Social observation differentially affects prosocial learning of selfish and prosocial people.

Yuri Kim, Kun Il Kim, Hackjin Kim
Author Information
  1. Yuri Kim: Laboratory of Social and Decision Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  2. Kun Il Kim: Laboratory of Social and Decision Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  3. Hackjin Kim: Laboratory of Social and Decision Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

People often exhibit more socially favorable behaviors when observed by others, potentially influencing their cognitive skills and prosocial tendencies. Recent studies have found that individuals with intrinsic prosocial tendencies are non-responsive to social observation in various prosocial decision tasks. This study aimed to investigate whether individuals with intrinsic prosocial tendencies also exhibit a lack of change in their cognitive ability under social observation. We used the Prosocial Reinforcement Learning Task (PRLT) to assess the interaction effect of social observation and intrinsic prosocial tendency on prosocial learning tendency. A total of 102 participants were randomly assigned to either the observation or control group while performing a two-armed bandit task under self- and other-reward conditions, and their behavioral outcomes were analyzed using a reinforcement learning computational model. Under social observation, participants who were previously less prosocial exhibited increased prosocial learning. In contrast, those who were already more prosocial showed no significant changes in prosociality, and demonstrated only a numerical-but statistically non-significant-increase in learning for self. Our findings revealed the differential effects of social observation on modulating one's prosociality and cognitive ability according to individual differences in intrinsic prosocial tendencies.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Neurosci. 2019 Apr;22(4):633-641 [PMID: 30911182]
  2. Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 20;8(1):3368 [PMID: 29463816]
  3. Nat Commun. 2018 Aug 6;9(1):3086 [PMID: 30082718]
  4. Front Psychol. 2020 Jun 15;11:1252 [PMID: 32612559]
  5. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 6;16(10):e0255531 [PMID: 34613975]
  6. J Anxiety Disord. 2020 Mar;70:102193 [PMID: 32058889]
  7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Jun 23;112(25):7851-6 [PMID: 26056280]
  8. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Mar 7;274(1610):749-53 [PMID: 17255001]
  9. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016 Feb;20(2):133-145 [PMID: 26616296]
  10. Science. 1965 Jul 16;149(3681):269-74 [PMID: 14300526]
  11. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2020 Jul 30;15(6):695-707 [PMID: 32608484]
  12. Neurosci Conscious. 2024 Dec 10;2024(1):niae039 [PMID: 39659755]
  13. Front Psychol. 2021 Jul 15;12:636801 [PMID: 34335358]
  14. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Feb 5;371(1687):20150100 [PMID: 26729939]
  15. Psychol Rep. 2024 Jan 30;:332941241227150 [PMID: 38291607]
  16. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):52-8 [PMID: 20081161]
  17. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019 Apr;195:50-63 [PMID: 30878648]
  18. Behav Res Methods. 2010 Nov;42(4):1096-104 [PMID: 21139177]
  19. Span J Psychol. 2023 May 02;26:e8 [PMID: 37127294]
  20. Brain Res. 2015 Jul 30;1615:139-147 [PMID: 25935695]
  21. Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 10;13:803184 [PMID: 35360587]
  22. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Dec;52:101018 [PMID: 34678671]
  23. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Nov;69(5):890-902 [PMID: 7473036]
  24. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2023 Oct;23(5):1460-1472 [PMID: 37700144]
  25. J Neurosci. 2020 Sep 16;40(38):7286-7299 [PMID: 32839234]
  26. Sci Rep. 2023 Oct 14;13(1):17463 [PMID: 37838816]
  27. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Aug 30;113(35):9763-8 [PMID: 27528669]
  28. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  29. Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Mar 28;285(1875): [PMID: 29593114]
  30. Behav Res Methods. 2024 Oct;56(7):6812-6825 [PMID: 38509269]
  31. PLoS One. 2016 Oct 27;11(10):e0165289 [PMID: 27788192]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0prosocialobservationlearningsocialtendenciesintrinsiccognitiveprosocialityexhibitindividualsabilityeffecttendencyparticipantsreinforcementcomputationalmodelPeopleoftensociallyfavorablebehaviorsobservedotherspotentiallyinfluencingskillsRecentstudiesfoundnon-responsivevariousdecisiontasksstudyaimedinvestigatewhetheralsolackchangeusedProsocialReinforcementLearningTaskPRLTassessinteractiontotal102randomlyassignedeithercontrolgroupperformingtwo-armedbandittaskself-other-rewardconditionsbehavioraloutcomesanalyzedusingpreviouslylessexhibitedincreasedcontrastalreadyshowedsignificantchangesdemonstratednumerical-butstatisticallynon-significant-increaseselffindingsrevealeddifferentialeffectsmodulatingone'saccordingindividualdifferencesSocialdifferentiallyaffectsselfishpeopleaudienceimpressionmanagementreputationthird-partyobserver

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.