Cited by 224Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Social Manipulation of Preference in the Human Brain

Open access
Izuma, Keise, Adolphs, Ralph·2013·Neuron

Abstract

Our preferences are influenced by what other people like, but depend critically on how we feel about those people, a classical psychological effect called "cognitive balance." Here, we manipulated preferences for goods by telling participants the preferences of strongly liked or disliked groups of other people. Participants' preferences converged to those of the liked group, but diverged from the disliked group. Activation of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) tracked the discrepancy between one's own preference and its social ideal and was associated with subsequent preference change (toward the liked and away from the disliked group), even several months later. A follow-up study found overlapping activation in this same region of dmPFC with negative monetary outcomes, but no overlap with nearby activations induced by response conflict. A single social encounter can thus result in long-lasting preference change, a mechanism that recruits dmPFC and that may reflect the aversive nature of cognitive imbalance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.03.023

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In general, striatum activity is greater when we see that the popular opinion agrees rather than disagrees with our own evaluation of an object, and is related to our current evaluation of an object after we have seen the popular opinion.

    “In general, striatum activity is greater when we see that the popular opinion agrees rather than disagrees with our own evaluation of an object 44, 45, and is related to our current evaluation of an object after we have seen the popular opinion 46, 47.”
  • Ventral striatum activity increased when other people with good reputations agreed with a participant's evaluation, but other brain regions, including medial prefrontal cortex, predicted changes to participants' opinions rather than ventral striatum.

    “That is, ventral striatum activity increased when other people with good reputations agreed with a participants’ evaluation, but other brain regions, including medial prefrontal cortex, predicted changes to participants’ opinions rather than ventral striatum 45.”
  • Other research shows that ventral striatum activity while viewing other people's evaluations is not necessarily related to social conformity, or even related to independence from conformity.

    “Other research shows, however, that ventral striatum activity while viewing other people's evaluations is not necessarily related to social conformity 45, or even related to independence from conformity49.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Izuma, K., & Adolphs, R.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Izuma, Keise
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-05
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
563-573
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1971597000
Cited by
224
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • Tamagawa University
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
cognitive balance, preference change, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, conformity, social ideals, monetary outcomes, response conflict
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Conflict, Psychological, Emotions, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Interpersonal Relations, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Prefrontal Cortex, Behavior Control, Functional Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review