The effect of self-focus on personal and social foraging behaviour.

George Zacharopoulos, Amitai Shenhav, Sara Constantino, Gregory R Maio, David E J Linden
Author Information
  1. George Zacharopoulos: Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
  2. Amitai Shenhav: Department of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences, Brown Institute for Brain Science, Brown University, Rhode Island, United States.
  3. Sara Constantino: Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States.
  4. Gregory R Maio: Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
  5. David E J Linden: Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Abstract

The continuous balancing of the risks and benefits of exploiting known options or exploring new opportunities is essential to human life. We forage for new opportunities when they are deemed to be more attractive than the available option, but this decision to forage also entails costs. People differ in their propensity to exploit or forage, and both the social circumstances and our individual value orientations are likely influences. Here, participants made foraging decisions for themselves and for a charity of their choice in two paradigms: one that features two distinct modes of decision-making (foraging vs classical economic decision-making) and one which is more directly related to the classical animal foraging and ethology literature. Across both paradigms, individuals who possessed a stronger self-focused value orientation obtained more rewards when they were allowed to forage for themselves rather than the charity. Neuroimaging during the tasks revealed that this effect was associated with activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) in that more self-focused individuals showed lower activity in dACC for the self-condition relative to the other condition. This evidence reveals a dynamic interplay between foraging outcomes and the higher-order value system of individuals.

References

  1. Nat Neurosci. 2016 Sep 27;19(10):1286-91 [PMID: 27669989]
  2. Science. 2012 Apr 6;336(6077):95-8 [PMID: 22491854]
  3. Science. 2005 Apr 1;308(5718):78-83 [PMID: 15802598]
  4. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Apr;22(4):621-31 [PMID: 19320552]
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Dec 2;111(48):17320-5 [PMID: 25404350]
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Oct 17;103(42):15623-8 [PMID: 17030808]
  7. J Neurosci. 2016 Apr 27;36(17):4719-32 [PMID: 27122031]
  8. Neuron. 2013 Jul 24;79(2):217-40 [PMID: 23889930]
  9. J Neurosci. 2016 Sep 28;36(39):10002-15 [PMID: 27683898]
  10. Nat Commun. 2016 Aug 01;7:12327 [PMID: 27477632]
  11. Nat Neurosci. 2014 Sep;17(9):1249-54 [PMID: 25064851]
  12. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Feb;16(2):122-8 [PMID: 22226543]
  13. PLoS One. 2014 Jan 13;9(1):e85042 [PMID: 24454788]
  14. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(4):760-72 [PMID: 22248095]
  15. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016 Dec;16(6):1127-1139 [PMID: 27580609]
  16. Theor Popul Biol. 1976 Apr;9(2):129-36 [PMID: 1273796]
  17. Nat Neurosci. 2016 Sep 27;19(10):1280-5 [PMID: 27669988]
  18. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2012 Dec;22(6):946-55 [PMID: 22572389]
  19. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 May;18(5):259-67 [PMID: 24656460]
  20. J Neurosci. 2015 Oct 7;35(40):13720-7 [PMID: 26446224]
  21. J Cogn Neurosci. 2018 Aug;30(8):1061-1065 [PMID: 28562208]
  22. Neuron. 2011 Jun 23;70(6):1054-69 [PMID: 21689594]
  23. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Oct;103(4):663-88 [PMID: 22823292]
  24. Neuroimage Clin. 2016 Nov 02;12:1045-1047 [PMID: 27995071]
  25. Soc Neurosci. 2011;6(2):198-208 [PMID: 20711937]
  26. Trends Neurosci. 2017 Nov;40(11):643-653 [PMID: 28988827]
  27. Neuron. 2016 May 18;90(4):692-707 [PMID: 27196973]
  28. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2015 Dec;15(4):837-53 [PMID: 25917000]
  29. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Aug 30;113(35):9763-8 [PMID: 27528669]
  30. Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jul;1(7):0131 [PMID: 28819649]
  31. Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Jan-Oct;7(1-4):37-44 [PMID: 25978648]
  32. Nat Neurosci. 2011 Jun 05;14(7):933-9 [PMID: 21642973]

Grants

  1. MR/L010305/1/Medical Research Council
  2. G0800509/Medical Research Council

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Decision Making
Ego
Feeding Behavior
Female
Gyrus Cinguli
Humans
Individuality
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Neuroimaging
Reward
Social Behavior
Social Values
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0foragingforagevalueindividualsnewopportunitiessocialcharitytwoonedecision-makingclassicalself-focusedeffectactivitydACCcontinuousbalancingrisksbenefitsexploitingknownoptionsexploringessentialhumanlifedeemedattractiveavailableoptiondecisionalsoentailscostsPeopledifferpropensityexploitcircumstancesindividualorientationslikelyinfluencesparticipantsmadedecisionschoiceparadigms:featuresdistinctmodesvseconomicdirectlyrelatedanimalethologyliteratureAcrossparadigmspossessedstrongerorientationobtainedrewardsallowedratherNeuroimagingtasksrevealedassociateddorsalanteriorcingulatecortexshowedlowerself-conditionrelativeconditionevidencerevealsdynamicinterplayoutcomeshigher-ordersystemself-focuspersonalbehaviour

Similar Articles

Cited By