Background/Objectives: Recent social neuroscience research has increasingly shifted from individual moral decision-making to the study of how people negotiate moral dilemmas in interpersonal contexts. This multimethod hyperscanning study investigated whether initial differences in moral decision-making orientation within a dyad influence neural and autonomic synchronization during a joint moral negotiation. Methods: Fourteen dyads were classified as homologous or heterologous based on the similarity or dissimilarity of their individual decision-making orientations. Each dyad was asked to negotiate and reach a shared decision on a moral dilemma involving a realistic health emergency scenario. Electroencephalography (EEG) and autonomic signals were recorded simultaneously. Dissimilarity indices were computed to assess inter-brain and autonomic synchronization. Results: EEG analyses revealed a significant effect only in the delta frequency band: all dyads, regardless of orientation, showed greater dissimilarity in the left frontal region compared to the left temporo-central and right parieto-occipital regions. In addition, autonomic data indicated greater heart rate variability (HRV) dissimilarity in homologous dyads than in heterologous ones. However, these results did not confirm our initial hypotheses, indicating the opposite pattern. Conclusions: Left frontal delta dissimilarity emerged as an exploratory candidate marker of moral negotiation across dyads. Greater HRV dissimilarity in homologous dyads suggests that, in these dyads, successful negotiation may be supported by complementary rather than synchronized autonomic responses. This multimethod hyperscanning approach highlights the complex and partially dissociable contributions of neural and autonomic processes to the regulation of shared moral decision-making.

Background: This study investigates the electrophysiological (EEG) correlates underlying negotiation dynamics in dyads engaged in a shared decision-making process. Methods: Using EEG hyperscanning, we examined single-brain and inter-brain neural activity in 26 participants (13 dyads) during a structured negotiation task. The participants, selected for their group-oriented decision-making preference, discussed a realistic group decisional scenario while their EEG activity was recorded. EEG frequency bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma) were analyzed and Euclidean Distances were computed for measuring dissimilarity at the inter-brain neural level. Results: At the single-brain level, the results show increased delta and theta power in frontal regions, reflecting emotional engagement and goal-directed control, alongside heightened beta and gamma activity in parieto-occipital areas, linked to cognitive integration and decision-monitoring during the negotiation process. At the inter-brain neural level, we observed significant dissimilarity in frontal delta activity compared to temporo-central and parieto-occipital one, suggesting that negotiation involves independent cognitive regulation within the members of the dyads rather than complete neural synchrony. Conclusions: These findings highlight the dual role of negotiation as both a cooperative and cognitively demanding process, requiring emotional alignment and strategic adaptation. This study advances our understanding of the neurophysiological bases of negotiation and provides insights into how inter-brain dynamics shape collaborative decision-making.

Background/Objectives: Decision-making under socially evaluative stress engages a dynamic interplay between cognitive control, emotional appraisal, and motivational systems. Contemporary models of multi-level co-regulation posit that these systems operate in reciprocal modulation, redistributing processing resources to prioritise either rapid socio-emotional alignment or deliberate evaluation depending on situational demands. Methods: Adopting a neurofunctional approach, a novel dual-task protocol combining the MetaCognition–Stress Convergence Paradigm (MSCP) and the Social Stress Test Neuro-Evaluation (SST-NeuroEval), a simulated social–evaluative speech task calibrated across progressive emotional intensities, was implemented. Twenty professionals from an HR consultancy firm participated in the study, with concurrent recording of frontal-temporoparietal electroencephalography (EEG) and bespoke psychometric indices: the MetaStress-Insight Index and the TimeSense Scale. Results: Findings revealed that decision contexts with higher socio-emotional salience elicited faster, emotionally guided choices (mean RT difference emotional vs. cognitive: −220 ms, p = 0.026), accompanied by oscillatory signatures (frontal delta: F(1,19) = 13.30, p = 0.002; gamma: F(3,57) = 14.93, p ≤ 0.001) consistent with intensified socio-emotional integration and contextual reconstruction. Under evaluative stress, oscillatory activity shifted across phases, reflecting the transition from anticipatory regulation to reactive engagement, in line with models of phase-dependent stress adaptation. Across paradigms, convergences emerged between decision orientation, subjective stress, and oscillatory patterns, supporting the view that cognitive–emotional regulation operates as a coordinated, multi-level system. Conclusions: These results underscore the importance of integrating behavioural, experiential, and neural indices to characterise how individuals adaptively regulate decision-making under socially evaluative stress and highlight the potential of dual-paradigm designs for advancing theory and application in cognitive–affective neuroscience.

Background/Objectives: This research examined the impact of reframing on decision confidence and its link with individual decision-making styles in a sample of healthy adults. Methods: Participants completed a Resistance to Reframe Task, which involved two decision-making steps. In each step, they chose the best option from four alternatives for a workplace situation and rated their confidence in the decision. Then, the task was reframed to highlight the negative consequences of their initial choice, and they reassessed their confidence. Confidence scores and reaction times (RTs) were recorded for the confidence ratings of each step. The General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) and Maximization Scale (MS) were also used to profile decision-making styles and explore their links to behavioral responses. Results: Findings demonstrated that reframing significantly reduces participants’ confidence, particularly in the first step, highlighting its effectiveness in challenging initial choices. Additionally, higher RTs after reframing emphasize the cognitive complexity introduced by the change of perspective and allows us to describe the dynamic of the decision-making process. Correlational findings suggested that while some traits (e.g., dependent style) reduce confidence after the reframing, others (e.g., high standards, decision difficulty) seem to reinforce it. Similarly, decision-making style as MS alternative search increases RTs, reflecting the heightened complexity of reframed decision contexts. Conclusions: The results underscored the importance of considering confidence in the decision and individual differences when studying decision-making under reframing conditions. Individual differences in decision-making styles may act as protective or vulnerability factors to reframe in decision-making processes.

Decision-making, defined as a cognitive process involving the selection of a course of action among several alternatives, is pivotal in personal and professional life and is founded on responsiveness to the context of decisional strategies—in terms of pieces of contextual features collected, evaluated, and integrated. This study explored the behavioral and electrophysiological (EEG) correlates of individual tendencies to rely on three distinct decisional strategies: Information (I-ds), Situation (S-ds), or Task (T-ds). A total of 51 individuals performed a decision-making task that required participants to face real-life decision-making situations, during which an unexpected event prompted them to appraise the situation and rely on different sources of contextual features to make the best decision and manage the problem. The behavioral data and EEG frequency bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma) were collected during the decision-making task. The results evidenced a general predisposition to adopt a T-ds. In addition, EEG findings reported a higher increase in theta band power in the right frontal area (AF8) compared to the left temporoparietal site (TP9). Moreover, for the gamma band, higher activity was found in the T-ds compared to the I-ds in AF8. Overall, responsiveness to the context was closely linked to the assignment’s requirements. Additionally, adopting a T-ds requires high levels of multilevel attention control systems and a significant workload on human performance. Nevertheless, the T-ds remain the most employed type of responsiveness to the context approach, when compared to situational and contextual aspects.

Understanding how the perceived social impact of corporate initiatives shapes individual willingness to support them is a central question at the intersection of behavioral science, neuroeconomics, and organizational psychology. However, less is known about how communication framing and personal financial cost jointly interact with social valence to influence both behavioral intentions and underlying neurocognitive processes. This study investigated the effects of social valence (positive vs. negative), communication frame (neutral, emotional, economic), and decision type (general support vs. personal financial investment) on prosocial decision-making. Twenty-two volunteers evaluated realistic corporate initiatives, while their electroencephalographic (EEG) activity was continuously recorded. Each scenario varied in social valence and communication frame and required two sequential judgments: willingness to support the initiative and willingness to invest a portion of personal income. Behavioral results revealed significant effects of decision type and valence, with greater support for positively valenced initiatives and lower support when personal financial investment was required. A significant Frame × Valence interaction showed that, in negative scenarios, economic framing elicited greater support than neutral framing, whereas in positive scenarios emotional framing produced greater support than economic framing. EEG results showed significant modulation of theta activity during decision-making. Left-hemispheric theta activity was higher for negative scenarios requiring personal financial investment than for general support decisions. Moreover, within financial investment decisions, negative scenarios elicited greater theta activity than positive scenarios. Overall, social valence emerged as the primary driver of prosocial decision-making, while communication framing exerted context-dependent effects. Increased theta activity during financially costly and negatively valenced decisions suggests greater cognitive control and conflict monitoring, suggesting that personal financial involvement increases cognitive demand and influences prosocial choices.