↓ Skip to main content

Social Learning as a Way to Overcome Choice-Induced Preferences? Insights from Humans and Rhesus Macaques

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Social Learning as a Way to Overcome Choice-Induced Preferences? Insights from Humans and Rhesus Macaques
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2012.00127
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabetta Monfardini, Valérie Gaveau, Driss Boussaoud, Fadila Hadj-Bouziane, Martine Meunier

Abstract

Much theoretical attention is currently devoted to social learning. Yet, empirical studies formally comparing its effectiveness relative to individual learning are rare. Here, we focus on free choice, which is at the heart of individual reward-based learning, but absent in social learning. Choosing among two equally valued options is known to create a preference for the selected option in both humans and monkeys. We thus surmised that social learning should be more helpful when choice-induced preferences retard individual learning than when they optimize it. To test this prediction, the same task requiring to find which among two items concealed a reward was applied to rhesus macaques and humans. The initial trial was individual or social, rewarded or unrewarded. Learning was assessed on the second trial. Choice-induced preference strongly affected individual learning. Monkeys and humans performed much more poorly after an initial negative choice than after an initial positive choice. Comparison with social learning verified our prediction. For negative outcome, social learning surpassed or at least equaled individual learning in all subjects. For positive outcome, the predicted superiority of individual learning did occur in a majority of subjects (5/6 monkeys and 6/12 humans). A minority kept learning better socially though, perhaps due to a more dominant/aggressive attitude toward peers. Poor learning from errors due to over-valuation of personal choices is among the decision-making biases shared by humans and animals. The present study suggests that choice-immune social learning may help curbing this potentially harmful tendency. Learning from successes is an easier path. The present data suggest that whether one tends to walk it alone or with a peer's help might depend on the social dynamics within the actor/observer dyad.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 2 2%
France 2 2%
Italy 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Japan 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 73 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 25%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 25%
Neuroscience 19 23%
Psychology 15 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 11 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,409,600
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#2,696
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,652
of 250,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#29
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 250,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.