↓ Skip to main content

Who Deserves My Trust? Cue-Elicited Feedback Negativity Tracks Reputation Learning in Repeated Social Interactions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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
Who Deserves My Trust? Cue-Elicited Feedback Negativity Tracks Reputation Learning in Repeated Social Interactions
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00307
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diandian Li, Liang Meng, Qingguo Ma

Abstract

Trust and trustworthiness contribute to reciprocal behavior and social relationship development. To make better decisions, people need to evaluate others' trustworthiness. They often assess this kind of reputation by learning through repeated social interactions. The present event-related potential (ERP) study explored the reputation learning process in a repeated trust game where subjects made multi-round decisions of investment to different partners. We found that subjects gradually learned to discriminate trustworthy partners from untrustworthy ones based on how often their partners reciprocated the investment, which was indicated by their own investment decisions. Besides, electrophysiological data showed that the faces of the untrustworthy partners induced larger feedback negativity (FN) amplitude than those of the trustworthy partners, but only in the late phase of the game. The ERP results corresponded with the behavioral pattern and revealed that the learned trustworthiness differentiation was coded by the cue-elicited FN component. Consistent with previous research, our findings suggest that the anterior cue-elicited FN reflects the reputation appraisal and tracks the reputation learning process in social interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 24%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 12%
Neuroscience 4 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,429,992
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,556
of 7,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,937
of 317,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#171
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.