A behavioral signature for quantifying the social value of interpersonal relationships with specific others.

Journal

Communications psychology

ISSN: 2731-9121

Titre abrégé: Commun Psychol

Pays: England

ID NLM: 9918716686206676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Sep 2024

Historique:

received: 12 01 2024

accepted: 28 08 2024

medline: 7 9 2024

pubmed: 7 9 2024

entrez: 6 9 2024

Statut: epublish

Résumé

The idea that individuals ascribe value to social phenomena, broadly construed, is well-established. Despite the ubiquity of this concept, defining social value in the context of interpersonal relationships remains elusive. This is notable because while prominent theories of human social behavior acknowledge the role of value-based processes, they mostly emphasize the value of individual actions an agent may choose to take in a given environment. Comparatively little is known about how humans value their interpersonal relationships. To address this, we devised a method for engineering a behavioral signature of social value in several independent samples (total N = 1111). Incorporating the concept of opportunity cost from economics and data-driven quantitative methods, we derived this signature by sourcing and weighting a range of social behaviors based on how likely individuals are to prioritize them in the face of limited resources. We examined how strongly the signature was expressed in self-reported social behaviors with specific relationship partners (a parent, close friend, and acquaintance). Social value scores track with other aspects of these relationships (e.g., relationship quality, aversion to losing relationship partners), are predictive of decision preferences on a range of tasks, and display good psychometric properties. These results provide greater mechanistic specificity in delineating human value-based behavior in social contexts and help parse the motivational relevance of the different facets that comprise interpersonal relationships.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00132-2 PMID: 39242969

pubmed: 39242969

doi: 10.1038/s44271-024-00132-2

pii: 10.1038/s44271-024-00132-2

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

Informations de copyright

Références

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T. & Stephenson, D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol. Sci. 10, 227–237 (2015).

pubmed: 25910392 doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352

Cacioppo, J. T. & Cacioppo, S. Social relationships and health: the toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Soc. Personal Psychol. Compass. 8, 58–72 (2014).

pubmed: 24839458 pmcid: 4021390 doi: 10.1111/spc3.12087

House, J. S., Landis, K. R. & Umberson, D. Social relationships and health. Science. 241, 540–545 (1988).

pubmed: 3399889 doi: 10.1126/science.3399889

Cohen, S. Social relationships and health. Am. Psychol. 59, 676–684 (2004).

pubmed: 15554821 doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676

Contreras-Huerta, L. S. et al. Neural representations of vicarious rewards are linked to interoception and prosocial behaviour. Neuroimage. 269, 119881 (2023).

pubmed: 36702212 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.119881

Zaki, J., Kallman, S., Wimmer, G. E., Ochsner, K. & Shohamy, D. Social cognition as reinforcement learning: feedback modulates emotion inference. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 28, 1270–1282 (2016).

pubmed: 27167401 doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00978

Zerubavel, N., Bearman, P. S., Weber, J. & Ochsner, K. N. Neural mechanisms tracking popularity in real-world social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 112, 15072–15077 (2015).

pubmed: 26598684 pmcid: 4679039 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1511477112

Jin, J., Pei, G. & Ma, Q. Social discounting under risk. Front Psychol. 8, 392 (2017).

pubmed: 28360877 pmcid: 5350097 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00392

Hayden, B. Y., Parikh, P. C., Deaner, R. O. & Platt, M. L. Economic principles motivating social attention in humans. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274, 1751–1756 (2007).

pubmed: 17490943 pmcid: 2493582

Strombach, T. et al. Social discounting involves modulation of neural value signals by temporoparietal junction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 112, 1619–1624 (2015).

pubmed: 25605887 pmcid: 4321268 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414715112

Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M. & Berger, P. A. Shyness and sociability reexamined: a multicomponent analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 57, 904–915 (1989).

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.904

Cheek, J. M. & Buss, A. H. Shyness and sociability. J. Pers Soc. Psychol. 41, 330–339 (1981).

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.330

Saramäki, J. et al. Persistence of social signatures in human communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 111, 942–947 (2014).

pubmed: 24395777 pmcid: 3903242 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308540110

Schmidt, L. A. & Fox, N. A. Individual differences in young adults’ shyness and sociability: Personality and health correlates. Pers. Individ Dif. 19, 455–462 (1995).

doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(95)00083-I

Merz, E.-M., Consedine, N. S., Schulze, H.-J. & Schuengel, C. Wellbeing of adult children and ageing parents: associations with intergenerational support and relationship quality. Ageing Soc. 29, 783–802 (2009).

doi: 10.1017/S0144686X09008514

Schultz, J. et al. A human subcortical network underlying social avoidance revealed by risky economic choices. eLife. 8, e45249 (2019).

pubmed: 31329098 pmcid: 6703852 doi: 10.7554/eLife.45249

Lamba, A., Frank, M. J. & FeldmanHall, O. Anxiety impedes adaptive social learning under uncertainty. Psychol. Sci. 31, 592–603 (2020).

pubmed: 32343637 doi: 10.1177/0956797620910993

Van Lange, P. A. M., Agnew, C. R., Harinck, F. & Steemers, G. E. M. From game theory to real life: how social value orientation affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 1330–1344 (1997).

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1330

Kramer, R. M., McClintock, C. G. & Messick, D. M. Social values and cooperative response to a simulated resource conservation crisis. J. Pers. 54, 576–582 (1986).

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00413.x

Liebrand, W. B. G. & McClintock, C. G. The ring measure of social values: a computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. Eur. J. Pers. 2, 217–230 (1988).

doi: 10.1002/per.2410020304

Durlauf, S. N. & Ioannides, Y. M. Social interactions. Annu. Rev. Econom. 2, 451–478 (2010).

doi: 10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143312

Becker, G. S. A theory of social interactions. J. Political Econ. 82, 1063–1093 (1974).

doi: 10.1086/260265

Biggart, N. W. & Castanias, R. P. Collateralized social relations: the social in economic calculation. Am. J. Econ.Sociol. 60, 471–500 (2001).

doi: 10.1111/1536-7150.00071

Sell, A. et al. The grammar of anger: Mapping the computational architecture of a recalibrational emotion. Cognition. 168, 110–128 (2017).

pubmed: 28668649 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.002

Delton, A. W. et al. Cognitive foundations for helping and harming others: making welfare tradeoffs in industrialized and small-scale societies. Evol. Hum. Behav. 44, 485–501 (2023).

doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.01.013

Zhang, J. A neurocomputational variable on welfare tradeoffs explains the function and form of cyberaggression. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 17, 1034564 (2023).

pubmed: 37576935 pmcid: 10412873 doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1034564

Homans, G. C. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 63, 597–606 (1958).

doi: 10.1086/222355

Berkman, E. T., Hutcherson, C. A., Livingston, J. L., Kahn, L. E. & Inzlicht, M. Self-control as value-based choice. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 422–428 (2017).

pubmed: 29335665 pmcid: 5765996 doi: 10.1177/0963721417704394

Schreiner, D. C., Yalcinbas, E. A. & Gremel, C. M. A push for examining subjective experience in value-based decision-making. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 41, 45–49 (2021).

pubmed: 34056054 pmcid: 8153361 doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.020

Liljeholm, M. Agency and goal-directed choice. Curr. Opin. Behav Sci. 41, 78–84 (2021).

Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol. Rev. 84, 231–259 (1977).

doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

Wilson, T. D. & Kraft, D. Why do I love thee?: effects of repeated introspections about a dating relationship on attitudes toward the relationship. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19, 409–418 (1993).

doi: 10.1177/0146167293194006

Louviere J. J., Flynn T. N., Marley A. A. J. Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications, Vol. 1-2 (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

Kreitchmann, R. S., Abad, F. J., Ponsoda, V., Nieto, M. D. & Morillo, D. Controlling for response biases in self-report scales: forced-choice vs. psychometric modeling of likert items. Front. Psychol. 10, 2309 (2019).

pubmed: 31681103 pmcid: 6803422 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309

Westland, J. C. Information loss and bias in likert survey responses. PLoS ONE. 17, e0271949 (2022).

pubmed: 35901102 pmcid: 9333316 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271949

Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J. & Coast, J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ. 26, 171–189 (2007).

pubmed: 16707175 doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002

Kalbasi, R. et al. Finding the best station in Belgium to use residential-scale solar heating, one-year dynamic simulation with considering all system losses: economic analysis of using ETSW. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments. 45, 101097 (2021).

doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101097

Wager, T. D. et al. An fMRI-based neurologic signature of physical pain. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 1388–1397 (2013).

pubmed: 23574118 pmcid: 3691100 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1204471

Chang, L. J., Gianaros, P. J., Manuck, S. B., Krishnan, A. & Wager, T. D. A sensitive and specific neural signature for picture-induced negative affect. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002180 (2015).

pubmed: 26098873 pmcid: 4476709 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002180

McElreath R. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan 1st edn, Vol. 487 (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2015).

Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. & Lüdecke, D. bayestestR: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. JOSS. 4, 1541 (2019).

doi: 10.21105/joss.01541

Kruschke, J. K. Bayesian assessment of null values via parameter estimation and model comparison. Perspect Psychol. Sci. 6, 299–312 (2011).

pubmed: 26168520 doi: 10.1177/1745691611406925

Kruschke, J. K. Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142, 573–603 (2013).

pubmed: 22774788 doi: 10.1037/a0029146

Wiens, B. L. Choosing an equivalence limit for noninferiority or equivalence studies. Control Clin. Trials. 23, 2–14 (2002).

pubmed: 11852160 doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(01)00196-9

Dennis, S. A., Goodson, B. M. & Pearson, C. A. Online worker fraud and evolving threats to the integrity of MTurk data: a discussion of virtual private servers and the limitations of IP-based screening procedures. Behav. Res. Account. 32, 119–134 (2020).

doi: 10.2308/bria-18-044

Waggoner, P., Kennedy, R. & Clifford, S. Detecting fraud in online surveys by tracing, scoring, and visualizing IP addresses. JOSS. 4, 1285 (2019).

doi: 10.21105/joss.01285

Seaman, K. L. et al. Adult age differences in decision making across domains: Increased discounting of social and health-related rewards. Psychol. Aging. 31, 737–746 (2016).

pubmed: 27831713 pmcid: 5127408 doi: 10.1037/pag0000131

Lovakov, A. & Agadullina, E. R. Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 485–504 (2021).

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2752

Eldar, E., Rutledge, R. B., Dolan, R. J. & Niv, Y. Mood as representation of momentum. Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul Ed). 20, 15–24 (2016).

doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.010

Stigler, G. J. The development of utility theory. I. J. Political Econ. 58, 307–327 (1950).

doi: 10.1086/256962

Siegel, S. & Allan, L. G. The widespread influence of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Psychon. Bull Rev. 3, 314–321 (1996).

pubmed: 24213932 doi: 10.3758/BF03210755

Glimcher, P. W., Dorris, M. C. & Bayer, H. M. Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice. Games Econ. Behav. 52, 213–256 (2005).

pubmed: 16845435 pmcid: 1502377 doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.011

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992).

doi: 10.1007/BF00122574

Armsden, G. C. & Greenberg, M. T. The inventory of parent and peer attachment: individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 16, 427–454 (1987).

pubmed: 24277469 doi: 10.1007/BF02202939

Gächter, S., Starmer, C. & Tufano, F. Measuring the closeness of relationships: a comprehensive evaluation of the “inclusion of the other in the self” scale. PLoS ONE. 10, e0129478 (2015).

pubmed: 26068873 pmcid: 4466912 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129478

Aguilar-Raab, C., Grevenstein, D. & Schweitzer, J. Measuring social relationships in different social systems: the construction and validation of the evaluation of social systems (EVOS) scale. PLoS ONE. 10, e0133442 (2015).

pubmed: 26200357 pmcid: 4511583 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133442

Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R. & Park, H. S. The unidimensional relationship closeness scale (URCS): reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychol. Assess. 24, 565–572 (2012).

pubmed: 22082035 doi: 10.1037/a0026265

Berry, J. W. & Worthington, E. L. Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. J. Couns. Psychol. 48, 447–455 (2001).

doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.447

Pelletier Brochu, J. et al. Adolescents’ perceptions of the quality of interpersonal relationships and eating disorder symptom severity: the mediating role of low self-esteem and negative mood. Eat Disord. 26, 388–406 (2018).

pubmed: 29683772 doi: 10.1080/10640266.2018.1454806

Sznycer, D. Value computation in humans. Evol. Hum. Behav. 43, 367–380 (2022).

doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.06.002

Orehek, E., Forest, A. L. & Wingrove, S. People as means to multiple goals: implications for interpersonal relationships. Pers. Soc. Psychol Bull. 44, 1487–1501 (2018).

pubmed: 29742998 doi: 10.1177/0146167218769869

Orehek, E., Forest, A. L. & Barbaro, N. A people-as-means approach to interpersonal relationships. Perspect Psychol. Sci. 13, 373–389 (2018).

pubmed: 29641276 doi: 10.1177/1745691617744522

Inagaki, T. K. & Orehek, E. On the benefits of giving social support. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 109–113 (2017).

doi: 10.1177/0963721416686212

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Beyond WEIRD: towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 111–135 (2010).

doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000725