ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2016
Performance monitoring during a minimal group manipulation.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interplay of self-other distinction and cognitive control mechanisms in a social automatic imitation task: An ERP study.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The on-going (self-)monitoring of our behaviour is inextricably intertwined with the surrounding social context. In this study, we investigated whether a minimal group paradigm assigning individuals to arbitrary group categories is powerful enough to induce changes in behavioural, psychophysiological and event-related potential correlates of performance monitoring. Following arbitrary group assignment based on ostensible task performance and a group identification task, 22 volunteers performed a flanker-task during both in-group and out-group contexts, while electroencephalography was performed. More errors were committed in the out-group compared with the in-group context. Error-related negativity amplitudes were larger for in-group compared with out-group errors. However, subsequent processing reflected in late Pe amplitudes and stimulus-driven conflict reflected in N2 amplitudes were not affected by the group context. Heart rate deceleration (during both correct and incorrect trials) tended to be more pronounced during the out-group compared with the in-group context. This surprising observation was corroborated by subjective ratings of performance satisfaction, in which participants reported higher satisfaction with their out-group performance. This study identified specific stimulus evaluation processes to be affected by a minimal group manipulation and demonstrated thereby transient top-down effects of a social context manipulation on performance monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.