Policy shaping based on the learned preferences of others accounts for risky decision-making under social observation

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Seon and Chung's study investigates the hypothesis that individuals take more risks when observed by others because they perceive others to be riskier than themselves. To test this, the authors designed an innovative experimental paradigm where participants were informed that their decisions would be observed by a "risky" player and a "safe" player. Participants underwent fMRI scanning during the task.

Strengths:

The research question is sound, and the experimental paradigm is well-suited to address the hypothesis.

Weaknesses:

I have several concerns. Most notably, the manuscript is difficult to read in parts, and I suggest a thorough revision of the writing for clarity, as some sections are nearly incomprehensible. Additionally, key statistical details are missing, and I have reservations about the choice of ROIs.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study aims to investigate how social observation influences risky decision-making. Using a gambling task, the study explored how participants adjusted their risk-taking behavior when they believed their decisions were being observed by either a risk-averse or risk-seeking partner. The authors hypothesized that individuals would simulate the choices of their observers based on learned preferences and integrate these simulated choices into their own decision-making. In addition to behavioral experiments, the study employed computational modeling to formalize decision processes and fMRI to identify the neural underpinnings of risky decision-making under social observation.

Strengths:

The study provides a fresh perspective on social influence in decision-making, moving beyond the simple notion that social observation leads to uniformly riskier behavior. Instead, it shows that individuals adjust their choices depending on their beliefs about the observer's risk preferences, offering a more nuanced understanding of how social contexts shape decision-making. The authors provide evidence using comprehensive approaches, including behavioral data based on a well-designed task, computational modeling, and neuroimaging. The three models are well selected to compare at which level (e.g., computing utility, risk preference shift, and choice probability) the social influence alters one's risky decision-making. This approach allows for a more precise understanding of the cognitive processes underlying decision-making under social observation.

Weaknesses:

While the neuroimaging results are generally consistent with the behavioral and computational findings, the strength of the neural evidence could be improved. The authors' claims about the involvement of the TPJ and mPFC in integrating social information are plausible, but further analysis, such as model comparisons at the neuroimaging level, is needed to decisively rule out alternative interpretations that other computational models suggest.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an important paper using a novel paradigm to examine how observation affects the social contagion of risk preferences. There is a lot of interest in the field about the mechanisms of social influence, and adding in the factor of whether observation also influences these contagion effects is intriguing.

Strengths:

(1) There is an impressive combination of a multi-stage behavioural task with computational modelling and neuroimaging.

(2) The analyses are well conducted and the sample size is reasonable.

Weaknesses:

(1) Anatomically it would be helpful to more explicitly distinguish between dmPFC and vmPFC. Particularly at the end of the introduction when mPFC and vmPFC are distinguished, as the vmPFC is in the mPFC.

(2) The authors' definition of ROIs could be elaborated on further. They suggest that peaks are selected from neurosynth for different terms, but were there not multiple peaks identified within a functional or anatomical brain area? This section could be strengthened by confirming with anatomical ROIs where available, such as the atlases here http://www.rbmars.dds.nl/lab/CBPatlases.html and the Harvard-Oxford atlases.

(3) How did the authors ensure there were enough trials to generate a reliable BOLD signal? The scanned part of the study seems relatively short.

(4) It would be helpful to add whether any brain areas survived whole-brain correction.

(5) There is a concern that mediation cannot be used to make causal inferences and much larger samples are needed to support claims of mediation. The authors should change the term mediation in order to not imply causality (they could talk about indirect effects instead) and highlight that the mediation analyses are exploratory as they would not be sufficiently powered (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843527/).

(6) The authors may want to speculate on lifespan differences in this susceptibility to risk preferences given recent evidence that older adults are relatively more susceptible to impulsive social influence (Zhu et al, 2024, comms psychology).