Neural dissociations in attitude strength: Distinct regions of cingulate cortex track ambivalence and certainty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People's behaviors are often guided by valenced responses to objects in the environment. Beyond positive and negative evaluations, attitudes research has documented the importance of attitude strength--qualities of an attitude that enhance or attenuate its impact and durability. Although neuroscience research has extensively investigated valence, little work exists on other related variables like metacognitive judgments about one's attitudes. It remains unclear, then, whether the various indicators of attitude strength represent a single underlying neural process or whether they reflect independent processes. To examine this, we used functional MRI (fMRI) to identify the neural correlates of attitude strength. Specifically, we focus on ambivalence and certainty, which represent metacognitive judgments that people can make about their evaluations. Although often correlated, prior neuroscience research suggests that these 2 attributes may have distinct neural underpinnings. We investigate this by having participants make evaluative judgments of visually presented words while undergoing fMRI. After scanning, participants rated the degree of ambivalence and certainty they felt regarding their attitudes toward each word. We found that these 2 judgments corresponded to distinct brain regions' activity during the process of evaluation. Ambivalence corresponded to activation in anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, and posterior cingulate cortex. Certainty, however, corresponded to activation in unique areas of the precuneus/posterior cingulate cortex. These results support a model treating ambivalence and certainty as distinct, though related, attitude strength variables, and we discuss implications for both attitudes and neuroscience research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".