↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Direct Social Experience on Trust Decisions and Neural Reward Circuitry

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Direct Social Experience on Trust Decisions and Neural Reward Circuitry
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00148
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominic S. Fareri, Luke J. Chang, Mauricio R. Delgado

Abstract

The human striatum is integral for reward-processing and supports learning by linking experienced outcomes with prior expectations. Recent endeavors implicate the striatum in processing outcomes of social interactions, such as social approval/rejection, as well as in learning reputations of others. Interestingly, social impressions often influence our behavior with others during interactions. Information about an interaction partner's moral character acquired from biographical information hinders updating of expectations after interactions via top down modulation of reward circuitry. An outstanding question is whether initial impressions formed through experience similarly modulate the ability to update social impressions at the behavioral and neural level. We investigated the role of experienced social information on trust behavior and reward-related BOLD activity. Participants played a computerized ball-tossing game with three fictional partners manipulated to be perceived as good, bad, or neutral. Participants then played an iterated trust game as investors with these same partners while undergoing fMRI. Unbeknownst to participants, partner behavior in the trust game was random and unrelated to their ball-tossing behavior. Participants' trust decisions were influenced by their prior experience in the ball-tossing game, investing less often with the bad partner compared to the good and neutral. Reinforcement learning models revealed that participants were more sensitive to updating their beliefs about good and bad partners when experiencing outcomes consistent with initial experience. Increased striatal and anterior cingulate BOLD activity for positive versus negative trust game outcomes emerged, which further correlated with model-derived prediction error learning signals. These results suggest that initial impressions formed from direct social experience can be continually shaped by consistent information through reward learning mechanisms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
United States 3 1%
Netherlands 3 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 221 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 69 29%
Researcher 41 17%
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 32 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 96 40%
Neuroscience 26 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 3%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 50 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2014.
All research outputs
#5,378,711
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,058
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,926
of 250,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#49
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 250,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.