ArticleScientific reports2021
Dynamic modulation of social influence by indirect reciprocity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive yet suboptimal integration of advice in decision-making.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- The impact of phrasing on advice-taking under gain and loss frames in a reinforcement learning paradigm.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Towards a neurocomputational account of social controllability: From models to mental health.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2023Review
- Perception is Only Real When Shared: A Mathematical Model for Collaborative Shared Perception in Human-Robot Interaction.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2022Article
- The role of reciprocity in human-robot social influence.iScience · 2021Article
- I'm not a little kid anymore! Reciprocal social influence in child-adult interaction.Royal Society open science · 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
Indirect reciprocity is a pervasive social norm that promotes human cooperation. Helping someone establishes a good reputation, increasing the probability of receiving help from others. Here we hypothesize that indirect reciprocity regulates not only cooperative behavior but also the exchange of opinions within a social group. In a novel interactive perceptual task (Experiment 1), we show that participants relied more on the judgments of an alleged human partner when a second alleged peer had been endorsing participants' opinions. By doing so, participants did not take into account the reliability of their partners' judgments and did not maximize behavioral accuracy and monetary reward. This effect declined when participants did not expect future interactions with their partners, suggesting the emergence of downstream mechanisms of reciprocity linked to the management of reputation. Importantly, all these effects disappeared when participants knew that the partners' responses were computer-generated (Experiment 2). Our results suggest that, within a social group, individuals may weight others' opinions through indirect reciprocity, highlighting the emergence of normative distortions in the process of information transmission among humans.
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.