PreprintCited by 25Action Observation and SynchronizationOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Consensus-building conversation leads to neural alignment

Open access
Sievers, Beau, Welker, Christopher, Hasson, Uri, Kleinbaum, Adam M., Wheatley, Thalia·2020

Abstract

Conversation is a primary means of social influence, but its effects on brain activity remain unknown. Previous work on conversation and social influence has emphasized public compliance, largely setting private beliefs aside. Here, we show that consensus-building conversation aligns future brain activity within groups, with alignment persisting through novel experiences participants did not discuss. Participants watched ambiguous movie clips during fMRI scanning, then conversed in groups with the goal of coming to a consensus about each clip’s narrative. After conversation, participants’ brains were scanned while viewing the clips again, along with novel clips from the same movies. Groups that reached consensus showed greater similarity of brain activity after conversation. Participants perceived as having high social status spoke more and signaled disbelief in others, and their groups had unequal turn-taking and lower neural alignment. By contrast, participants with central positions in their real-world social networks encouraged others to speak, facilitating greater group neural alignment. Socially central participants were also more likely to become neurally aligned to others in their groups.

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 · 10.31234/osf.io/562z7

Cites

71 of 71 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?

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: 13

  1. Burt, R. S. . Neighbour Networks: Competitive Advantage Local and Personal: . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  2. M. Tu, A. M. White, & N. Lu (Eds.), Social networking: Recent trends, emerging issues and future outlook: -. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
  3. Chen, G., Taylor, P. A., & Cox, R. W. . Is the Statistic Value All We Should Care about in Neuroimaging? bioRxiv. https://doi.org/ . / . · DOI
  4. Christakis, N. A. . Social networks and collateral health effects. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), ( ): -.
  5. Clark, H. H. . Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Gini, C. . Variabilità e mutabilità. In E. Pizetti & T. Salvemini (Eds.), Memorie di metodologica statistica. Rome: Libreria Eredi Virgilio Veschi.
  7. Holm, S. . Board of the Foundation of the Scandinavian Journal of Statistics A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Source: Scandinavian Journal of Statistics Scand J Statist, ( ): -.
  8. Kirchler, E., & Davis, J. H. . The Influence of Member Status Differences and Task Type on Group Consensus and Member Position Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ( ): -.
  9. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. . Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Landman, B. A., & Warfield, S. K. (Eds.). . MICCAI Workshop on Multi-Atlas Labeling (Volume ). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. https://www.amazon.com/MICCAI- - Workshop-Multi-Atlas-Labeling/dp/ .
  11. Pattie, C., & Johnston, R. . "People who talk together vote together": An exploration of contextual effects in Great Britain. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, ( ): -.
  12. Rehurek, R., & Sojka, P. . So ware Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora. Proceedings of the LREC Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks, -.
  13. Sasovova, Z., Mehra, A., Borgatti, S. P., & Schippers, M. C. . Network Churn: The Monitoring Personality on Brokerage Dynamics. Administrative Science Quarterly, ( ): - .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sievers, B., Welker, C., Hasson, U., Kleinbaum, A. M., & Wheatley, T.
Affiliations
Dartmouth College (US)
Published
2020-07-12
OpenAlex
W3144915775
Cited by
25
References
71
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Dartmouth College
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
neural alignment, social influence, group conversation, social status, turn-taking, social network centrality, personal beliefs, narrative 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