ArticleScientific reports2025
How positive and negative feedback following real interactions changes subsequent sender ratings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Increased and Coupled ERP and fMRI Responses toward Positive Social Evaluative Feedback: An EEG-fMRI Study.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Differential effects of social feedback valence and self-relevance on brain responses and behaviour.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social evaluative feedback informs us about how others perceive us, constantly updates our expectations of what to receive, and simultaneously changes our view of the sender. However, little is known about the neuronal and behavioral responses when receiving incongruent positive or negative social evaluative feedback. This study (N = 40) investigated how receiving feedback from peers after a real-life interaction modulates behavioral responses and Event-Related Potentials (ERPs). Specifically, ERP modulations by feedback being incongruent with the self-view and incongruent with the feedback expectation were examined along the whole processing stream. Feedback was manipulated such that one peer provided overly positive feedback and the other overly negative feedback, with random computer feedback as a control condition. Behaviorally, participants updated their feedback expectations according to the feedback received from the 'negative' and 'positive' peers and rapidly changed ratings of the sender towards their positive or negative behavior. Concerning ERPs, separate effects of feedback incongruence based on the feedback expectation or self-view were found during the mid-latency processing stages. Subsequently, both types of incongruence increased late ERP amplitudes, which were also increased when participants substantially changed the ratings of the peer senders. This is the first study that combined neuronal and behavioral measures of evaluative feedback processing, emphasizing that incongruent feedback elicits mid-latency modulations and subsequent updating processes associated with increased late amplitudes. In addition, we find rapid behavioral changes in the ratings for the senders based on their feedback 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.