Roberta A. Allegretta

The study explored differences in decision recall between junior and senior decision-makers, focusing on accuracy (ACC) and response times (RTs) under varying feedback conditions. 117 participants completed 10 real-life decision-making scenarios, and their decision recall was examined in relation to feedback valence (positive or negative), decision-making styles, and tendencies toward Maximization. Results indicated that both junior and senior decision-makers recalled decisions with positive feedback more accurately than those with negative feedback, aligning with the “positivity bias” theory, where individuals tend to remember positive experiences more than negative ones. Seniors showed stronger recall for decisions with positive feedback but weaker for those with negative feedback compared to juniors, who performed better with negative feedback decisions recall. This pattern may reflect differences in professional experience and feedback processing across career stages, consistent with research on positivity and negativity biases. Regarding RTs, seniors had slower recall for decisions with positive feedback, potentially reflecting deeper cognitive processing, while both groups were slower to recall decisions with positive information overall. The study also found that individuals with higher Maximization tendencies, especially juniors, recalled decisions with negative feedback better, while seniors with avoidant decision-making styles were less accurate in recalling decisions with negative feedback. These findings highlight the importance of feedback delivery in professional environments and suggest that balancing positive and negative feedback is critical to maintain motivation and performance. Future research should further explore how expertise and individual differences affect decision recall and consider a neuroscientific approach to better understand the cognitive processes involved.

Group decision‐making is a cognitive and emotional process influenced by mental representations of the group in terms of ideal and real dimensions. This study explored how communication about these representations affects decision‐making as well as neural and autonomic responses. Using an electroencephalography (EEG), functional near‐infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), and biofeedback (BIO) hyperscanning paradigm, 28 participants divided into dyads discussed group decisions while self‐representing either an ideal (Phase 1) or a real (Phase 2) group. EEG bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma bands), oxygenated (O ₂ Hb) and deoxygenated hemoglobin (HHb), and autonomic measures (i.e., heart rate variability [HRV]) were recorded for individual and dyadic analyses. Single‐subject analyses showed increased frontal low‐frequency EEG bands, suggesting emotional involvement in all communication exchanges. Higher beta/gamma bands and HHb levels while subjects self‐represented the real group indicated greater cognitive and perspective‐taking effort. Increased HRV when discussing a group decision while mentally self‐representing the ideal compared to the real group suggested greater emotion regulation. Euclidean distance analyses revealed increased delta dissimilarity within dyads, indicating higher emotional and cognitive engagement regardless of group representation. Beta dissimilarity increased when discussing a group decision while mentally self‐representing the real group, reflecting higher attentional and cognitive control demands. The multimodal hyperscanning paradigm (combining EEG/fNIRS/BIO) offers complementary insights into the study of communicative exchanges. These findings enhance the understanding of decision‐making dynamics and support strategies to improve group communication.

Background/Objectives: Persuasive communication in moral decision-making contexts involves complex emotional and cognitive processes. This study aimed to investigate electrophysiological (EEG) dissimilarity between individuals during a persuasive interaction on a moral dilemma. Methods: Participants were paired into 14 dyads in which a member assumed the role of Persuasive Agent (PA) and the other of Persuasion Target (PT), discussing a moral decision-making scenario while their neural activity was recorded through an EEG hyperscanning paradigm. Dyads were later categorized based on perceived viewpoint change (high, mixed, low), and dissimilarity within dyads in EEG bands was analyzed across frontal, temporo-central, and parieto-occipital regions in left and right hemispheres. Results: Results showed a significant increase in frontal delta-band dissimilarity in mixed dyads, compared to temporo-central and parieto-occipital areas. The greater frontal delta dissimilarity in mixed dyads likely reflects divergent emotional and motivational engagement during persuasion. Specifically, individuals who changed their viewpoint may have exhibited stronger emotional resonance and attentional engagement compared to their partner. Conclusions: The study advances understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying persuasion in morally charged contexts and offers new insights into dyadic brain dynamics during complex social exchanges.

Communication about moral decision-making involves complex emotional and cognitive processes, especially in critical situations. This study adopted a hyperscanning paradigm to explore neural convergence during moral negotiation. Twenty-six healthy young adults (mean age = 23.59 years; 16 women, 10 men), with no neurological or psychiatric conditions, were paired into 13 same-gender dyads at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Each dyad discussed a medical moral dilemma while their electrophysiological (EEG) activity was simultaneously recorded. Participants were first categorized according to their Dominant Reasoning Profile (DRP) (cognitive or affective), and subsequently convergence in DRP within the dyads was established. EEG band dissimilarities within each dyad were analyzed across frontal, temporo-central, and parieto-occipital regions. The results revealed significantly greater dissimilarity in frontal delta-band activity compared to parieto-occipital areas, regardless of the dyad’s DRP. Such results might suggest different emotional and motivational reactions between the two individuals, reflecting a broader gap in how the moral decision-making process was interpreted and internalized by each member, despite their DRP. The EEG hyperscanning paradigm proves useful in the study and understanding of the neural mechanisms involved in social interaction about morally sensitive decisions and provides novel insights into dyadic brain dynamics.

Introduction: Within a shared decision-making process, persuasion dynamics develop as a communication sub-process that can be characterized by different phases. This study examines hemodynamic functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) coherence measures in dyads of decision-makers. The interaction occurs in two phases: Phase 1, where the persuader (Pr) introduces the decision topic and uses persuasive strategies, and Phase 2, where the Persuaded (Pd) responds and may agree with the Pr’s selected option. Method: Fourteen dyads participated, with fNIRS measuring oxygenated (O₂Hb) and deoxygenated (HHb) hemoglobin concentration changes in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) during both phases. Hemodynamic coherence within dyads was explored through the computation of a dissimilarity index (Euclidean distance). Results: Phase 2 showed increased HHb dissimilarity, indicating greater divergence in brain activity during the Pd’s response phase. Discussion: These findings suggest that, during persuasion, when Pd responds, there is increased dissimilarity in cognitive and neural processes, without implying a loss of synergy. The study highlights the importance of interactional dynamics in shaping decision outcomes and underscores the potential of fNIRS as a non-invasive tool for monitoring brain activity in clinical and collaborative settings.