ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2017
Neurocultural evidence that ideal affect match promotes giving.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A feature-based network analysis and fMRI meta-analysis reveal three distinct types of prosocial decisions.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2021Pooled it
- How interoceptive sensibility moderates decision-making: an fMRI study of neuroforecasting mobile games engagement.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- The impact of affective congruence on charitable giving.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025Article
- Cultural variation in neural responses to social but not monetary reward outcomes.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2023Article
- Synergistic Opportunities for Affective Science and Behavior Change.Affective science · 2023Article
- Language access differentially alters functional connectivity during emotion perception across cultures.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Article
- The role of right temporoparietal junction in processing social prediction error across relationship contexts.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2021Article
- Why does passion matter more in individualistic cultures?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Asian Americans respond less favorably to excitement (vs. calm)-focused physicians compared to European Americans.Cultural diversity & ethnic minority psychology · 2018Article
- Ideal affect in daily life: implications for affective experience, health, and social behavior.Current opinion in psychology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Why do people give to strangers? We propose that people trust and give more to those whose emotional expressions match how they ideally want to feel ("ideal affect match"). European Americans and Koreans played multiple trials of the Dictator Game with recipients who varied in emotional expression (excited, calm), race (White, Asian) and sex (male, female). Consistent with their culture's valued affect, European Americans trusted and gave more to excited than calm recipients, whereas Koreans trusted and gave more to calm than excited recipients. These findings held regardless of recipient race and sex. We then used fMRI to probe potential affective and mentalizing mechanisms. Increased activity in the nucleus accumbens (associated with reward anticipation) predicted giving, as did decreased activity in the right temporo-parietal junction (rTPJ; associated with reduced belief prediction error). Ideal affect match decreased rTPJ activity, suggesting that people may trust and give more to strangers whom they perceive to share their affective values.
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.