↓ Skip to main content

Social modulation of decision-making: a cross-species review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Social modulation of decision-making: a cross-species review
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00301
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruud van den Bos, Jolle W. Jolles, Judith R. Homberg

Abstract

Taking decisions plays a pivotal role in daily life and comprises a complex process of assessing and weighing short-term and long-term costs and benefits of competing actions. Decision-making has been shown to be affected by factors such as sex, age, genotype, and personality. Importantly, also the social environment affects decisions, both via social interactions (e.g., social learning, cooperation and competition) and social stress effects. Although everyone is aware of this social modulating role on daily life decisions, this has thus far only scarcely been investigated in human and animal studies. Furthermore, neuroscientific studies rarely discuss social influence on decision-making from a functional perspective such as done in behavioral ecology studies. Therefore, the first aim of this article is to review the available data of the influence of the social context on decision-making both from a causal and functional perspective, drawing on animal and human studies. Also, there is currently still a gap between decision-making in real life where influences of the social environment are extensive, and decision-making as measured in the laboratory, which is often done without any (deliberate) social influences. However, methods are being developed to bridge this gap. Therefore, the second aim of this review is to discuss these methods and ways in which this gap can be increasingly narrowed. We end this review by formulating future research questions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 198 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 24%
Student > Master 29 13%
Researcher 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 8%
Other 42 20%
Unknown 27 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 28%
Psychology 50 23%
Neuroscience 23 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 31 14%
Unknown 36 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2014.
All research outputs
#2,532,569
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,258
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,753
of 280,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#217
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.