View Item 

Show simple item record

Connectivity between mPFC and PCC predicts post‐choice attitude change: The self‐referential processing hypothesis of choice justification
dc.contributor.authorTompson, Steven
dc.contributor.authorChua, Hannah Faye
dc.contributor.authorKitayama, Shinobu
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-17T21:17:02Z
dc.date.available2018-01-08T19:47:51Zen
dc.date.issued2016-11
dc.identifier.citationTompson, Steven; Chua, Hannah Faye; Kitayama, Shinobu (2016). "Connectivity between mPFC and PCC predicts post‐choice attitude change: The self‐referential processing hypothesis of choice justification." Human Brain Mapping 37(11): 3810-3820.
dc.identifier.issn1065-9471
dc.identifier.issn1097-0193
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/134093
dc.description.abstractPrior research shows that after making a choice, decision makers shift their attitudes in a choice‐congruous direction. Although this post‐choice attitude change effect is robust, the neural mechanisms underlying it are poorly understood. Here, we tested the hypothesis that decision makers elaborate on their choice in reference to self‐knowledge to justify the choice they have made. This self‐referential processing of the choice is thought to play a pivotal role in the post‐choice attitude change. Twenty‐four young American adults made a series of choices. They also rated their attitudes toward the choice options before and after the choices. In support of the current hypothesis, we found that changes in functional connectivity between two putative self‐regions (medial prefrontal cortex and posterior cingulate cortex/precuneus]) during the post‐choice (vs. pre‐choice) rating of the chosen options predicted the post‐choice shift of the attitudes toward the chosen options. This finding is the first to suggest that cognitive integration of various self‐relevant cognitions is instrumental in fostering post‐choice attitude change. Hum Brain Mapp 37:3810–3820, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherRow, Peterson & Co
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherself
dc.subject.otherfunctional connectivity
dc.subject.otherdecision making
dc.subject.otherattitude change
dc.titleConnectivity between mPFC and PCC predicts post‐choice attitude change: The self‐referential processing hypothesis of choice justification
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNeurosciences
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelKinesiology and Sports
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134093/1/hbm23277_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134093/2/hbm23277.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hbm.23277
dc.identifier.sourceHuman Brain Mapping
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSajonz B, Kahnt T, Margulies DS, Park SQ, Wittmann A, Stoy M, Ströhle A, Heinz A, Northoff G, Bermpohl F ( 2010 ): Delineating self‐referential processing from episodic memory retrieval: Common and dissociable networks. NeuroImage 50: 1606 – 1617.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMa Y, Bang D, Wang C, Allen M, Frith C, Roepstorff A, Han S ( 2014 ): Sociocultural patterning of neural activity during self‐reflection. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9: 3 – 80.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKitayama S, Snibbe AC, Markus HR, Suzuki T ( 2004 ): Is there any “free” choice? Self and dissonance in two cultures. Psychol Sci 15: 527 – 533.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKitayama S, Tompson S ( 2015 ): A biosocial model of affective decision making: Implications for dissonance, motivation, and culture. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 52: 71 – 137.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKitayama S, Tompson S, Chua HF ( 2014 ): Cultural neuroscience of choice justification. Control within: Motivation and its regulation, 313 – 330.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorthoff G, Heinzel A, de Greck M, Bermpohl F, Dobrowolny H, Panksepp J ( 2006 ): Self‐referential processing in our brain‐A meta‐analysis of imaging studies on the self. NeuroImage 31: 440 – 457.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePark B, Tsai JL, Chim L, Blevins E, Knutson B ( 2016 ): Neural evidence for cultural differences in the valuation of positive facial expressions. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 11: 243 – 252.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePoldrack RA ( 2012 ): The future of fMRI in cognitive neuroscience. NeuroImage 62: 1216 – 1220.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceQin J, Kimel S, Kitayama S, Wang X, Yang X, Han S ( 2011 ): How choice modifies preference: Neural correlates of choice justification. NeuroImage 55: 240 – 246.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceQin P, Liu Y, Shi J, Wang Y, Duncan N, Gong Q, Weng X, Northoff G ( 2012 ): Dissociation between anterior and posterior cortical regions during self‐specificity and familiarity: A combined fMRI‐meta‐analytic study. Hum Brain Mapp 33: 154 – 164.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRies ML, McLaren DG, Bendlin BB, Guofanxu Rowley HA, Birn R, Kastman EK, Sager MA, Asthana S, Johnson SC ( 2012 ): Medial prefrontal functional connectivity–relation to memory self‐appraisal accuracy in older adults with and without memory disorders. Neuropsychologia 50: 603 – 611.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRogers BP, Morgan VL, Newton AT, Gore JC ( 2007 ): Assessing functional connectivity in the human brain by fMRI. Magn Reson Imaging 25: 1347 – 1357.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNa J, Kitayama S ( 2012 ): Will people work hard on a task they choose? Social‐eyes priming in different cultural contexts. J Exp Soc Psychol 48: 284 – 290.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSavani K, Markus HR, Conner AL ( 2008 ): Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. J Pers Soc Psychol 95: 861 – 876.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSavani K, Markus HR, Naidu NVR, Kumar S, Berlia NV ( 2010 ): What counts as a choice? U.S. Americans are more likely than Indians to construe actions as choices. Psychol Sci 21: 391 – 398.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSharot T, De Martino B, Dolan RJ ( 2009 ): How choice reveals and shapes expected hedonic outcome. J Neurosci 29: 3760 – 3765.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSingelis TM ( 1994 ): The measurement of independent and interdependent self‐construals. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 20: 580 – 591.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteele CM ( 1988 ): The psychology of self‐affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 21: 261 – 302.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSteele CM, Liu TJ ( 1983 ): Dissonance processes as self‐affirmation. J Pers Soc Psychol 45: 5 – 19.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStone J, Cooper J ( 2001 ): A self‐standards model of cognitive dissonance. J Exp Soc Psychol 37: 228 – 243.
dc.identifier.citedreferencevan der Meer L, Costafreda S, Aleman A, David AS ( 2010 ): Self‐reflection and the brain: A theoretical review and meta‐analysis of neuroimaging studies with implications for schizophrenia. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34: 935 – 946.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVarnum MEW, Shi Z, Chen A, Qiu J, Han S ( 2014 ): When “Your” reward is the same as “My” reward: Self‐construal priming shifts neural responses to own vs. friends’ rewards. NeuroImage 87: 164 – 169.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWorsley KJ, Evans AC, Marrett S, Neelin P ( 1992 ): A three‐dimensional statistical analysis for CBF activation studies in human brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 12: 900 – 918.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWorsley KJ, Poline JB, Friston KJ, Evans AC ( 1997 ): Characterizing the response of PET and fMRI data using multivariate linear models. NeuroImage 6: 305 – 319.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcLaren DG, Ries ML, Xu G, Johnson SC ( 2012 ): A generalized form of context‐dependent psychophysiological interactions (gPPI): A comparison to standard approaches. NeuroImage 61: 1277 – 1286.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorel N, Villain N, Rauchs G, Gaubert M, Piolino P, Landeau B, Mézenge F, Desgranges B, Eustache F, Chételat G ( 2014 ): Brain activity and functional coupling changes associated with self‐reference effect during both encoding and retrieval. PLoS One 9: e90488.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlós‐Ferrer C, Shi F ( 2015 ): Choice‐induced preference change and the free‐choice paradigm: A clarification. Judgm Decis Mak 10: 34 – 49.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAronson E ( 1969 ): The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 4: 1 – 34.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBartra O, McGuire JT, Kable JW ( 2013 ): The valuation system: A coordinate‐based meta‐analysis of BOLD fMRI experiments examining neural correlates of subjective value. NeuroImage 76: 412 – 427.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrehm JW ( 1956 ): Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 52: 384 – 389.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChen MK, Risen JL ( 2010 ): How choice affects and reflects preferences: Revisiting the free‐choice paradigm. J Pers Soc Psychol 99: 573 – 594.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChua HF, Ho SS, Jasinska AJ, Polk TA, Welsh RC, Liberzon I, Strecher VJ ( 2011 ): Self‐related neural response to tailored smoking‐cessation messages predicts quitting. Nat Neurosci 14: 426 – 427.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDenny BT, Kober H, Wager TD, Ochsner KN ( 2012 ): A meta‐analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of self‐ and other judgments reveals a spatial gradient for mentalizing in medial prefrontal cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 24: 1742 – 1752.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFestinger L ( 1957 ): A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. New York: Row, Peterson & Co.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeyers D, Collette F, D’Argembeau A, Majerus S, Salmon E ( 2010 ): Neural networks involved in self‐judgement in young and elderly adults. NeuroImage 53: 341 – 347.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGawronski B, Bodenhausen GV, Becker AP ( 2007 ): I like it, because I like myself: Associative self‐anchoring and post‐decisional change of implicit evaluations. J Exp Soc Psychol 43: 221 – 232.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGutchess AH, Welsh RC, Boduroglu A, Park DC ( 2006 ): Cultural differences in neural function associated with object processing. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 6: 102 – 109.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHan S, Northoff G, Vogeley K, Wexler BE, Kitayama S, Varnum MEW ( 2013 ): A cultural neuroscience approach to the biosocial nature of the human brain. Annu Rev Psychol 64: 335 – 359.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarmon‐Jones E, Amodio DM, Harmon‐Jones C ( 2009 ): Action‐based model of dissonance. A review, integration, and expansion of conceptions of cognitive conflict. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1st ed., Vol. 41, Chapter 3. Elsevier Inc. Available at: http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/when-include-retrieval-date.aspx
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHyde LW, Tompson S, Creswell JD, Falk EB ( 2015 ): Cultural neuroscience: New directions as the field matures. Cult Brain 3: 75 – 92.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIzuma K, Matsumoto M, Murayama K, Samejima K, Sadato N, Matsumoto K ( 2010 ): Neural correlates of cognitive dissonance and choice‐induced preference change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 22014 – 22019.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJarcho JM, Berkman ET, Lieberman MD ( 2011 ): The neural basis of rationalization: Cognitive dissonance reduction during decision‐making. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 6: 460 – 467.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJenkinson M, Bannister P, Brady M, Smith S ( 2002 ): Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. NeuroImage 17: 825 – 841.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKitayama S, Chua HF, Tompson S, Han S ( 2013 ): Neural mechanisms of dissonance: An fMRI investigation of choice justification. NeuroImage 69: 206 – 212.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
hbm23277_am.pdf
Size:
552.4KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
hbm23277.pdf
Size:
250.8KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.