Have you ever considered that our brains might be more receptive to learning from people we like compared to those we dislike? A recent study conducted by researchers in cognitive neuroscience reveals just that — our ability to learn and make connections between different pieces of information is significantly influenced by our feelings towards the person presenting the information. Essentially, if the information comes from someone we like, we find it easier to remember and link together compared to when it comes from someone we dislike.
The new findings have been published in the journal Communications Psychology.
The motivation behind this study stems from a desire to understand the mechanisms that underpin our learning and memory processes, particularly in the context of social dynamics. Memory plays a crucial role in our ability to learn from new experiences and update our existing knowledge. By examining how social preferences affect memory integration—the process through which we connect information across different learning events—the researchers aimed to shed light on how our social environments can shape our understanding of the world.
To investigate this phenomenon, the research team, led by Inês Bramão, associate professor of psychology at Lund University, conducted a series of experiments. Participants were presented with a task that involved encoding and recalling associations between different objects, such as a bowl, a ball, spoon, scissors, and various other everyday items.
These objects were introduced by personas that participants were led to either like or dislike, based on a range of characteristics including political views, hobbies, and music preferences. This setup allowed the researchers to simulate real-world social dynamics in a controlled experimental environment, thereby providing a window into how our social biases might extend into our cognitive processes, particularly memory integration.
To construct these social preferences, participants were asked to create profiles for their ingroup (liked individuals) and outgroup (disliked individuals) personas, choosing from a set of predetermined attributes that covered a wide spectrum of interests and beliefs. This personalization aspect was crucial, as it ensured that the participants’ biases were genuinely reflected in the experiment, enhancing the ecological validity of the study’s findings.
The core of the study revolved around the associative inference task, a method used to assess how participants could link information across separate but related learning events. Specifically, they were asked to remember pairs of associated objects presented in different contexts, with the ultimate goal being to infer a relationship between objects that were not directly linked but shared a common associative link through an intermediate object or context.
This task was carefully designed to mimic the process of memory integration in everyday life, where we often have to make connections between different pieces of information to learn new things or update our existing knowledge.
The researchers found that participants were indeed more adept at remembering and connecting information when it was presented by personas they liked. This effect was observed across multiple measures, including the ease with which participants could encode the information, their ability to infer connections between objects not directly associated, and their memory for the information associated with liked versus disliked personas. Essentially, the study provided compelling evidence that our social preferences significantly influence our cognitive processes, particularly those related to learning and memory.
Such biases in memory integration could play a role in the formation and reinforcement of polarized beliefs within social groups. By favoring information from liked individuals, we might be more likely to integrate and accept information that aligns with our existing beliefs, potentially leading to a more divided perception of reality among different social groups.
“We are more inclined to form new connections and update knowledge from information presented by groups we favor. Such preferred groups typically provide information that aligns with our pre-existing beliefs and ideas, potentially reinforcing polarized viewpoints,” explained Mikael Johansson, a professor of psychology at Lund University.
As an example, Bramão explained: “A political party argues for raising taxes to benefit healthcare. Later, you visit a healthcare center and notice improvements have been made. If you sympathize with the party that wanted to improve healthcare through higher taxes, you’re likely to attribute the improvements to the tax increase, even though the improvements might have had a completely different cause.”
However, the research is not without its limitations. The online nature of the study, though necessary for reaching a diverse participant pool, introduces variables that could affect data quality. Additionally, the use of self-selected criteria for liking and disliking individuals, while increasing the ecological validity of the findings, may also limit the generalizability of the results to other contexts or populations. Future research could explore these dynamics further, potentially by incorporating more controlled group inductions and examining the effects of neutral versus polarizing information sources.
The study, “Ingroup sources enhance associative inference“, was authored by Marius Boeltzig, Mikael Johansson, and Inês Bramão.
Rachel Carter is a health and wellness expert dedicated to helping readers lead healthier lives. With a background in nutrition, she offers evidence-based advice on fitness, nutrition, and mental well-being.
