Skip to main content

tDCS of Medial Prefrontal Cortex Does Not Enhance Interpersonal Trust

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000144

Abstract. Interpersonal trust is an essential ingredient of many social relationships. Previous research has suggested that the medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC) may be a critical component in mediating the degree to which people trust others. Here we assessed the role of the mPFC in modulating interpersonal trust by means of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Participants (n = 60) were randomly and equally assigned to receive anodal, cathodal, or sham stimulation while performing the Trust Game, an index of interpersonal trust that assesses the money units one participant (the trustor) transfers to another (the trustee). Results showed that neither anodal stimulation (brain stimulation that increases cortical excitability of the area being stimulated) nor cathodal stimulation (brain stimulation that decreases cortical excitability) affected the degree of interpersonal trust as compared to sham stimulation. We conclude that noninvasive electrical stimulation over the mPFC does not modulate the degree to which people trust others.

References

  • Amodio, D. M. & Frith, C. D. (2006). Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 268–277. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bellaïche, L., Asthana, M., Ehlis, A.-C., Polak, T. & Herrmann, M. J. (2013). The modulation of error processing in the medial frontal cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation. Neuroscience Journal, Online Publication – Open Access. doi: 10.1155/2013/187692 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bikson, M., Rahman, A. & Datta, A. (2012). Computational models of transcranial direct current stimulation. Clinical EEG and Neuroscience, 43, 176–183. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Camerer, C. F. & Weigelt, K. (1988). Experimental tests of a sequential equilibrium reputation model. Econometrica, 56, 1–36. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Colzato, L. S., Steenbergen, L., de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., Sellaro, R., Liepelt, R. & Hommel, B. (2013). Tryptophan promotes interpersonal trust. Psychological Science, 24, 2575–2577. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Delgado, M. R., Frank, R. H. & Phelps, E. A. (2005). Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1611–1618. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fehr, E. (2009). On the economics and biology of trust. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7, 235–266. doi: 10.1162/JEEA.2009.7.2-3.235 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Filmer, H. L., Dux, P. E. & Mattingley, J. B. (2014). Applications of transcranial direct current stimulation for understanding brain function. Trends in Neurosciences, 37, 742–753. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fiske, S. T., Ames, D. L., Cikara, M. & Harris, L. T. (2013). Scanning for scholars: How neuro-imaging the MPFC provides converging evidence for interpersonal stratification. In B. DerksD. ScheepersN. EllemersEds., Neuroscience of prejudice and intergroup relations (pp. 89–109). New York: Taylor & Francis, Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gandiga, P. C., Hummel, F. C. & Cohen, L. G. (2006). Transcranial DC stimulation (tDCS): A tool for double-blind sham-controlled clinical studies in brain stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117, 845–850. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • George, M. S. & Aston-Jones, G. (2009). Noninvasive techniques for probing neurocircuitry and treating illness: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, 301–316. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Houser, D., Schunk, D. & Winter, J. (2010). Distinguishing trust from risk: an anatomy of the investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 74, 72–81. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krajbich, I., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Denburg, N. L. & Camerer, C. F. (2009). Economic games quantify diminished sense of guilt in patients with damage to the prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 2188–2192. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to Null Hypothesis Significance Testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCabe, K., Houser, D., Ryan, L., Smith, V. & Trouard, T. (2001). A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy Science of USA, 98, 11832–11835. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meijnders, A., Midden, C., Olofsson, A., Ohman, S., Matthes, J., Bondarenko, O., … Rusanen, M. (2009). The role of similarity cues in the development of trust in sources of information about GM food. Risk Analysis, 29, 1116–1128. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moretto, G., Sellitto, M. & di Pellegrino, G. (2013). Investment and repayment in a trust game after ventromedial prefrontal damage. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 593. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nitsche, M. A., Cohen, L. G., Wassermann, E. M., Priori, A., Lang, N., Antal, A., …& Pascual-Leone, A. (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008. Brain Stimulation, 1, 206–223. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nitsche, M. A., Liebetanz, D., Lang, N., Antal, A., Tergau, F. & Paulus, W. (2003). Safety criteria for transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in humans. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 2220–2222. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nitsche, M. A. & Paulus, W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. Journal of Physiology, 527, 633–639. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nozari, N., Woodard, K. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2014). Consequences of cathodal stimulation for behavior: when does it help and when does it hurt performance? PloS One, 9, e84338. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Paulus, W. (2011). Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES - tDCS; tRNS, tACS) methods. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 21, 602–617. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Poreisz, C., Boros, K., Antal, A. & Paulus, W. (2007). Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients. Brain Research Bulletin, 72, 208–214. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pruitt, D. G. & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363–392. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. In P. V. MarsdenEd., Sociological methodology 1995 (pp. 111–196). Cambridge, UK: Blackwell. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ruff, C. C., Ugazio, G. & Fehr, E. (2013). Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation. Science, 342, 482–484. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sapienza, P., Toldra, A. & Zingales, L. (2007). Understanding Trust. NBER Working Paper No. 13387. Cambridge, UK: National Bureau of Economic Research. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sellaro, R., Derks, B., Nitsche, M. A., Hommel, B., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., van Dam, K. & Colzato, L. S. (2015). Reducing prejudice through brain stimulation, Manuscript submitted for publication. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sellaro, R., Hommel, B., de Kwaadsteniet, E. W. & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Increasing interpersonal trust through divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 561. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yamagishi, T. & Sato, K. (1986). Motivational bases of the public goods problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 67–73. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ziemann, U. & Siebner, H. R. (2008). Modifying motor learning through gating and homeostatic metaplasticity. Brain Stimulation, 1, 60–66. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar