For the active stimulation, which are anodal and cathodal tDCS, a constant current of 1 mA was delivered through 35 cm2 electrode for 20 minutes with fade-in and fade-out of 10 seconds, producing a current density of 0.029 mA/cm2. During anodal tDCS, the anode was placed over right temporoparietal junction, and the cathode was placed over left supraorbital area.

For the active stimulation, which are anodal and cathodal tDCS, a constant current of 1 mA was delivered through 35 cm2 electrode for 20 minutes with fade-in and fade-out of 10 seconds, producing a current density of 0.029 mA/cm2. During cathodal tDCS, the cathode was placed over right temporoparietal junction, and the anode was placed over left supraorbital area.

same fade-in, fade-out, and current density were applied for the sham stimulation, but the duration of current-delivering only last 35 seconds.

In the present study, we applied DC Brain Stimulator Plus to stimulate right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ). The target electrode was placed over the location of rTPJ; on the other hand, the return electrode was placed over the left supraorbital area. That is, during anodal tDCS, the anode was placed over CP6, and the cathode was placed over left supraorbital area; conversely, during cathodal tDCS, the cathode was placed over CP6, and the anode was placed over left supraorbital area. For the active stimulation, which are anodal and cathodal tDCS, a constant current of 1 mA was delivered through 35 cm2 electrode for 20 minutes with fade-in and fade-out of 10 seconds, producing a current density of 0.029 mA/cm2. On the other hand, same fade-in, fade-out, and current density were applied for the sham stimulation, but the duration of current-delivering only last 35 seconds. Therefore, participants could feel the skin sensation but did not have the after-effects of tDCS.

Justice Sensitivity Inventory (JSI) is a self-report questionnaire which consists of four perspectives of justice sensitivity: victim, observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010; Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005). Each perspective contains ten descriptions, and participants would answer on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (exactly). Justice sensitivity reflects how people react to injustice and can be used to predict justice-related emotion and behavior (Baumert, Rothmund, Thomas, Gollwitzer, & Schmitt, 2013).

Implicit moral attitude was assessed by morality implicit association test (mIAT) in present study. The test was adapted from Implicit Association Test (IAT) developed by Greenwald and colleagues (1998). It measures the strength of the association 10 between target concepts and their associated attributes. In mIAT, target concepts were presented by morally good and morally bad clips, and attributes were presented by positive and negative words.

To verify the modulation of rTPJ activity via tDCS and to examine whether this modulation would alter people's moral behavior, participants would take the perspective of the active role while viewing moral scenarios in the MRI scanner.

Forty-five dynamic visual stimuli from previous research were validated and applied in the Moral Action Task. Each animation consists of three still images with the respective duration of 1000ms, 200ms, and 200ms. These animations contain three kinds of moral scenarios: (1) a person who is taking an action to physically harm one another (perpetrating behavior); (2) a person who is alleviating the physical pain which the other one is suffered (helping behavior); and (3) a person who is carrying out an action that irrelevant to the other one (neural behavior). Additionally, the protagonists in these scenarios were all acting without the presence of faces, and therefore the participants would have no emotional clues for these social interactions.

Outside the MRI scanner, participants carried out the Moral Action Task again. They were instructed to imagine themselves as the actor in the animation and pressed the button just like they really did the moral actions. Moreover, they were asked how much guilt or warm-glow after doing the action. The ratings were on a visual analog scale ranging from 1 to 7 points (Yoder & Decety, 2014).