In the previous sections, we discussed decision-making mechanisms for independent
mi individuals, i.e. autonomous subjects, completely free from influence
surrounding However, such an ideal situation in real life seems little
probable. In addition to the physical presence of a number of other people, we experience all kinds of
possible forms of pressure from society - from advertising and family traditions to
Trivial or journalistic prose. It is important to note that our behavior is
tally regulated by moral categories that are directly dependent on public
well-established social norms of behavior. The influence of other people on the behavior of an individual
mind is called social influence , and generally accepted normative patterns of behavior
Denia - social norms (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004).
One of the most famous phenomena of social being is conformism,
defined as a change in behavior or opinion in the direction given by the behavior
most of them (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004). When analyzing conformal behavior,
social psychologists distinguish the following motivational foundations: the desire to correct
but interpret the surrounding reality, as well as the desire to behave appropriately
situation (1), the desire to get approval from others (2), as well as the desire to
preservation of a positive self-image (3), supporting the so-called
Self-Concept (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004).
Perhaps the most famous study of conformism was an innovative study.
the pursuit of Solomon Asch (Asch, 1951) - an American psychologist who showed at the beginning
The 60s of the last century, that most of the subjects he studied were altered
his opinion in the direction of the obviously false opinion of the majority, sought to harmonize
vat their behavior with the accepted standards in the group.
Currently, it is customary to divide social (group) norms into the following
Types (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004):
1) injective , or prohibitive, norms (injunctive norms) that have moral
coloring and being the prescription of how, in fact, should be done;
2) descriptive , or descriptive, norms (descriptive norm), defining how
most people act in this situation regardless of acceptability and non-acceptance
the value of this action.
The effect of the injective rules (“do not kill”, “do not steal”, etc.) usually supports
Xia various forms of punishment. Descriptive rules contain information about
behavior prevailing in a certain group of individuals. Although the descriptive
standards are more informative, they have an extraordinary effective
ness. It is the descriptive norms that largely determine the percentage of under-
defaulting taxpayers, crime rates, environmental concerns, frequency of
meignant infidelity and many other forms of behavior (Kenrick et al., 2004). Interesting what's in
ordinary life, we almost never think about the impact that we have on social
general norms.
Despite the fact that from year to year more and more data appears in the scientific literature.
about what neuronal mechanisms underlie the decision-making process, we are up to
So far, we know relatively little about the neurobiological mechanisms of social influence.
our decisions. What could be the mechanism of social influence of descriptive
okay While many socio-psychological theories emphasize the role of
social approval or membership of a group as a kind of social support
fixings (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004), microeconomic theory to a greater degree
focuses on studying the impact of penalties for violating standards (Fehr and Fischbacher,
2004). From the point of view of the cognitive-behavioral approach from both concepts, the following
em that conformity to social norms is conditioned by learning
with reinforcement: social norms selectively reinforce (reinforce) certain
Lenny behavior. Is it possible to test this hypothesis in neuroeconomic research?
giving?
Purposeful behavior requires monitoring the results and, therefore,
constant feedback (Montague et al., 2006): optimal behavioral acts
stained and erroneous corrected. In other words, errors indicate the need
behavior change behavior and thus lead to learning. Many training models
Reinforcements include the prediction reward error link (reinforced by
nia) is the difference between the expected and the obtained result (Sutton and Barto, 1998).
It is believed that a reward prediction error corrects our actions
rez mechanism to signal the need to change behavior. To date
the function of the cingulate gyrus has been experimentally confirmed and characterized (in particular
rostral cingulate zone (RCZ) in generating this signal
(Gehring et al., 1993). There is reason to believe that, in addition to the cingulate gyrus,
Lena neural network that monitors the results of decision-making,
other structures are involved, such as the lower areas of the striatum (ventral striatum), in
features of the nucleus accumbens, which in popular literature is
This is called the pleasure center.
Reflecting on sources of social influence, researchers (Klucharev et al.,
2009) suggested that in response to the mismatch of the behavioral act with the generally accepted
mi norms neurons of our brain generate a signal that is similar in mechanism to the signal
reward prediction errors (as defined by learning theory with
and an automatic signal that the behavior of an individual changes
elk and became similar to the behavior of the majority. Assume that conformality is valid
has a neurobiological origin, similar in mechanism to learning with
reinforcement, then it would be logical to assume that the activity of the belt winding
conflict with social norms
Mami. If the activity in these zones is similar to the prediction error of remuneration,
then by the change in the degree of activation it is possible to predict, change the
Perceived his opinion or not. To test this hypothesis, the researchers propose
students whose brain activity was assessed using fMRI
knackiness of female faces. After the subject assessed the attractiveness of the
a brazen person, she was presented with a group assessment, reflecting the “majority opinion”,
200 students allegedly received as a result of similar testing. In reality
most important, group evaluations were computer-generated by a special pseudo-random
For the algorithm: a) the group's score is more positive than the subject's score; b) group assessment
Py is more negative than the evaluation of the subject; c) the estimates are the same. Thus, in
bang, when the opinion of the subjects differed from the normative assessment of the majority, the experimental
mentators caused a conflict of opinions. To assess the degree of conformity of each of
participants of the experiment in half an hour after the execution of the main task to the subjects
unexpectedly, it was proposed to evaluate the same photographs presented in the new
tea) order.
It turned out that the subjects systematically changed their mind about attractive
persons in accordance with the opinion of the majority, i.e., were conformal. As expected
it was, the disagreement of his own opinion with the opinion of the majority led to the
of the central part of the cingulate gyrus (RCZ) - the area responsible for detecting
internal conflicts and reward prediction errors; at the same time,
Inhibition of the activation of the nucleus accumbens, i.e., generation of the signal
la error, meaning the need to change their opinion and align it with
social norm. Interestingly, the activity of the nucleus accumbens correlated with the individual
dual level of conformity of the subjects (Fig. 2)
Fig. 2. Activation of the cingulate gyrus (highlighted in white and the circle at the top of the image) and deactivation of the adjacent nucleus (highlighted in white and the circle at the bottom of the image) during a conflict with the majority opinion. Indicators of the activity of these zones correlate with the degree of conformity of the subjects (adapted from: Klucharev et al., 2009)
In this and subsequent studies, evidence was obtained of the similarity of the neurobiological mechanisms of social influence with
The training process with reinforcements (Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010; Klucharev et al., 2009). Research results indicate
that conformity is an automatic response (similar to System 1). Automatic adjustment of behavior in accordance with the majority opinion may be based on a more accurate modeling of reality by a group of people compared with individuals (Yaniv, 2004) and, possibly, has an important adaptive value in evolution. However, such an automatic system may have its drawbacks. Failure in it can lead to irrational behavior. For example, in the United States, an unusually large number of overweight people are found on a very limited territory. Following the above logic, the automatic behavior adjustment system in this case fails: when people are overweight
see fat people who look like themselves, they have no desire to lose weight - “why?” -
because everything is as complete as I am.
Richard Dawkins (1976) suggested that the evolution
consistently stable behavior of the majority, constantly tested by evolution, and, therefore,
optimal in given environmental conditions. Evolutionarily stable strategy
- this is a strategy that guides most individuals of the population and which
is preferable to all other alternative strategies, i.e., from an evolutionary point
In other words, behavior can only be understood by the majority if it is better.
their alternatives. As a result, a rational decision can be considered
give a majority. Thus, according to Dawkins, each individual tries
maximizing your personal gain and “conformism” is the only correct strategy;
allows to survive, because the deviation from the optimal strategy of the majority of punishments
natural selection. It turns out that the automatic conformity, being
effective strategy at the stage of natural selection, can play a cruel joke and
lead to unexpected consequences of human functioning in modern society.
Comments
To leave a comment
Neuroeconomics
Terms: Neuroeconomics