ArticleNPJ science of learning2024
Disentangling the contribution of individual and social learning processes in human advice-taking behavior.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic value learning results in counterproductive human behavior.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Adaptive yet suboptimal integration of advice in decision-making.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Experience and advice consequences shape information sharing strategies.Communications psychology · 2024Article
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
The study of social learning examines how individuals learn from others by means of observation, imitation, or compliance with advice. However, it still remains largely unknown whether social learning processes have a distinct contribution to behavior, independent from non-social trial-and-error learning that often occurs simultaneously. 153 participants completed a reinforcement learning task, where they were asked to make choices to gain rewards. Advice from an artificial teacher was presented in 60% of the trials, allowing us to compare choice behavior with and without advice. Results showed a strong and reliable tendency to follow advice (test-retest reliability ~0.73). Computational modeling suggested a unique contribution of three distinct learning strategies: (a) individual learning (i.e., learning the value of actions, independent of advice), (b) informed advice-taking (i.e., learning the value of following advice), and (c) non-informed advice-taking (i.e., a constant bias to follow advice regardless of outcome history). Comparing artificial and empirical data provided specific behavioral regression signatures to both informed and non-informed advice taking processes. We discuss the theoretical implications of integrating internal and external information during the learning process.
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.