scholarly journals Social framing effects in decision making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Payam Piray ◽  
Roshan Cools ◽  
Ivan Toni

Human decisions are known to be strongly influenced by the manner in which options are presented, the "framing effect". Here, we ask whether decision-makers are also influenced by how advice from other knowledgeable agents are framed, a "social framing effect". Concretely, do students learn better from a teacher who often frames advice by emphasizing appetitive outcomes, or do they learn better from another teacher who usually emphasizes avoiding options that can be harmful to their progress? We study the computational and neural mechanisms by which framing of advice affect decision-making, social learning, and trust. We found that human participants are more likely to trust and follow an adviser who often uses an appetitive frame for advice compared with another one who often uses an aversive frame. This social framing effect is implemented through a modulation of the integrative abilities of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. At the time of choice, this region combines information learned via personal experiences of reward with social information, but the combination differs depending on the social framing of advice. Personally-acquired information is weighted more strongly when dealing with an adviser who uses an aversive frame. The findings suggest that social advice is systematically incorporated into our decisions, while being affected by biases similar to those influencing individual value-based learning.

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amitai Shenhav ◽  
Mark A. Straccia ◽  
Jonathan D. Cohen ◽  
Matthew M. Botvinick

AbstractDecision-making is typically studied as a sequential process from the selection of what to attend (e.g., between possible tasks, stimuli, or stimulus attributes) to the selection of which actions to take based on the attended information. However, people often gather information across these levels in parallel. For instance, even as they choose their actions, they may continue to evaluate how much to attend other tasks or dimensions of information within a task. We scanned participants while they made such parallel evaluations, simultaneously weighing how much to attend two dynamic stimulus attributes and which response to give based on the attended information. Regions of prefrontal cortex tracked information about the stimulus attributes in dissociable ways, related to either the predicted reward (ventromedial prefrontal cortex) or the degree to which that attribute was being attended (dorsal anterior cingulate, dACC). Within dACC, adjacent regions tracked uncertainty at different levels of the decision, regarding what to attend versus how to respond. These findings bridge research on perceptual and value-based decision-making, demonstrating that people dynamically integrate information in parallel across different levels of decision making.Naturalistic decisions allow an individual to weigh their options within a particular task (e.g., how best to word the introduction to a paper) while also weighing how much to attend other tasks (e.g., responding to e-mails). These different types of decision-making have a hierarchical but reciprocal relationship: Decisions at higher levels inform the focus of attention at lower levels (e.g., whether to select between citations or email addresses) while, at the same time, information at lower levels (e.g., the salience of an incoming email) informs decisions regarding which task to attend. Critically, recent studies suggest that decisions across these levels may occur in parallel, continuously informed by information that is integrated from the environment and from one’s internal milieu1,2.Research on cognitive control and perceptual decision-making has examined how responses are selected when attentional targets are clearly defined (e.g., based on instruction to attend a stimulus dimension), including cases in which responding requires accumulating information regarding a noisy percept (e.g., evidence favoring a left or right response)3-7. Separate research on value-based decision-making has examined how individuals select which stimulus dimension(s) to attend in order to maximize their expected rewards8-11. However, it remains unclear how the accumulation of evidence to select high-level goals and/or attentional targets interacts with the simultaneous accumulation of evidence to select responses according to those goals (e.g., based on the perceptual properties of the stimuli). Recent work has highlighted the importance of such interactions to understanding task selection12-15, multi-attribute decision-making16-18, foraging behavior19-21, cognitive effort22,23, and self-control24-27.While these interactions remain poorly understood, previous research has identified candidate neural mechanisms associated with multi-attribute value-based decision-making11,28,29 and with selecting a response based on noisy information from an instructed attentional target3–5. These research areas have implicated the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) in tracking the value of potential targets of attention (e.g., stimulus attributes)8,11 and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) in tracking an individual’s uncertainty regarding which response to select30–32. It has been further proposed that dACC may differentiate between uncertainty at each of these parallel levels of decision-making (e.g., at the level of task goals or strategies vs. specific motor actions), and that these may be separately encoded at different locations along the dACC’s rostrocaudal axis32,33. However, neural activity within and across these prefrontal regions has not yet been examined in a setting in which information is weighed at both levels within and across trials.Here we use a value-based perceptual decision-making task to examine how people integrate different dynamic sources of information to decide (a) which perceptual attribute to attend and (b) how to respond based on the evidence for that attribute. Participants performed a task in which they regularly faced a conflict between attending the stimulus attribute that offered the greater reward or the attribute that was more perceptually salient (akin to persevering in writing one’s paper when an enticing email awaits). We demonstrate that dACC and vmPFC track evidence for the two attributes in dissociable ways. Across these regions, vmPFC weighs attribute evidence by the reward it predicts and dACC weighs it by its attentional priority (i.e., the degree to which that attribute drives choice). Within dACC, adjacent regions differentiated between uncertainty at the two levels of the decision, regarding what to attend (rostral dACC) versus how to respond (caudal dACC).


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Victor Smith ◽  
Mauricio Delgado

Our behavior is inextricably linked to rewards in our environment. This observation has sparked considerable interest in understanding the neural mechanisms that support reward processing in humans. Early neuroimaging studies implicated regions such as the striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) in reward processing, particularly how activation in these regions is modulated by anticipation and receipt of rewards. These findings have been extended in the context of models that account for the representation of subjective value, which influences decision making. Building from these findings, researchers are now beginning to characterize how social information has idiosyncratic influences on reward processing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca F. Kaiser ◽  
Theo O. J. Gruendler ◽  
Oliver Speck ◽  
Lennart Luettgau ◽  
Gerhard Jocham

AbstractIn a dynamic world, it is essential to decide when to leave an exploited resource. Such patch-leaving decisions involve balancing the cost of moving against the gain expected from the alternative patch. This contrasts with value-guided decisions that typically involve maximizing reward by selecting the current best option. Patterns of neuronal activity pertaining to patch-leaving decisions have been reported in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), whereas competition via mutual inhibition in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) is thought to underlie value-guided choice. Here, we show that the balance between cortical excitation and inhibition (E/I balance), measured by the ratio of GABA and glutamate concentrations, plays a dissociable role for the two kinds of decisions. Patch-leaving decision behaviour relates to E/I balance in dACC. In contrast, value-guided decision-making relates to E/I balance in vmPFC. These results support mechanistic accounts of value-guided choice and provide evidence for a role of dACC E/I balance in patch-leaving decisions.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 4277-4290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick S Hogan ◽  
Joseph K Galaro ◽  
Vikram S Chib

Abstract The perceived effort level of an action shapes everyday decisions. Despite the importance of these perceptions for decision-making, the behavioral and neural representations of the subjective cost of effort are not well understood. While a number of studies have implicated anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) in decisions about effort/reward trade-offs, none have experimentally isolated effort valuation from reward and choice difficulty, a function that is commonly ascribed to this region. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to monitor brain activity while human participants engaged in uncertain choices for prospective physical effort. Our task was designed to examine effort-based decision-making in the absence of reward and separated from choice difficulty—allowing us to investigate the brain’s role in effort valuation, independent of these other factors. Participants exhibited subjectivity in their decision-making, displaying increased sensitivity to changes in subjective effort as objective effort levels increased. Analysis of blood-oxygenation-level dependent activity revealed that the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) encoded the subjective valuation of prospective effort, and ACC activity was best described by choice difficulty. These results provide insight into the processes responsible for decision-making regarding effort, partly dissociating the roles of vmPFC and ACC in prospective valuation of effort and choice difficulty.


2021 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy M. Belfi

Abstract The music and social bonding (MSB) hypothesis suggests that damage to brain regions in the proposed neurobiological model, including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), would disrupt the social and emotional effects of music. This commentary evaluates prior research in persons with vmPFC damage in light of the predictions put forth by the MSB hypothesis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruolei Gu ◽  
Jie Liu ◽  
Fang Cui

This paper focuses on the social function of painful experience as revealed by recent studies on social decision-making. Observing others suffering from physical pain evokes empathic reactions that can lead to prosocial behavior (e.g., helping others at a cost to oneself), which might be regarded as the social value of pain derived from evolution. Feelings of guilt may also be elicited when one takes responsibility for another’s pain. These social emotions play a significant role in various cognitive processes and may affect behavioral preferences. In addition, the influence of others’ pain on decision-making is highly sensitive to social context. Combining neuroimaging techniques with a novel decision paradigm, we found that when asking participants to trade-off personal benefits against providing help to other people, verbally describing the causal relationship between their decision and other people’s pain (i.e., framing) significantly changed participants’ preferences. This social framing effect was associated with neural activation in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), which is a brain area that is important in social cognition and in social emotions. Further, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on this region successfully modulated the magnitude of the social framing effect. These findings add to the knowledge about the role of perception of others’ pain in our social life.


Brain ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 131 (5) ◽  
pp. 1311-1322 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Clark ◽  
A. Bechara ◽  
H. Damasio ◽  
M. R. F. Aitken ◽  
B. J. Sahakian ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document