Cited by 197Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Computational substrates of norms and their violations during social exchange

Open access
Xiang, Ting, Lohrenz, Terry, Montague, P. Read·2013·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Social norms in humans constrain individual behaviors to establish shared expectations within a social group. Previous work has probed social norm violations and the feelings that such violations engender; however, a computational rendering of the underlying neural and emotional responses has been lacking. We probed norm violations using a two-party, repeated fairness game (ultimatum game) where proposers offer a split of a monetary resource to a responder who either accepts or rejects the offer. Using a norm-training paradigm where subject groups are preadapted to either high or low offers, we demonstrate that unpredictable shifts in expected offers creates a difference in rejection rates exhibited by the two responder groups for otherwise identical offers. We constructed an ideal observer model that identified neural correlates of norm prediction errors in the ventral striatum and anterior insula, regions that also showed strong responses to variance-prediction errors generated by the same model. Subjective feelings about offers correlated with these norm prediction errors, and the two signals displayed overlapping, but not identical, neural correlates in striatum, insula, and medial orbitofrontal cortex. These results provide evidence for the hypothesis that responses in anterior insula can encode information about social norm violations that correlate with changes in overt behavior (changes in rejection rates). Together, these results demonstrate that the brain regions involved in reward prediction and risk prediction are also recruited in signaling social norm violations.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.1642-12.2013

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Xiang and colleagues showed that subjects used Bayesian rules to update expected feelings given economic outcomes, and that feeling prediction errors (when measured using variance) scaled parametrically with AIC activation.

    “Xiang and colleagues showed that subjects used Bayesian rules to update expected feelings given economic outcomes, and that feeling prediction errors (when measured using variance) scaled parametrically with AIC activation [37].”

    From Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self (2013) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Materials and Methods section (‘Feeling Bayesian observer’; page unavailable) describes a Bayesian model that updates expected feelings using subjects’ emoticon ratings, rather than directly using economic outcomes. The Results section (‘Feeling prediction errors’; page unavailable) reports that bilateral anterior insula activity correlated with feeling variance prediction errors. The citation supports the neural finding, but ‘showed that subjects used Bayesian rules’ overstates what the modeled update establishes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Subjects use Bayesian rules to update their feelings, and feeling variance in prediction errors scales parametrically with AIC activation.

    “In line with the conceptual framework proposed by Singer and colleagues (2009), a recent empirical study shows that subjects use Bayesian rules to update their feelings and that (feeling) variance in prediction errors scale parametrically with AIC activation (Xiang et al., 2013).”

    From Anterior insular cortex and emotional awareness (2013) · cites this paper as Xiang et al., 2013

  • Ventral striatum and medial prefrontal cortex responses to ultimatum game offers correlate with the difference between social expectations and actual outcomes, even when expectations of fairness are altered by repeated experiences.

    “Consistent with the human ventral striatum association with RPE, ventral striatum and medial prefrontal cortex responses to ultimatum game offers correlate with the difference between social expectations and actual outcomes, even when expectations of fairness are altered by repeated experiences 94.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bodner R Prelec D Brocas I Carillo J Self-signaling in a neo-Calvinist model of everyday decision making Psychology of economic decisions 2003 vol. 1 105 126 Oxford UP London UK

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xiang, T., Lohrenz, T., & Montague, P. R.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2013-01-16
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
1099-1108
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2071963478
Cited by
197
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8
FWCI
8.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (091593, 091188)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH085496)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA11723, R01DA011723)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
social norms, norm violation, ultimatum game, fairness, ventral striatum, anterior insula, medial orbitofrontal cortex, ideal observer, rejection behavior, reward prediction, risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Emotions, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Social Behavior

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