How choice modifies preference: neural correlates of choice justification
Jungang Qin1, Sasha Kimel, Shinobu Kitayama
1Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Neuroimage
|December 7, 2010
Summary
People justify difficult choices by altering their preferences, a process linked to brain activity in areas like the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC). This neural activity helps explain how we rationalize decisions, supporting the self-threat theory of choice justification.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Social Psychology
Background:
- Individuals often rationalize difficult choices by enhancing their preference for the chosen option and devaluing the rejected one.
- Understanding the neural mechanisms underlying this choice justification is crucial for comprehending decision-making processes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To identify the neural correlates of choice justification using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
- To investigate the relationship between individual differences in choice justification, self-construal, and brain activity.
Main Methods:
- Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was employed to monitor brain activity in participants as they rated their preferences for musical CDs before and after making choices.
- Analysis focused on correlating neural activity with attitude changes and individual differences in justification.
Main Results:
- Post-choice activity in the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), right temporal-parietal junction, anterior insula, and bilateral cerebellum predicted trial-by-trial attitude changes.
- Individual differences in choice justification correlated with activity in the dorsal MPFC, left lateral prefrontal cortex, and right precentral cortex.
- Interdependent self-construal was associated with reduced ventral MPFC activity post-choice.
Conclusions:
- Choice justification involves neural processes related to negative arousal/regulation and self-reflection.
- Findings provide evidence supporting the self-threat theory of choice justification, highlighting the brain's role in rationalizing decisions.
More Related Videos
05:48The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
Published on: June 12, 2020
08:24The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
Published on: August 25, 2023
Related Concept Videos
01:09Decision Making: P-value Method
The process of hypothesis testing based on the P-value method includes calculating the P- value using the sample data and interpreting it.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can have a...
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can have a...
01:37Reason and Intuition
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...
01:19Personal Choice and Fate Attributions
Some individuals interpret life events as a consequence of their personal choices and actions, while others believe that outcomes are dictated by fate or destiny. This divergence in perspective has been examined in psychological and cross-cultural studies, particularly in relation to religious faith and cultural beliefs about causality.Fate and Personal ResponsibilityPeople who emphasize personal responsibility view events as direct consequences of their decisions. For instance, breaking a leg...
01:20Decision Making
Decision-making is a fundamental cognitive process that involves evaluating alternatives and selecting among them. This process can range from simple choices, such as deciding what to wear, to complex decisions, like choosing a major in college or a career path. The complexity of the decision often dictates the approach we use, which can be broadly categorized into two types: automatic and controlled decision-making.
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
01:29Theory of Attribution II: Kelley's Covariation Theory
Attribution theory plays a crucial role in social psychology, helping to explain how individuals interpret the causes of behavior. One prominent model within this field is Harold Kelley's covariation theory, which provides a systematic approach to determining whether internal traits or external circumstances drive a person's actions. The model posits that individuals rely on three key types of information—consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness—to make these judgments.Consensus: Comparing...
01:53Cause and Effect
While variables are sometimes correlated because one does cause the other, it could also be that some other factor, a confounding variable, is actually causing the systematic movement in our variables of interest. For instance, as sales in ice cream increase, so does the overall rate of crime. Is it possible that indulging in your favorite flavor of ice cream could send you on a crime spree? Or, after committing crime do you think you might decide to treat yourself to a cone?