ArticleScientific reports2024
Jumping to attributions during social evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social learning is crucial for human relationships and well-being. Self- and other- evaluations are universal experiences, playing key roles in many psychiatric disorders, particularly anxiety and depression. We aimed to deepen our understanding of the computational mechanisms behind social learning, which have been implicated in internalizing conditions like anxiety and depression. We built on prior work based on the Social Evaluation Learning Task (SELT) and introduced a new computational model to better explain rapid initial inferences and progressive refinement during serial social evaluations. The Social Evaluation Learning Task-Revised (SELT-R) was improved by stakeholder input, making it more engaging and suitable for adolescents. A sample of 130 adults from the UK completed the SELT-R and questionnaires assessing symptoms of depression and anxiety. 'Classify-refine' computational models were compared with previously successful Bayesian models. The 'classify-refine' models performed better, providing insight into how people infer the attributes and motives of others. Parameters of the best fitting model from the SELT-R were correlated with Anxiety factor scores, with higher symptoms associated with greater decision noise and higher (less flexible) policy certainty. Our results replicate findings regarding the classify-refine process and set the stage for future investigations into the cognitive mechanisms of self and other evaluations in internalizing disorders.
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.