Neural components of social evaluation.
Abstract
Evaluative responses appear to involve 2 seemingly distinct sets of processes: those that are automatically activated and others that are more consciously controlled. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, the authors investigated the brain systems associated with automatic and controlled evaluative processing. Participants made either evaluative (good-bad) or nonevaluative (past-present) judgments about famous names. Greater amygdala activity was observed for names rated as "bad" relative to those rated as "good," regardless of whether the task directly involved an evaluative judgment (good-bad) or not (past-present). Good-bad judgments resulted in greater medial and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity than past-present judgments. Furthermore, there was greater ventrolateral PFC activity in good-bad judgments marked by greater ambivalence. Together, these findings indicate a neural distinction between processes engaged for automatic and controlled evaluation. Whereas automatic processes are sensitive to simple valence, controlled processes are sensitive to attitudinal complexity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The observation of social stimuli in general (e.g., smiling faces) increases activity in medial prefrontal cortex and striatum in cases where the social stimuli have a high value.
“The observation of social stimuli in general (e.g., smiling faces) increases activity in medial prefrontal cortex 33, 34 and striatum in cases where the social stimuli have a high value (e.g., participants will exert effort or pay to view an attractive face) 35–38.”
From The social brain and reward: Social information processing in the human striatum (2014) · cites this paper as [34]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 84 · Cited by 219
- Authors
- Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 639-649
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2168195534
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 84
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 6.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH62196, MH-75672, P50MH062196)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- social evaluation, automatic processing, controlled processing, amygdala, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, ambivalence, valence, evaluative judgments, famous names
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Amygdala, Brain, Cues, Hemodynamics, Humans, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Reaction Time, Social Perception
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