ArticleCognition2021
How peer influence shapes value computation in moral decision-making.
Article in Cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mindfulness training reduces slippery slope effects in moral decision-making and moral judgment.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Moral and perceptual conflict processing are implemented by distinct brain activation and functional connectivity patterns.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Why moral judgements change across variations of trolley-like problems.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Social learning dynamically shapes moral decision-making by biasing subjective valuation.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Affective valence as a computational signal for learning value.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Moral conformity: Neurocognitive mechanisms of social influence in dyadic harmful decisions.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Hypocritical blame is associated with reduced prosocial motivation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Role of Real-Time Engagement in Shaping Social Media Check-In Behavior: Moderating Effects of Trust and Peer Influence.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Self-other generalisation shapes social interaction and is disrupted in borderline personality disorder.eLife · 2025Article
- Facilitators and Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccination in Vietnamese Americans in Texas: A Survey.Research square · 2025Article
- Social learning preserves both useful and useless theories by canalizing learners' exploration.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Unraveling the neural basis of repeated moral decisions with mouse tracking and fMRI.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Moral trade-offs reveal foundational representations that predict unique variance in political attitudes.The British journal of social psychology · 2025Article
- On the Perception of Moral Standing to Blame.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Article
- Modulating social learning-induced evaluation updating during human sleep.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
- Transmission of social bias through observational learning.Science advances · 2024Article
- Gratitude Is Morally Sensitive.Personality & social psychology bulletin · 2024Article
- The politics of vaccination: a closer look at the beliefs, social norms, and prevention behaviors related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake within two US political parties.Psychology, health & medicine · 2024Article
- Can monetary incentives overturn fairness-based decisions?Royal Society open science · 2023Article
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
Abstract
Moral behavior is susceptible to peer influence. How does information from peers influence moral preferences? We used drift-diffusion modeling to show that peer influence changes the value of moral behavior by prioritizing the choice attributes that align with peers' goals. Study 1 (N = 100; preregistered) showed that participants accurately inferred the goals of prosocial and antisocial peers when observing their moral decisions. In Study 2 (N = 68), participants made moral decisions before and after observing the decisions of a prosocial or antisocial peer. Peer observation caused participants' own preferences to resemble those of their peers. This peer influence effect on value computation manifested as an increased weight on choice attributes promoting the peers' goals that occurred independently from peer influence on initial choice bias. Participants' self-reported awareness of influence tracked more closely with computational measures of prosocial than antisocial influence. Our findings have implications for bolstering and blocking the effects of prosocial and antisocial influence on moral behavior.
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.