Mind,&Brain,&&&Behavior&

in&
&Groups'&'Social'Networks'
Noam&Zerubavel&
11.25.14&

Todays&class&
Contd&from&last&class:&envy&&&schadenfreude&
How&inEgroup/outEgroup&aects&schadenfreude&
Status&in&groups&
How&do&we&track&group&members&status?&
Status&<E>&social&cogniOve&ability,&brain&structure/
funcOon&&

Social&networks&
Network&size/complexity&<E>&social&cogniOve&ability,&
brain&structure/funcOon&

Social&Pain&&&Social&Reward&

&
Are&there&factors&that&inuence&
whether&we&respond&to&others&
suering&with&empathy&vs.&&
counterempathy/schadenfreude?&
What&do&you&think?&
Any&guesses?'

&
Are&there&factors&that&inuence&
whether&we&respond&to&others&
suering&with&empathy&vs.&&
counterempathy/schadenfreude?&
Does&it&maXer&whether&they&belong&
to&in4group'vs.'out4group?'

Task&Design&

Hein&et&al.&(2010)&

Helping&vs.&Schadenfreude&
Depends&on&Ingroup&vs.&Outgroup'
ingroup&
bias&

ingroup&
bias&

Hein&et&al.&(2010)&

Ingroup&Bias&in&Anterior&Insula&Predicts&
Ingroup&Bias&in&Helping&Behavior&

Hein&et&al.&(2010)&

AI&while&watching&outgroup&suering&
related&to&impression&of&outroup&

Hein&et&al.&(2010)&

NAcc&(VS)&while&watching&outgroup&
suering&relates&to&impression&of&outgroup&
&&predicts&helping&behavior&

Hein&et&al.&(2010)&

Status&
Does&our&standing&within&the&group&
relate&to&our&brains&and&behavior?&&

Monkey&PayEPerEView&

Task&Paradigm&

Deaner,&Khera,&&&PlaX&(2005)&

Watson&&&PlaX&(2012)&

Klein&&&PlaX&(2013)&

Male&rhesus&macaques&=&
StatusEconscious&monkeys&
spontaneously&discriminate&images&of&others&based&on&social&status&
dierenOally&value&the&opportunity&to&acquire&visual&informaOon&
about&parOcular&classes&of&social&images&
sacriced&uid&for&the&opportunity&to&view&female&perinea&and&the&
faces&of&highE&status&monkeys&but&required&uid&overpayment&to&
view&the&faces&of&lowEstatus&monkeys&

Deaner,&Khera,&&&PlaX&(2005)&

How&does&the&brain&keep&track&of&
group&members&social&status?&
E Monkeys&
E Humans&&&&&&

Neurons&in&OFC&&&striatum&code&
social&status&&

Watson&&&PlaX&(2012)&

Klein&&&PlaX&(2013)&

Neural&system&for&valuaOon&

Brain systems tracking popularity

in real world social networks
Noam Zerubavel
Peter Bearman

Kevin Ochsner
Jochen Weber

Social Cognitive Neuroscience Lab

Columbia University
Research supported by:

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Person Perception....

Target

Perceiver

liking
Zack

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Screech

Sociometric popularity

more popular

less popular
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Perceived popularity
popular people
1. Otherwise known as jocks and cheerleaders....

Wednesday, December 3, 14

the present study

do our brains track

How
group members popularity?

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Use fMRI to help address question....

Two kinds of brain systems could
be important:

(e)valuation (e.g., amg, vent. striatum, vmPFC)

social
cognition (e.g., dmPFC, precuneus, TPJ)
Dor*, Zerubavel*, & Ochsner (2014)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Measuring popularityusing social

network analysis
Two real world networks
network A
n = 13 (8f)

network B
n = 13 (6f)

How much do you like [Zack]?

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Measuring popularityusing social

network analysis
Two real world networks
network A
n = 13 (8f)

Wednesday, December 3, 14

network B
n = 13 (6f)

Measuring popularityusing social

network analysis
Two real world networks
network A

network B

n = 13 (8f)

n = 13 (6f)

more popular

less popular
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Face Viewing Task

Two kinds of trials
face from your group....
...or control stimulus?

based on
Taylor et al. (2009)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Face Viewing Task

every group
member x 10

1s
~ 3.5 s
1s

~ 3.5 s
1s

~ 3.5 s
1s

~ 3.5 s
1s

+
Time

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Face Viewing Task

X
X
X
Wednesday, December 3, 14

the actual task stimuli

control for confounds:
direct gaze
neutral expression
photos were cropped
& luminance-matched

Results
(e)Valuation System
Independently localized using
Monetary Incentive Delay task

-or-

Cue
500 ms

Delay
4000-4500 ms

$1 -or- 0
Target
160-260 ms

Feedback
500 ms

task from Knutson et al (2000, 2001); cf. Tamir & Mitchell (2012), Zaki et al. (2011)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Results
(e)Valuation System

amygdala

ventral
striatum

ventromedial PFC

cf. Rangel et al (2008), Hartley & Phelps (2012), Cunningham & Brosch (2012)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Standardized parameter
estimates of activation

Results
(e)Valuation System
p < .05

p < .05
p < .05

Target popularity

amygdala

Target popularity

ventral
striatum

Target popularity

ventromedial PFC

cf. Rangel et al (2008), Hartley & Phelps (2012), Cunningham & Brosch (2012)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Results
Social Cognition System
Independently localized using
Person Judgment task
You about other
-orOther about
you
-orSt/Cv Lines

friendly

Judgment Cue
2000 ms

Fixation
250 ms

Trait Adjective
1250 ms

1-2-3-4

not at
all

very
much

Rating Scale
2250 ms

task adapted from Ochsner et al (2005); cf. Kelley et al (2002), Denny et al (2012)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Results
Social Cognition System

dorsomedial
PFC

precuneus

bilateral TPJ

cf. Amodio & Frith (2006), Van Overwalle & Baetens (2009), Zaki & Ochsner (2012)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Standardized parameter
estimates of activation

Results
Social Cognition System
p < .05

p < .05

Target popularity

Target popularity

p < .05
Target popularity

dorsomedial
PFC

precuneus

left TPJ

cf. Amodio & Frith (2006), Van Overwalle & Baetens (2009), Zaki & Ochsner (2012)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Results

are findings are robust to

potential confounds?

idiosyncratic liking

duration of relationship

frequency of contact
Target attractiveness

Target trustworthiness

Wednesday, December 3, 14

How do we track others popularity?

Are all systems equally important?

(e)valuation (e.g., amg, vent. striatum, vmPFC)

social
cognition (e.g., dmPFC, precuneus, TPJ)

Dor*, Zerubavel*, & Ochsner (2014)

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Or is there an, orchestrator?

(e)valuation system

Target
popularity

.1
=
a

.01
(
0

vmPFC

)**

b=
ven. striatum.
amygdala
1.0
2(
.06
)**
*

ab = .10 (.04)**

c = .05 (.04), ns.

social cognition system

* P < 0.05
** P < 0.01
*** P < 0.005
Wednesday, December 3, 14

dmPFC

precuneus

left TPJ

Does it matter who does the perceiving?

Who is more sensitive to detecting
differences in others popularity?

Popular

Zack

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Unpopular

Screech

Does it matter who does the perceiving?

Are the (e)valuation systems of
(un)popular perceivers more sensitive?
The correlation is stronger for
popular perceivers

* = p < .05
Wednesday, December 3, 14

popularity!"!eval. correlation

Target
popularity

(e)valuation system
activity

Unpopular
perceivers

Popular
perceivers

Does it matter who does the perceiving?

Is there behavioral evidence for this?

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Does it matter who does the perceiving?

In a pre-scan session, participants completed
person judgment task for all group members

Zack

Screech

You about other

(Zack about
Screech)

friendly

Judgment Cue

Trait Adjective

Rating Scale

Other about you

You about other
(Zack about
Screech)

friendly

1-2-3-4

Judgment Cue

Trait Adjective

Wednesday, December 3, 14

1-2-3-4

not at
all

not at
all

very
much

very
much

Rating Scale

Does it matter who does the perceiving?

Popular perceivers are more accurate
about how others see them

Correlation reflecting
accuracy of your
judgments of how
others perceive you

R = .54
* P < 0.05
Perceiver popularity
(z-score)
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Take homes
How do we track others popularity?
systems for (e)valuation encode sociometric
popularity....

....signal that systems for social cognition

should come on line.......
effects driven by popular perceivers....
Perceiver
popularity
Target
popularity

Wednesday, December 3, 14

Evaluation

Social Cognition

Take homes
How do we track others popularity?
systems for evaluation encode sociometric
popularity....

....signal that systems for social cognition

should come on line....

effects driven by popular perceivers....

provides neural insights into mechanisms

underlying behavioral benefits of being popular

raises questions about:

other types of status
other types of networks
origins of these effects ....
Wednesday, December 3, 14

Links&between&social&status&and&
social&network&size&in&the&brain&

Social&network&size/complexity&correlates&
with&size&of&amygdala,&vmPFC,&pSTS/TPJ&

Bickart&et&al.&(2011)&

DirecOon&of&Causality?&

Assignment&to&larger&social&networks&
increased&gray&maXer&in&mPFC&&&STS/TPJ&

Sallet&et&al.&(2011)&

Overlapping&neural&substrates&for&
social&status&and&social&network&size&in&
mPFC&&&STS/TPJ&

Noonan&et&al.&(2014)&