ArticleCommunications biology2026
The neurocomputational mechanisms underlying the impact of social comparison on effort investment.
Article in Communications biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The neurocomputational mechanisms underlying the impact of social comparison on effort investment.Communications biology · 2026Article
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
Previous research has shown that favorable monetary outcomes relative to others enhance neural responses; however, these paradigms often confound the subjective utility of social comparison with absolute reward magnitude. It remains unclear how performance-based social comparisons modulate an individual's self-efficacy and the subsequent effort mobilization. To address this gap, we conducted behavioral (N = 32) and electrophysiological (N = 34) experiments using a self-paced effortful task with downward/upward social comparison feedback. Computational modeling and multilevel mediation analyses revealed that downward (vs. upward) feedback dynamically updated self-efficacy, which fully mediated subsequent effort mobilization. Electrophysiological results showed stronger neural responses to downward versus upward feedback. Critically, downward comparison enhanced preparatory markers for the next round, including the contingent negative variation (CNV) and cue-beta power. Moreover, higher self-efficacy predicted more negative-going CNV potentials. These findings demonstrate that performance-based comparisons dynamically regulate self-efficacy, shaping both neural preparation and effort allocation in goal-directed 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.