Group membership dictates the neural correlates of social optimism biases

Abstract

optimism bias, i.e. expecting the future to hold more desirable than undesirable outcomes, also extends to people that we like or admire. However, it remains unknown how the brain generates this social optimism bias. in this study, respondents estimated the likelihood of future desirable and undesirable outcomes for an in-group and three out-groups: warm-incompetent, cold-competent, and cold-incompetent. We found a strong social optimism bias for the in-group and the warm outgroup and an inverted pattern for the cold-incompetent out-group. for all groups, scores of social optimism bias correlated with the brain activity in structures that respondents differentially engaged depending on the target social group. in line with our hypotheses, evaluating the in-group recruited the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex, whereas evaluating the warm out-group engaged the posterior insula, mid cingulate cortex, and somatosensory cortices. these findings suggest different underlying cognitive mechanisms of social optimism bias for these groups, despite similar behavioural patterns. thinking about the cold out-groups recruited the right anterior temporal lobe, and temporoparietal junction. evaluating the cold-incompetent out-group additionally recruited the anterior insula, inferior frontal cortex and dorsomedial frontal cortex. We discuss these neuroimaging findings with respect to their putative cognitive functions. Human minds are highly capable of solving problems at hand, anticipating prospective issues and benefits, and planning accordingly. At the core of these skills lies the capacity to gauge the likelihood of future events 1-3. The way we assess the likelihood of future events in the general population is different from how we assess it for ourselves 4-6 , for those close to us 7-10 , and for in-group 11,12 and out-group members 11-19. Through various motivational 20,21 and cognitive mechanisms 22,23 , we manifest an optimism bias whenever we think about our future and the future of those close to us 4,8,10,11,13 but not of acquaintances or dissimilar others 8,11,14,24,25. Specifically, we expect that the future holds significantly more desirable than undesirable outcomes for ourselves and those we identify with 26. Despite a modest body of behavioural research on social optimism bias, i.e. optimism manifested towards people that we like and feel close to, very little is known about how the brain gives rise to this phenomenon 18. The primary focus of the current study was to investigate the neural correlates of group membership-driven optimism biases. To pursue this research aim and inform our hypotheses, we considered the neuroimaging literature on person perception and social cognition. A hallmark of social cognition is that individuals think differently about in-group and out-group members 27-32. Although what determines in-group and out-group membership is flexible and highly contextual 30,33 , people perceive in-group and out-group members as part of different entities wi...

Social optimism biases are associated with cortical thickness

“…alcoholic persons). A similar study ( Dricu et al ., 2020 ) that used the same student sample as in the present study but that focused on brain activation has linked the vmPFC/ACC and the PCC to differences in social optimism biases between the in-group and three different types of out-groups (elderly persons, businesspersons and alcoholic persons, representing progressing social distance; cf. Dricu et al ., 2018 ).…”

“…We further observed that the brain regions contributing to Mode 1 largely overlap with those found by fMRI and white matter connectivity studies on optimistic belief updating ( Sharot et al ., 2011 ; Moutsiana et al ., 2015 ). Most important, using the present sample, fMRI analyses in the current experiment revealed striking commonalities between functional and structural aspects of the social optimism bias paradigm ( Dricu et al ., 2020 ). For instance, when participants assessed event likelihoods for the most distant out-groups (alcoholic character), brain activation differed from assessment of the in-group in the dmPFC, as well as in the IFG pars orbitalis and triangularis ( Dricu et al ., 2020 ).…”

“…Most important, using the present sample, fMRI analyses in the current experiment revealed striking commonalities between functional and structural aspects of the social optimism bias paradigm ( Dricu et al ., 2020 ). For instance, when participants assessed event likelihoods for the most distant out-groups (alcoholic character), brain activation differed from assessment of the in-group in the dmPFC, as well as in the IFG pars orbitalis and triangularis ( Dricu et al ., 2020 ). In sum, the functional literature suggests that the network associated with Mode 1 is primarily linked to self-serving (possibly partly defensive) responding, which is consistent with our interpretation of self-enhancing comparison processes being reflected in the Mode 1 variate (i.e.…”

“…Forty-nine healthy participants (20 male, age: M = 23.1 years; SD = 4.0 years; range = 19–36) were recruited at the University of Bern via e-mails, flyers and the local participant pool at the university. Participants were recruited in the context of a project on optimism biases, the fMRI-related parts of which were analyzed and described in a separate paper ( Dricu et al ., 2020 ). Here, we focus on brain structure instead of brain activation .…”

“…In summary, in the literature on personal optimistic bias, the insula, the ACC and the IFG stand out as those regions most reliably associated with personal optimism bias ( Harris and Fiske, 2007 ; Sharot et al ., 2007 ; Gozzi et al ., 2009 ; Singer et al ., 2009 ; Lamm et al ., 2011 ; Sharot et al ., 2012 ; Blair et al ., 2013 ; Marcoux et al ., 2013 ; Blair et al ., 2017 ; Kuzmanovic et al ., 2018 ; Dricu et al ., 2020 ). They are also implicated in social group perception ( Krill and Platek, 2009 ; Hein et al ., 2010 ; Harris and Fiske, 2011 ; Scheepers et al ., 2013 ) and are therefore most likely to be involved in social optimism bias.…”