Cited by 184Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Dopaminergic Genes Predict Individual Differences in Susceptibility to Confirmation Bias

Open access
Doll, Bradley B., Hutchison, Kent E., Frank, Michael J.·2011·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The striatum is critical for the incremental learning of values associated with behavioral actions. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) represents abstract rules and explicit contingencies to support rapid behavioral adaptation in the absence of cumulative experience. Here we test two alternative models of the interaction between these systems, and individual differences thereof, when human subjects are instructed with prior information about reward contingencies that may or may not be accurate. Behaviorally, subjects are overly influenced by prior instructions, at the expense of learning true reinforcement statistics. Computational analysis found that this pattern of data is best accounted for by a confirmation bias mechanism in which prior beliefs—putatively represented in PFC—influence the learning that occurs in the striatum such that reinforcement statistics are distorted. We assessed genetic variants affecting prefrontal and striatal dopaminergic neurotransmission. A polymorphism in the COMT gene (rs4680), associated with prefrontal dopaminergic function, was predictive of the degree to which participants persisted in responding in accordance with prior instructions even as evidence against their veracity accumulated. Polymorphisms in genes associated with striatal dopamine function (DARPP-32, rs907094, and DRD2, rs6277) were predictive of learning from positive and negative outcomes. Notably, these same variants were predictive of the degree to which such learning was overly inflated or neglected when outcomes are consistent or inconsistent with prior instructions. These findings indicate dissociable neurocomputational and genetic mechanisms by which initial biases are strengthened by experience.

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.6486-10.2011

Cites

78 of 78 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?

  • Expectations could influence the impact of prediction errors by modulating learning rates, boosting learning for adjustments aligned with expected outcomes and reducing learning when outcomes deviate from expectations.

    “Second, expectations could influence the impact of prediction errors by modulating learning rates, boosting learning for adjustments aligned with expected outcomes and reducing learning when the outcomes deviate from expectations (12, 48).”

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. Burnham KP Anderson DR 2002 Model selection and multimodal inference New York Springer

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doll, B. B., Hutchison, K. E., & Frank, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2011-04-20
Volume
31
Issue
16
Pages
6188-6198
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2027916800
Cited by
184
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 17
FWCI
7.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh080066-10, R01MH080066, R01 MH080066-01)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH080066, R01MH080066-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
confirmation bias, dopamine signaling, individual differences, COMT gene, COMT Val158Met polymorphism, DARPP-32, DRD2, striatum, prefrontal cortex, reinforcement learning, prior beliefs, reward contingency, genetic polymorphism, computational models of learning
MeSH terms
Adult, Catechol O-Methyltransferase, Cognition, Corpus Striatum, Dopamine, Female, Genotype, Humans, Individuality, Learning, Male, Models, Psychological, Neuropsychological Tests, Polymorphism, Genetic, Prefrontal Cortex, Dopamine and cAMP-Regulated Phosphoprotein 32

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