追踪大脑中的政治动机推理:心智化、价值编码和错误检测网络的作用。

Giannis Lois, Elias Tsakas, Kenneth Yuen, Arno Riedl
{"title":"追踪大脑中的政治动机推理:心智化、价值编码和错误检测网络的作用。","authors":"Giannis Lois, Elias Tsakas, Kenneth Yuen, Arno Riedl","doi":"10.1093/scan/nsae056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Susceptibility to misinformation and belief polarization often reflects people's tendency to incorporate information in a biased way. Despite the presence of competing theoretical models, the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms of motivated reasoning remain elusive as previous empirical work did not properly track the belief formation process. To address this problem, we employed a design that identifies motivated reasoning as directional deviations from a Bayesian benchmark of unbiased belief updating. We asked the members of a proimmigration or an anti-immigration group regarding the extent to which they endorse factual messages on foreign criminality, a polarizing political topic. Both groups exhibited a desirability bias by overendorsing attitude-consistent messages and underendorsing attitude-discrepant messages and an identity bias by overendorsing messages from in-group members and underendorsing messages from out-group members. In both groups, neural responses to the messages predicted subsequent expression of desirability and identity biases, suggesting a common neural basis of motivated reasoning across ideologically opposing groups. Specifically, brain regions implicated in encoding value, error detection, and mentalizing tracked the degree of desirability bias. Less extensive activation in the mentalizing network tracked the degree of identity bias. These findings illustrate the distinct neurocognitive architecture of desirability and identity biases and inform existing cognitive models of politically motivated reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":94208,"journal":{"name":"Social cognitive and affective neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412250/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tracking politically motivated reasoning in the brain: the role of mentalizing, value-encoding, and error detection networks.\",\"authors\":\"Giannis Lois, Elias Tsakas, Kenneth Yuen, Arno Riedl\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/scan/nsae056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Susceptibility to misinformation and belief polarization often reflects people's tendency to incorporate information in a biased way. Despite the presence of competing theoretical models, the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms of motivated reasoning remain elusive as previous empirical work did not properly track the belief formation process. To address this problem, we employed a design that identifies motivated reasoning as directional deviations from a Bayesian benchmark of unbiased belief updating. We asked the members of a proimmigration or an anti-immigration group regarding the extent to which they endorse factual messages on foreign criminality, a polarizing political topic. Both groups exhibited a desirability bias by overendorsing attitude-consistent messages and underendorsing attitude-discrepant messages and an identity bias by overendorsing messages from in-group members and underendorsing messages from out-group members. In both groups, neural responses to the messages predicted subsequent expression of desirability and identity biases, suggesting a common neural basis of motivated reasoning across ideologically opposing groups. Specifically, brain regions implicated in encoding value, error detection, and mentalizing tracked the degree of desirability bias. Less extensive activation in the mentalizing network tracked the degree of identity bias. These findings illustrate the distinct neurocognitive architecture of desirability and identity biases and inform existing cognitive models of politically motivated reasoning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social cognitive and affective neuroscience\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412250/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social cognitive and affective neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsae056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social cognitive and affective neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsae056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对错误信息的易感性和信念的两极化往往反映出人们倾向于以有偏见的方式吸收信息。尽管存在相互竞争的理论模型,但动机推理的潜在神经认知机制仍然难以捉摸,因为之前的实证工作并没有正确追踪信念形成的过程。为了解决这个问题,我们采用了一种设计方法,将动机推理确定为对无偏见信念更新的贝叶斯基准的定向偏离。我们询问支持移民或反对移民群体的成员,他们对外国犯罪这一两极化政治话题的事实信息的认可程度。这两组人都表现出了可取性偏差,即过度认可态度一致的信息,而对态度不一致的信息认可度较低;同时还表现出了身份偏差,即过度认可来自内群体成员的信息,而对来自外群体成员的信息认可度较低。在这两组人中,对信息的神经反应预示着随后的可取性偏差和身份偏差的表达,这表明在意识形态对立的群体中,动机推理具有共同的神经基础。具体来说,与价值编码、错误检测和心智化有关的大脑区域会跟踪可取性偏差的程度。心智网络中较少的激活可追踪身份偏差的程度。这些发现说明了可取性偏差和身份偏差的不同神经认知结构,并为现有的政治动机推理认知模型提供了参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tracking politically motivated reasoning in the brain: the role of mentalizing, value-encoding, and error detection networks.

Susceptibility to misinformation and belief polarization often reflects people's tendency to incorporate information in a biased way. Despite the presence of competing theoretical models, the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms of motivated reasoning remain elusive as previous empirical work did not properly track the belief formation process. To address this problem, we employed a design that identifies motivated reasoning as directional deviations from a Bayesian benchmark of unbiased belief updating. We asked the members of a proimmigration or an anti-immigration group regarding the extent to which they endorse factual messages on foreign criminality, a polarizing political topic. Both groups exhibited a desirability bias by overendorsing attitude-consistent messages and underendorsing attitude-discrepant messages and an identity bias by overendorsing messages from in-group members and underendorsing messages from out-group members. In both groups, neural responses to the messages predicted subsequent expression of desirability and identity biases, suggesting a common neural basis of motivated reasoning across ideologically opposing groups. Specifically, brain regions implicated in encoding value, error detection, and mentalizing tracked the degree of desirability bias. Less extensive activation in the mentalizing network tracked the degree of identity bias. These findings illustrate the distinct neurocognitive architecture of desirability and identity biases and inform existing cognitive models of politically motivated reasoning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anxiety symptoms are differentially associated with facial expression processing in boys and girls. Empathy enhances decoding accuracy of human neurophysiological responses to emotional facial expressions of humans and dogs. Neural Divergence between Individuals with and without Minor Depression during Dynamic Emotion Processing: A Movie-fMRI Study. Altered default-mode and frontal-parietal network pattern underlie adaptiveness of emotion regulation flexibility following task-switch training. A preliminary study of threat-anticipatory responding in Latina youth: associations with age, anxiety, and cortical thickness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1