Domain expertise insulates against judgment bias by monetary favors through a modulation of ventromedial prefrontal cortex

Abstract

Recent work using an art-viewing paradigm shows that monetary sponsorship of the experiment by a company (a favor) increases the valuation of paintings placed next to the sponsoring corporate logo, an effect that correlates with modulation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC). We used the same art-viewing paradigm to test a prevailing idea in the domain of conflict-of-interest: that expertise in a domain insulates against judgment bias even in the presence of a monetary favor. Using a cohort of art experts, we show that monetary favors do not bias the experts’ valuation of art, an effect that correlates with a lack of modulation of the VMPFC across sponsorship conditions. The lack of sponsorship effect in the VMPFC suggests the hypothesis that their brains remove the behavioral sponsorship effect by censoring sponsorship-dependent modulation of VMPFC activity. We tested the hypothesis that prefrontal regions play a regulatory role in mediating the sponsorship effect. We show that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is recruited in the expert group. Furthermore, we tested the hypothesis in nonexpert controls by contrasting brain responses in controls who did not show a sponsorship effect to controls who did. Changes in effective connectivity between the DLPFC and VMPFC were greater in nonexpert controls, with an absence of the sponsorship effect relative to those with a presence of the sponsorship effect. The role of the DLPFC in cognitive control and emotion regulation suggests that it removes the influence of a monetary favor by controlling responses in known valuation regions of the brain including the the VMPFC.

Mindfulness training modulates value signals in ventromedial prefrontal cortex through input from insular cortex

“…The behavioral results pre-training conformed to our expectations (Figure 1, bottom left). In accordance with our previous research (Harvey et al, 2010; Kirk et al, 2011a) we observed a significant sponsorship effect—i.e. subjects rated those paintings that were presented next to a sponsor logo more preferable relative to those paintings that were presented next to a nonsponsor logo—in both the MT (paired t = 3.12; p < 0.004) and the ACT group (paired t = 3.41; p < 0.002).…”

“…We found that the sponsor condition displayed increased activity compared with the nonsponsor condition in both the MT group (paired t = 3.04; p < 0.004) and in the ACT group (paired t = 3.28; p < 0.003) (Figure 1, bottom right). These results support our previous findings that the vmPFC is susceptible to modulation by sponsorship (Harvey et al, 2010; Kirk et al, 2011a). …”

“…We expected that value signals in the vmPFC would exhibit a modulation reflecting the behavioral sponsorship effect (Harvey et al, 2010; Kirk et al, 2011a). We did observe such a relationship in both groups in the pre-training condition.…”

“…This study builds on previous work on the neurobiological basis of valuation (Harvey et al, 2010) and the impact of expertise training on the vmPFC valuation systems (Kirk et al, 2011a). In this randomized controlled design using MT and ACT, we wanted to study the potential impact that MT exert on valuation processes.…”

“…In support of this hypothesis, recent neuroimaging work shows that value signals in vmPFC can be modulated by top-down cognitive input such as knowledge of price, monetary favors, brand and semantic knowledge (De Araujo et al, 2005; Harvey et al, 2010; Plassmann et al, 2008; McClure et al, 2004; Kirk et al, 2009, 2011a). Collectively, these studies have expanded the role of the vmPFC in value-based decision-making suggesting that biases may have a biological basis that subverts cognitive control.…”