Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27330183›Full record

Trial reportSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2016

The mere presence of an outgroup member disrupts the brain's feedback-monitoring system.

Nicholas M Hobson, Michael Inzlicht

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicholas M HobsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto nick.hobson@utoronto.ca.
Michael InzlichtDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto.
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much of human learning happens in the social world. A person's social identity-the groups to which they belong, the people with whom they identify-is a powerful cue that can affect our goal-directed behaviors, often implicitly. In the present experiment, we explored the underlying neural mechanisms driving these processes, testing hypotheses derived from social identity theory. In a within-subjects design, participants underwent a minimal group manipulation where they were randomly assigned to an arbitrary ingroup. In two blocks of the experiment, participants were asked to complete a task for money while being observed by an ingroup member and outgroup member separately. Results revealed that being observed by an ingroup or outgroup member led to divergent patterns of neural activity associated with feedback monitoring, namely the feedback-related negativity (FRN). Receiving feedback in the presence of an ingroup member produced a typical FRN signal, but the FRN was dampened while receiving feedback in the presence of an outgroup member. Further, this differentiated neural pattern was exaggerated in people who reported greater intergroup bias. Together, the mere presence of a person can alter how the brain adaptively monitors feedback, impairing the reinforcement learning signal when the person observing is an outgroup member.

Indexed as

Social EnvironmentSocial IdentificationSocial SkillsAdolescentArousalAttentionBiofeedback, PsychologyBrainContingent Negative VariationFemaleGyrus CinguliHumansMaleMotivationPrejudiceReinforcement, Socialfeedback-related negativityintergroup biasreward-monitoringsocial identity

Identifiers

PMID27330183
PMCPMC5091674
OpenAlexW2461099672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.