Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41797901›Full record

ReviewiScience2026

Utilizing social foraging as a framework to study decisions in groups.

Ketika Garg, Wenning Deng, Dean Mobbs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Ketika GargDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences and Computation, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E California Blvd, HSS 228-77, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Wenning DengDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences and Computation, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E California Blvd, HSS 228-77, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
Dean MobbsDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences and Computation, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E California Blvd, HSS 228-77, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.

Funding

Fractionating human defensive circuits across changing levels of threat imminenceR01MH133730 · NIMH · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI MOBBS, DEAN · 2023 to 2025
$2.1M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH133730
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A central goal of the behavioral sciences is to understand how individuals decide between rewarding and conflicting options. Foraging theory, which is rooted in ecology and evolutionary theory, has helped advance this pursuit but has largely focused on individual decision-making processes. In this article, we extend beyond individual agents and propose social foraging as a promising avenue to study social decisions. We synthesize key socio-cognitive elements of social interactions that are particularly amenable to study through foraging paradigms, such as social inference, coordination, and collective behavior, especially in humans. We then propose a social foraging framework that distinguishes between the asocial and social components involved in the decision-making process and describes how the integration of these components drives decisions in social foraging. Our framework bridges research across disciplines to provide a promising new avenue for the study of social behavior by linking decisions across different scales, from individuals to collectives.

Indexed as

Cognitive neuroscienceNeuroscienceSocial sciences

Identifiers

PMID41797901
PMCPMC12962174

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.