Proach). For each subject, contrast images were calculated for each of the four scenario categories. These first level contrasts were then aggregated into second level full factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) in order to compute group statistics. We report Win 63843 molecular weight activity at P < 0.001 uncorrected for multiple spatial comparisons across the whole brain, and P < 0.05 family wise error (FWE) corrected for the following a priori regions of interest (ROIs; attained by independent coordinates): TPJ, ACC, dlPFC and vmPFC, reflecting the `moral network' (coordinates listed in tables). Coordinates were taken from previous related studies. RESULTS Manipulation check: behavioral data To validate our a priori allocation of scenarios to the Easy and Difficult categories based on participants' ratings, we administered a post-scan questionnaire to assess how difficult the fMRI subjects reported finding the scenarios using the same five-point Likert scale of difficulty. A repeated measures ANOVA with two within-subjects factors: Difficulty (difficult and easy) and Morality (moral and non-moral) confirmed the expected main effect of difficulty (F(1,36) ?287.27, P < 0.001), with Difficult scenarios rated as more difficult than Easy scenarios (Figure 1b). As anticipated, the main effect of morality and the morality by difficulty interaction were not significant, indicating that there was no support for self-reported differences in difficulty between moral and non-moral scenarios and no support for any differential discrepancy between difficult vs easy scenarios in the moral compared with non-moral domains (Fs < 2.62, Ps > 0.13). As a further validation of our a priori categorization of scenarios as Difficult or Easy, we also examined response patterns for each of the different categories. Subjects had near perfect agreement in their responses for Easy decisions (98 of the subjects responded in the same manner). However, for Difficult scenarios, there was little consensus in response selection (only 57 of the subjects responded in the same manner). A repeated measures ANOVA exploring reaction times (Greene et al., 2004) offered further support for this Difficult asy distinction, as Difficult scenarios (mean 4.0 s, s.d. ?.6) took significantly longer to respond to than Easy scenarios (mean 3.1 s, s.d. ?.1)Deconstructing the moral networkSCAN (2014)Fig. 2 F-test examining the interaction of the factors Morality and Difficulty. This contrast reveals activation of the moral network traditionally Baicalein 6-methyl ether site described in the literature, consisting of the TPJ (bilaterally), vmPFC, dlPFC and dACC. The red circles indicate the location of the regions used in the ROI analysis (taken from a priori coordinates), all thresholded at P < 0.05 FWE.Table 1 ANOVA F-test interaction Morality ?DifficultyRegion Medial OFC Left ACC Left dlPFC Right TPJ Right TPJ Left TPJ Left TPJ Left ACC Right mid frontal gyrus Left precentral gyrus Right precentral gyrus A priori ROIsa aTable 3 Main effect of Morality (DM ?DN > EM ?EN)F-statistic/z-value ? ? 10 ? 14 ? ?2 30 30 48 36 21.89/4.36 17.95/3.95 14.13/3.49 20.17/4.19 13.73/3.43 16.67/3.80 14.23/3.50 18.30/3.98 15.32/3.64 13.75/3.44 11.54/3.71 F-statistic/z-value Region TPJ Peak MNI coordinates ?4 ?8 34 z-value 3.Peak MNI coordinates ? ?0 ?4 56 58 ?6 ?0 ? 38 ?2 46 MNI coordinates 0 ?8 54 54 52 ?2 2 2 2 4 34 49 ?9 ?2 ?4 ?8 58 62 50 50 26 7 22 16 22 20 17 16 ?0 ? 56 42 52 ?0 ?2 ?2 ?2 28 12 ?See footnote of Table 1 for more information.Table 4 Diffi.Proach). For each subject, contrast images were calculated for each of the four scenario categories. These first level contrasts were then aggregated into second level full factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) in order to compute group statistics. We report activity at P < 0.001 uncorrected for multiple spatial comparisons across the whole brain, and P < 0.05 family wise error (FWE) corrected for the following a priori regions of interest (ROIs; attained by independent coordinates): TPJ, ACC, dlPFC and vmPFC, reflecting the `moral network' (coordinates listed in tables). Coordinates were taken from previous related studies. RESULTS Manipulation check: behavioral data To validate our a priori allocation of scenarios to the Easy and Difficult categories based on participants' ratings, we administered a post-scan questionnaire to assess how difficult the fMRI subjects reported finding the scenarios using the same five-point Likert scale of difficulty. A repeated measures ANOVA with two within-subjects factors: Difficulty (difficult and easy) and Morality (moral and non-moral) confirmed the expected main effect of difficulty (F(1,36) ?287.27, P < 0.001), with Difficult scenarios rated as more difficult than Easy scenarios (Figure 1b). As anticipated, the main effect of morality and the morality by difficulty interaction were not significant, indicating that there was no support for self-reported differences in difficulty between moral and non-moral scenarios and no support for any differential discrepancy between difficult vs easy scenarios in the moral compared with non-moral domains (Fs < 2.62, Ps > 0.13). As a further validation of our a priori categorization of scenarios as Difficult or Easy, we also examined response patterns for each of the different categories. Subjects had near perfect agreement in their responses for Easy decisions (98 of the subjects responded in the same manner). However, for Difficult scenarios, there was little consensus in response selection (only 57 of the subjects responded in the same manner). A repeated measures ANOVA exploring reaction times (Greene et al., 2004) offered further support for this Difficult asy distinction, as Difficult scenarios (mean 4.0 s, s.d. ?.6) took significantly longer to respond to than Easy scenarios (mean 3.1 s, s.d. ?.1)Deconstructing the moral networkSCAN (2014)Fig. 2 F-test examining the interaction of the factors Morality and Difficulty. This contrast reveals activation of the moral network traditionally described in the literature, consisting of the TPJ (bilaterally), vmPFC, dlPFC and dACC. The red circles indicate the location of the regions used in the ROI analysis (taken from a priori coordinates), all thresholded at P < 0.05 FWE.Table 1 ANOVA F-test interaction Morality ?DifficultyRegion Medial OFC Left ACC Left dlPFC Right TPJ Right TPJ Left TPJ Left TPJ Left ACC Right mid frontal gyrus Left precentral gyrus Right precentral gyrus A priori ROIsa aTable 3 Main effect of Morality (DM ?DN > EM ?EN)F-statistic/z-value ? ? 10 ? 14 ? ?2 30 30 48 36 21.89/4.36 17.95/3.95 14.13/3.49 20.17/4.19 13.73/3.43 16.67/3.80 14.23/3.50 18.30/3.98 15.32/3.64 13.75/3.44 11.54/3.71 F-statistic/z-value Region TPJ Peak MNI coordinates ?4 ?8 34 z-value 3.Peak MNI coordinates ? ?0 ?4 56 58 ?6 ?0 ? 38 ?2 46 MNI coordinates 0 ?8 54 54 52 ?2 2 2 2 4 34 49 ?9 ?2 ?4 ?8 58 62 50 50 26 7 22 16 22 20 17 16 ?0 ? 56 42 52 ?0 ?2 ?2 ?2 28 12 ?See footnote of Table 1 for more information.Table 4 Diffi.