Cited by 45Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex Mediates Rapid Evaluations Predicting the Outcome of Romantic Interactions

Open access
Cooper, Jeffrey C., Dunne, Simon, Furey, Teresa, O'Doherty, John P.·2012·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Humans frequently make real-world decisions based on rapid evaluations of minimal information; for example, should we talk to an attractive stranger at a party? Little is known, however, about how the brain makes rapid evaluations with real and immediate social consequences. To address this question, we scanned participants with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while they viewed photos of individuals that they subsequently met at real-life “speed-dating” events. Neural activity in two areas of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), paracingulate cortex, and rostromedial prefrontal cortex (RMPFC) was predictive of whether each individual would be ultimately pursued for a romantic relationship or rejected. Activity in these areas was attributable to two distinct components of romantic evaluation: either consensus judgments about physical beauty (paracingulate cortex) or individualized preferences based on a partner's perceived personality (RMPFC). These data identify novel computational roles for these regions of the DMPFC in even very rapid social evaluations. Even a first glance, then, can accurately predict romantic desire, but that glance involves a mix of physical and psychological judgments that depend on specific regions of DMPFC.

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.2558-12.2012

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • Most human relationships undergo similar progressions: attraction, decision to pursue a relationship, bond formation, and maintenance.

    “Although no two relationships are alike, most undergo similar progressions. When people are still strangers, a relationship begins with attraction followed, in time, by a decision to pursue a relationship with an individual [72,73].”

    From The Neurobiology of Love and Pair Bonding from Human and Animal Perspectives (2023) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Introduction and Behavioral Results describe a sequence in this speed-dating study: participants rated potential partners’ attractiveness before meeting them, and those ratings predicted later decisions to pursue them. The paper does not establish that most human relationships follow this progression, nor does it examine bond formation or maintenance. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In an fMRI task where participants were shown photos of opposite-sex individuals, activity in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex predicted whether the participant was romantically interested in the person from the photo upon meeting them at a later real-life speed dating event.

    “In an fMRI task where participants were shown photos of opposite-sex individuals, activity in the dorsomedial PFC (dmPFC) predicted whether the participant was romantically interested in the person from the photo upon meeting them at a later real-life “speed dating” event [73].”

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 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., & O'Doherty, J. P.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Jeffrey C.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-11-07
Volume
32
Issue
45
Pages
15647-15656
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1988106779
Cited by
45
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.64
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)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • Wellcome Trust (087388)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, paracingulate cortex, romantic attraction, social evaluation, speed dating, physical attractiveness, perceived personality, romantic pursuit, first impressions
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Courtship, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Personality, Social Perception, Prefrontal Cortex

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