" can live up (or down) to every sci-fi story and start monitoring people's thoughts, ahead of any actions.
Agreed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT0o much in-the-lab abstraction, not enough on-the-street smarts.
What if they promise to only use the knowledge they use for good?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat should be all right.
Let's hook this machine up to "some politicians" like Obama, Reid and Pelosi, and watch the alarm bells go off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that better candide?
@soccerdad -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter for what?
To show you as one-sided, incapable of unbiased thought, yes. To show you as a narrow minded ideologue without independent thought, yes. To show you as ....
Well, you get the idea. The more you post the less I need to say...
David: "What if they promise to only use the knowledge they use for good?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCouldn't we just hook them up to their own machine and see if they would keep that promise?
Here's two flaws in this experiment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. No appreciation for how men crave sex with a VARIETY of females.
2. No appreciation for the factor of ADDICTION in crime.
Both these factors, and others which I can't think of now, have (I claim) much more influence on subsequent broken promises than whatever it is this experiment is focusing on.
Early release of offenders for "good behaviour" is not about "culpability" (or what modern media confuses with "responsibility), and it is a "road that we are currently well "down". Many onocent lives could have been saved - and saved from ruin - by such an aid to the evident morons who let these "people" out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe results of these fMRIs seem to equate intellectual ana;ytical ability or the ability to track patterns and see the logical extent of the consequences of ones actions with an equal inability to make a value judgment that the quick benefit might not be worth the loss of integrity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" than whatever it is this experiment is focusing on"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI got the impression that the "experiment" - i.e. the use of medical "scanners" by which means we can see inside the living body - for real - had enabled the users to correctly forecast who was going to break their promise. The excuse for breaking the promise was never a part of the forecast, only the probability of the promise being kept - or broken.
It makes sense. But at the same time, I'd argue that cortical activity is completely idiosyncratic to the individual, and it's hard to conceive a standardized criteria of what entails 'preparatory activity for deception.' Applying a common criteria could be chaotic, since cortical activity patterns are person-specific (or more elaborately, experience-specific), though overall similarities do exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAndrea Akutagawa
http://liberate.it/
The alarm bells indicating that promises will be broken ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou like Obama and Reid's promises ?
It sounds like MRI acts as a lie detector machine. However, as science helps us better understand how people make decision, this information will most likely to be used to help psychologists in justice system. What are other possible benefits of this study? Moreover, What are the possible negative consequences?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this