Search

Imagining other people’s perspectives is important for predicting the behavior of others, maintaining social relationships, and planning future actions. The Research Domain Criteria framework of mental disorders identifies ‘perception and understanding of others’ as a central construct in the social processes domain; perspective taking (PT) deficits appear in several clinical populations including Autism Spectrum Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. However, we currently lack a basic understanding of what PT is, and whether PT in the spatial, cognitive, and affective domains form a single behavioral dimension. One proposal is that cognitive and affective PT tap a unique system for belief representation and attribution, distinct from the spatial encoding processes required for spatial PT. An alternative proposal is that attentional control underlies performance on complex PT problems regardless of domain. The aims of this research are to test a) if there is a single underlying PT dimension supported by attentional mechanisms; and b) if PT as a latent construct (or two latent constructs) correlates with self-reported psychopathological symptoms in neurotypical adults

Artificial intelligence (AI) models can produce output that closely mimics human-generated content. We examined individual differences in the human ability to differentiate human- from AI-generated texts, exploring relationships with fluid intelligence, executive functioning, empathy, and digital habits. Overall, participants exhibited better than chance text discrimination, with substantial variation across individuals. Fluid intelligence strongly predicted differences in the ability to distinguish human from AI, but executive functioning and empathy did not. Meanwhile, heavier smartphone and social media use predicted misattribution of AI content (mistaking it for human). Determinations about the origin of encountered content also affected sharing preferences, with those who were better able to distinguish human from AI indicating a lower likelihood of sharing AI content online. Word-level differences in linguistic composition of the texts did not meaningfully influence participants' judgements. These findings inform our understanding of how individual difference factors may shape the course of human interactions with AI-generated information.

Although prior research has demonstrated enhanced striatal response when sharing rewards with close social connections, less is known about how individual differences affect ventral striatal (VS) activation and connectivity when experiencing rewards within social contexts. Given that self-reported reward sensitivity and level of substance use have been associated with differences in VS activation, we set out to investigate whether these factors would be independently associated with enhancements to neural reward responses within social contexts. In this pre-registered study, participants (N=45) underwent fMRI while playing a card guessing game in which correct or incorrect guesses resulted in monetary gains and losses that were shared evenly with either a close friend, stranger (confederate), or non-human partner. Consistent with our prior work, we found increased VS activation when sharing rewards with a socially close peer as opposed to an out-of-network stranger. As self-reported reward sensitivity increased, the difference in VS response to rewards shared with friends and strangers decreased. We also found enhanced connectivity between the VS and temporoparietal junction when sharing rewards with close friends as opposed to strangers. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that as reward sensitivity and sub-clinical substance use increase, the difference in VS connectivity with the right fusiform face area increases as a function of social context. These findings demonstrate that responsivity to the context of close friends may be tied to individual reward sensitivity or sub-clinical substance use habits; together these factors may inform predictions of risk for future mental health disorders., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no competing financial interests.