Possibly relevant; "The Price of Your Soul: Neural Evidence for the Non-Utilitarian Representation of Sacred Values ":

Deontological theory suggests that sacred values are processed based on rights and wrongs irrespective of outcomes, while utilitarian theory suggests they are processed based on costs and benefits of potential outcomes, but which mode of processing an individual naturally uses is unknown. The study of decisions over sacred values is difficult because outcomes cannot typically be realized in a laboratory, and hence little is known about the neural representation and processing of sacred values. We utilized an experimental paradigm that used integrity as a proxy for sacredness and which paid real money to induce individuals to sell their personal values. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we found that values that people refused to sell (sacred values) were associated with increased activity in the left temporoparietal junction and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, regions previously associated with semantic rule retrieval. This suggests that sacred values affect behavior through the retrieval and processing of deontic rules and not through a utilitarian evaluation of costs and benefits.

Apparently there was a LessWronger involved:

Using the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) auction mechanism, participants were instructed to specify an “ask” price for each of the statements they chose in the active phase (32). The price could range from $1 to $100. The BDM auction is generally accepted be an incentive-compatible mechanism to reveal an individual’s willingness to pay for something. Here, we use it as a willingness to accept. Submitting an ask price of $1, for example, means that the individual is willing to accept any amount of money and is assured of receiving some amount, which, on average, would be $50. ...As noted above, signing a document does not bind one to the action that one is signing. It is therefore somewhat surprising that most people didn’t sell all of their choices. The fact that participants took money for some items and not others suggests that they were adequately motivated to express their preferences through their choices....One participant was excluded from the analysis because the participant submitted bids of $1 for all items, and thus no contrasts could be formed.