Top-down modulation impairs priming susceptibility in complex decision-making with social implications.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 10 2022
25 10 2022
Historique:
received:
23
06
2022
accepted:
18
10
2022
entrez:
25
10
2022
pubmed:
26
10
2022
medline:
28
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Could social context variables prime complex decisions? Could top-down processes impair this priming susceptibility? Complex decisions have been mainly studied from economic and moral perspectives, and Dual Process Theories provide evidence of how these processes could be affected. To address these issues from a political perspective, online experiments were conducted. Participants (n = 252) were asked to choose a face from 4 options, each associated with different frequencies (repetition priming) or with phrases with different emotional valence (emotional priming), for an unspecified task (UST group) or an important task (IMT group). The most repeated face was chosen most in the UST group, and was associated with lower response times. Positive faces were equally chosen by both groups. To compare results in a more ecological situation, a social study was conducted during the 2019 Argentine Presidential Election, including online surveys (n = 3673) and analysis of news media mentioning candidates. The familiarity and trust to each candidate explained the voting-probability for most of them, as well as correlated with their frequency of mentions in the news, their positive associations, and election results. Our results suggest complex decision-making is susceptible to priming, depending on top-down modulation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36284155
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22707-x
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-22707-x
pmc: PMC9595095
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17867Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D. & McKoon, G. Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 260–281 (2016).
pubmed: 26952739
pmcid: 4928591
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
Smith, P. L. & Ratcliff, R. Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends Neurosci. 27, 161–168 (2004).
pubmed: 15036882
doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2004.01.006
Ratcliff, R. & McKoon, G. The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput. 20, 873–922 (2008).
pubmed: 18085991
pmcid: 2474742
doi: 10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420
Ratcliff, R. & Rouder, J. N. Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychol. Sci. 9, 347–356 (1998).
doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00067
Krajbich, I. & Rangel, A. Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 13852–13857 (2011).
pubmed: 21808009
pmcid: 3158210
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101328108
Ratcliff, R. & Starns, J. J. Modeling confidence judgments, response times, and multiple choices in decision making: Recognition memory and motion discrimination. Psychol. Rev. 120, 697 (2013).
pubmed: 23915088
pmcid: 4106127
doi: 10.1037/a0033152
Churchland, A. K., Kiani, R. & Shadlen, M. N. Decision-making with multiple alternatives. Nat. Neurosci. 11, 693–702 (2008).
pubmed: 18488024
pmcid: 2453226
doi: 10.1038/nn.2123
Morgenstern, O. & Von Neumann, J. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, 1953).
Sanfey, A. G. Social decision-making: Insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science 318, 598–602 (2007).
pubmed: 17962552
doi: 10.1126/science.1142996
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981).
pubmed: 7455683
doi: 10.1126/science.7455683
Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Macmillan, 2011).
Buelow, M. T. & Suhr, J. A. Construct validity of the Iowa gambling task. Neuropsychol. Rev. 19, 102–114 (2009).
pubmed: 19194801
doi: 10.1007/s11065-009-9083-4
Christensen, J. F. & Gomila, A. Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36, 1249–1264 (2012).
pubmed: 22353427
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.008
Greene, J. D. The rise of moral cognition. Cognition 135, 39–42 (2015).
pubmed: 25498900
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.018
Evans, J. S. B. How many dual-process theories do we need? One, two, or many? (2009).
Osman, M. An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11, 988–1010 (2004).
pubmed: 15875969
doi: 10.3758/BF03196730
Pennycook, G. A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual process models. in Dual process theory 2.0 5–27 (Routledge, 2017).
Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A. & Shanks, D. R. Straight Choices: The Psychology of Decision Making (Psychology Press, 2015).
doi: 10.4324/9781315727080
Thompson, V. A. Why it matters: The implications of autonomous processes for dual process theories—Commentary on Evans & Stanovich (2013). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 253–256 (2013).
pubmed: 26172968
doi: 10.1177/1745691613483476
Jędrzejewski, A. & Sznajd-Weron, K. Impact of memory on opinion dynamics. Phys. Stat. Mech. Appl. 505, 306–315 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2018.03.077
Lorenz, J. Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 18, 1819–1838 (2007).
doi: 10.1142/S0129183107011789
Mallinson, D. J. & Hatemi, P. K. The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change. PLoS One 13, e0196600 (2018).
pubmed: 29718958
pmcid: 5931497
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196600
Barrera Lemarchand, F., Semeshenko, V., Navajas, J. & Balenzuela, P. Polarizing crowds: Consensus and bipolarization in a persuasive arguments model. Chaos Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 30, 063141 (2020).
doi: 10.1063/5.0004504
Hernandez, I. & Preston, J. L. Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 178–182 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.08.010
Hertz, U., Romand-Monnier, M., Kyriakopoulou, K. & Bahrami, B. Social influence protects collective decision making from equality bias. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 42, 164 (2016).
pubmed: 26436525
doi: 10.1037/xhp0000145
Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Lüthgens, C. & Moscovici, S. Biased information search in group decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 655 (2000).
pubmed: 10794372
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.655
Klayman, J. Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 32, 385–418 (1995).
doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60315-1
Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. Counterframing effects. J. Polit. 75, 1–16 (2013).
doi: 10.1017/S0022381612000837
Druckman, J. N. Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98, 671–686 (2004).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055404041413
Rieznik, A. et al. A massive experiment on choice blindness in political decisions: Confidence, confabulation, and unconscious detection of self-deception. PLoS One 12, e0171108 (2017).
pubmed: 28196093
pmcid: 5308842
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171108
Von Hippel, W. & Trivers, R. The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behav. Brain Sci. 34, 1 (2011).
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10001354
Strandberg, T., Olson, J. A., Hall, L., Woods, A. & Johansson, P. Depolarizing American voters: Democrats and Republicans are equally susceptible to false attitude feedback. PLoS One 15, e0226799 (2020).
pubmed: 32023249
pmcid: 7001898
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226799
Baldassarri, D. & Gelman, A. Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. Am. J. Sociol. 114, 408–446 (2008).
doi: 10.1086/590649
Rollwage, M., Zmigrod, L., de Wit, L., Dolan, R. J. & Fleming, S. M. What underlies political polarization? A manifesto for computational political psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 820–822 (2019).
pubmed: 31422899
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.006
Bago, B., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 1608–1613 (2020).
pubmed: 31916834
doi: 10.1037/xge0000729
Kucharski, A. Study epidemiology of fake news. Nature 540, 525–525 (2016).
pubmed: 30905947
doi: 10.1038/540525a
Lazer, D. M. et al. The science of fake news. Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018).
pubmed: 29590025
doi: 10.1126/science.aao2998
Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. J. Pers. 88, 185–200 (2020).
pubmed: 30929263
doi: 10.1111/jopy.12476
Doya, K. Modulators of decision making. Nat. Neurosci. 11, 410–416 (2008).
pubmed: 18368048
doi: 10.1038/nn2077
Iglesias-Parro, S., Ortega, A. R., De la Fuente, E. I. & Martín, I. Context variables as cognitive effort modulators in decision making using an alternative-based processing strategy. Qual. Quant. 35, 311–323 (2001).
doi: 10.1023/A:1010336532706
FeldmanHall, O., Raio, C. M., Kubota, J. T., Seiler, M. G. & Phelps, E. A. The effects of social context and acute stress on decision making under uncertainty. Psychol. Sci. 26, 1918–1926 (2015).
pubmed: 26546080
doi: 10.1177/0956797615605807
Porcelli, A. J. & Delgado, M. R. Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial decision making. Psychol. Sci. 20, 278–283 (2009).
pubmed: 19207694
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02288.x
Wemm, S. E. & Wulfert, E. Effects of acute stress on decision making. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 42, 1–12 (2017).
pubmed: 28083720
pmcid: 5346059
doi: 10.1007/s10484-016-9347-8
Shafiei, N., Gray, M., Viau, V. & Floresco, S. B. Acute stress induces selective alterations in cost/benefit decision-making. Neuropsychopharmacology 37, 2194–2209 (2012).
pubmed: 22569506
pmcid: 3422485
doi: 10.1038/npp.2012.69
Singer, N., Sommer, M., Wüst, S. & Kudielka, B. M. Effects of gender and personality on everyday moral decision-making after acute stress exposure. Psychoneuroendocrinology 124, 105084 (2021).
pubmed: 33387970
doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.105084
Newell, B. R. & Shanks, D. R. Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 1–19 (2014).
pubmed: 24461214
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12003214
Shadlen, M. N. & Shohamy, D. Decision making and sequential sampling from memory. Neuron 90, 927–939 (2016).
pubmed: 27253447
pmcid: 4891701
doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.036
Sand, A. & Nilsson, M. E. Subliminal or not? Comparing null-hypothesis and Bayesian methods for testing subliminal priming. Conscious. Cogn. 44, 29–40 (2016).
pubmed: 27351780
doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.06.012
Ellis, A. W., Young, A. W., Flude, B. M. & Hay, D. C. Repetition priming of face recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A 39, 193–210 (1987).
doi: 10.1080/14640748708401784
Dehaene, S. et al. Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and unconscious repetition priming. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 752–758 (2001).
pubmed: 11426233
doi: 10.1038/89551
Henson, R., Shallice, T. & Dolan, R. Neuroimaging evidence for dissociable forms of repetition priming. Science 287, 1269–1272 (2000).
pubmed: 10678834
doi: 10.1126/science.287.5456.1269
Logan, G. D. Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms?. Cognit. Psychol. 22, 1–35 (1990).
doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(90)90002-L
Neill, W. T. Episodic retrieval in negative priming and repetition priming. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 23, 1291–3105 (1997).
doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.23.6.1291
Stern, C. Priming in political judgment and decision making. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (2019).
Cistulli, M. & Snyder, L. B. Priming, repetition, and the effects of multiple messages on perceptions of a political candidate. Michael G. Elasmar Boston Univ. 2, 44 (2009).
Claibourn, M. P. Making a connection: Repetition and priming in presidential campaigns. J. Polit. 70, 1142–1159 (2008).
doi: 10.1017/S0022381608081115
Tory Higgins, E., Rholes, W. S. & Jones, C. R. Category accessibility and impression formation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13, 141–154 (1977).
doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(77)80007-3
Gibbons, H., Seib-Pfeifer, L.-E., Koppehele-Gossel, J. & Schnuerch, R. Affective priming and cognitive load: Event-related potentials suggest an interplay of implicit affect misattribution and strategic inhibition. Psychophysiology 55, e13009 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/psyp.13009
Murphy, S. T. & Zajonc, R. B. Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64, 723 (1993).
pubmed: 8505704
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.723
Weiß, M., Hein, G. & Hewig, J. Between joy and sympathy: Smiling and sad recipient faces increase prosocial behavior in the dictator game. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 6172 (2021).
pubmed: 34200370
pmcid: 8201160
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18116172
Mussel, P., Weiß, M., Rodrigues, J., Heekeren, H. & Hewig, J. Neural correlates of successful costly punishment in the Ultimatum game on a trial-by-trial basis. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 17, 590–597 (2022).
pubmed: 35077566
pmcid: 9164204
doi: 10.1093/scan/nsab126
Weiß, M., Paelecke, M. & Hewig, J. In your face (t)—Personality traits interact with prototypical personality faces in economic decision making. Front. Psychol. 12, 652506 (2021).
pubmed: 33967914
pmcid: 8097003
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652506
Weiß, M., Mussel, P. & Hewig, J. Smiling as negative feedback affects social decision-making and its neural underpinnings. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 20, 160–171 (2020).
pubmed: 31900873
doi: 10.3758/s13415-019-00759-3
Ballew, C. C. & Todorov, A. Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 17948–17953 (2007).
pubmed: 17959769
pmcid: 2084277
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705435104
Engell, A. D., Haxby, J. V. & Todorov, A. Implicit trustworthiness decisions: Automatic coding of face properties in the human amygdala. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 1508–1519 (2007).
pubmed: 17714012
doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1508
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A. & Hall, C. C. Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science 308, 1623–1626 (2005).
pubmed: 15947187
doi: 10.1126/science.1110589
Antonakis, J. & Dalgas, O. Predicting elections: Child’s play!. Science 323, 1183–1183 (2009).
pubmed: 19251621
doi: 10.1126/science.1167748
Armstrong, J. S. & Graefe, A. Predicting elections from biographical information about candidates: A test of the index method. J. Bus. Res. 64, 699–706 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.08.005
Hegdé, J. Time course of visual perception: Coarse-to-fine processing and beyond. Prog. Neurobiol. 84, 405–439 (2008).
pubmed: 17976895
doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.09.001
Bryant, D. Dopaminergic Genes Predictive of Unmotivated Confirmation Bias are not Predictive of Motivated Confirmation Bias (2020).
Bass, B. M. Amount of participation, coalescence, and profitability of decision making discussions. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67, 92 (1963).
pubmed: 13969866
doi: 10.1037/h0043842
Forgas, J. P. Mood effects on decision making strategies. Aust. J. Psychol. 41, 197–214 (1989).
doi: 10.1080/00049538908260083
Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L. & Rovner, I. B. The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. J. Polit. 69, 1176–1209 (2007).
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x
Pinkleton, B. E., Um, N.-H. & Austin, E. W. An exploration of the effects of negative political advertising on political decision making. J. Advert. 31, 13–25 (2002).
doi: 10.1080/00913367.2002.10673657
Bradley, S. D., Angelini, J. R. & Lee, S. Psychophysiological and memory effects of negative political ads: Aversive, arousing, and well remembered. J. Advert. 36, 115–127 (2007).
doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367360409
Evans, J. S. B. Dual process theory: Perspectives and problems (2018).
Evans, J. S. B. & Frankish, K. E. In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond (Oxford University Press, 2009).
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.001.0001
Schul, Y. & Peri, N. Influences of distrust (and trust) on decision making. Soc. Cogn. 33, 414–435 (2015).
doi: 10.1521/soco.2015.33.5.414
McGaugh, J. L. Making lasting memories: Remembering the significant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 10402–10407 (2013).
pubmed: 23754441
pmcid: 3690616
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301209110
Reiter, F. & Matthes, J. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”. A panel study on the reciprocal effects of negative, dirty, and positive campaigning on political distrust. Mass Commun. Soc. (2021).
Kushin, M. J. & Yamamoto, M. Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Commun. Soc. 13, 608–630 (2010).
doi: 10.1080/15205436.2010.516863
Hanson, G., Haridakis, P. M., Cunningham, A. W., Sharma, R. & Ponder, J. D. The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Commun. Soc. 13, 584–607 (2010).
doi: 10.1080/15205436.2010.513470
Hall, L. et al. How the polls can be both spot on and dead wrong: Using choice blindness to shift political attitudes and voter intentions. PLoS One 8, e60554 (2013).
pubmed: 23593244
pmcid: 3622694
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060554
Croissant, Y. Estimation of random utility models in R: The mlogit package. J. Stat. Softw. 95, 1–41 (2020).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v095.i11
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400 (2017).
doi: 10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Hartig, F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R Package Version 03 3 (2020).
Rigby, R. A., Stasinopoulos, M. D., Heller, G. Z. & De Bastiani, F. Distributions for Modeling Location, Scale, and Shape: Using GAMLSS in R (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2019).
doi: 10.1201/9780429298547
Wickham, E. Phosphorus content in commonly consumed beverages. J. Ren. Nutr. 24, e1–e4 (2014).
doi: 10.1053/j.jrn.2013.10.002
Christensen, R. H. B. Regression models for ordinal data [R package ordinal version 2019.12-10] (2019).