Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38412967›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024

The roots of polarization in the individual reward system.

Germain Lefebvre, Ophélia Deroy, Bahador Bahrami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evolving choice hysteresis in reinforcement learning: Comparing the adaptive value of positivity bias and gradual perseveration.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The roots of polarization in the individual reward system.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Germain LefebvreCrowd Cognition Group, Ludwig Maximilian Unversität, Gabelsbergerstr 62, Munich 80333, Bavaria, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3580-8424
Ophélia DeroyPhilosophy, LMU, Geschwister Scholl Platz 1, Munich 80539, Bavaria, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9431-3136
Bahador BahramiCrowd Cognition Group, Ludwig Maximilian Unversität, Gabelsbergerstr 62, Munich 80333, Bavaria, Germany.

Funding

European Research Council (ERC)Volkswagen Stiftung Momentum Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polarization raises concerns for democracy and society, which have expanded in the internet era where (mis)information has become ubiquitous, its transmission faster than ever, and the freedom and means of opinion expressions are expanding. The origin of polarization however remains unclear, with multiple social and emotional factors and individual reasoning biases likely to explain its current forms. In the present work, we adopt a principled approach and show that polarization tendencies can take root in biased reward processing of new information in favour of choice confirmatory evidence. Through agent-based simulations, we show that confirmation bias in individual learning is an independent mechanism and could be sufficient for creating polarization at group level independently of any additional assumptions about the opinions themselves,

Indexed as

EmotionsLearningHumansInterpersonal RelationsProblem SolvingRewardaffective polarizationconfirmation biasmotivated reasoningpolarizationreinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID38412967
PMCPMC10898967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.