The Neural Correlates of Persuasion: A Common Network

The Neural Correlates of Persuasion: A Common Network
across Cultures and Media

Emily B. Falk1, Lian Rameson1, Elliot T. Berkman1, Betty Liao1,
Yoona Kang2, Tristen K. Inagaki1, and Matthew D. Lieberman1

Abstract

■ Persuasion is at the root of countless social exchanges in which
one person or group is motivated to have another share its beliefs,
desires, or behavioral intentions. Here, we report the first three
functional magnetic resonance imaging studies to investigate
the neurocognitive networks associated with feeling persuaded
by an argument. In the first two studies, American and Korean par-
ticipants, respectively, were exposed to a number of text-based
persuasive messages. In both Study 1 and Study 2, feeling per-
suaded was associated with increased activity in posterior supe-
rior temporal sulcus bilaterally, temporal pole bilaterally, and
dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest a discrete
set of underlying mechanisms in the moment that the persuasion

process occurs, and are strengthened by the fact that the results
replicated across two diverse linguistic and cultural groups. Addi-
tionally, a third study using region-of-interest analyses demon-
strated that neural activity in this network was also associated
with persuasion when a sample of American participants viewed
video-based messages. In sum, across three studies, including two
different cultural groups and two types of media, persuasion was
associated with a consistent network of regions in the brain. Activ-
ity in this network has been associated with social cognition and
mentalizing and is consistent with models of persuasion that em-
phasize the importance of social cognitive processing in deter-
mining the efficacy of persuasive communication. ■

INTRODUCTION

Persuasion is a common social exchange in which one per-
son or group attempts to convince another of its beliefs,
desires, or behavioral intentions. Aristotle devoted an en-
tire volume to the mechanisms of persuasion, attesting to
the enduring significance of this type of human interaction
(Aristotle, 1926). He suggested that an individual might be
persuaded as a result of the logic of an argument (logos),
the emotional appeal of an argument ( pathos), or factors
related to the source of the persuasive message (ethos).
Reasoning, emotion, and characteristics of the message
source have continued to be central factors examined in
modern models of persuasion and attitude change, al-
though the terminology used to describe these factors
has changed to include ideas such as cognitive elabora-
tion, affective appeal, and perceived similarity to the mes-
sage source (Crano & Prislin, 2008; Albarracin, Johnson, &
Zanna, 2005; Johnson, Maio, & Smith-McLallen, 2005;
Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Stayman & Batra, 1991; Chaiken,
Liberman, & Eagly, 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Zajonc
& Markus, 1982).

Because behavioral methods can only assess one mea-
sure at a time, it has not been possible to assess the simul-
taneous cognitive, affective, and social processes that may

1University of California, Los Angeles, 2Yale University, New
Haven, CT

occur in concert during persuasion attempts or determine
the relative priority with which each contributes to effective
persuasion. Limitations of introspective self-reports are
well documented ( Wilson & Schooler, 1991; Nisbett &
Wilson, 1977); even implicit measures, which circumvent
self-report difficulties, are incapable of assessing persua-
sion processes at the moment they are occurring without
simultaneously imposing a concurrent cognitive task. Using
behavioral methods, attempts to measure persuasion while
it is actually occurring would almost certainly alter the per-
suasion process itself.

Although having limitations of its own, fMRI has some
important advantages in the study of persuasion and, there-
fore, is an important complement to existing methodolo-
gies. Critically, fMRI allows the neurocognitive processes
associated with persuasion to be assessed as they unfold,
and thus, the processes operative at the moment of persua-
sion can be identified without interruption. Additionally,
fMRI is not constrained to examine a single process at a
time. Because there are well-established neural networks
associated with cognitive, affective, and social processes
(Lieberman, 2007; Cabeza & Nyberg, 2000), the presence
or absence of each of these processes can be examined
simultaneously. Based on previous persuasion research, a
number of candidate neurocognitive networks that might
contribute to the persuasion process were identified. If
argument logic, emotional appeal, and message source
characteristics are factors that impact persuasion under

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22:11, pp. 2447–2459

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

f
r
o
m
D
h
o
t
w
t
n
p
o
:
a
/
d
/
e
m
d
i
t
f
r
p
o
m
r
c
h
.
s
p
i
l
d
v
i
e
r
e
r
c
c
t
h
.
m
a
i
r
e
.
d
c
u
o
o
m
c
/
n
j
a
o
r
c
t
i
n
c
/
e
a
–
p
r
d
t
i
2
c
2
l
e
1
1
–
p
2
d
4
f
4
/
7
2
1
2
9
/
4
1
0
1
0
/
4
2
4
4
o
4
c
7
n
/
2
1
0
7
0
7
9
0
6
2
4
1
3
1
6
/
3
j
o
p
c
d
n
.
b
y
2
0
g
0
u
9
e
.
s
t
2
o
1
n
3
6
0
3
8
.
S
p
e
d
p
f
e
m
b
y
b
e
r
g
u
2
0
e
2
s
3
t

/
j

o
n

1
8

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

different circumstances, as both Aristotle and modern re-
search suggest, then deliberative reasoning (associated
with activity in the lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices),
emotional processing (associated with activity in the limbic
system), and social cognition (associated with activity in
dorsomedial prefrontal cortex [DMPFC], posterior superior
temporal sulcus [pSTS], and temporal poles [TP]), respec-
tively, are psychological processes that should relate to
experiencing an argument as persuasive (Crano & Prislin,
2008; Lieberman, 2007; Albarracin et al., 2005; Johnson
et al., 2005; Campbell & Babrow, 2004; Cabeza & Nyberg,
2000; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Stayman & Batra, 1991;
Chaiken et al., 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Zajonc &
Markus, 1982). In addition, memory encoding (Stayman
& Batra, 1991; Chaiken et al., 1989) and self-referential
processing (Meyers-Levy & Peracchio, 1995), the former
of which has been associated with activity in the medial
temporal lobe and left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex
(VLPFC), and the latter of which has been associated with
activity in medial prefrontal cortex and precuneus/posterior
cingulate, may contribute to persuasion effects under some
circumstances.

In this article, we report three functional magnetic reso-
nance imaging (fMRI) studies that begin to elucidate the
neurocognitive networks associated with feeling persuaded
across two different cultural/linguistic groups (Americans
and Koreans), and across two different categories of media
conveying persuasive messages (text-based arguments and
video-based commercials). We used a within-subjects de-
sign allowing us to correlate the individual experience of
persuasion with neural activity in order to explore which
of the above networks and regions are reliably associated
with persuasion across individuals. We also conducted
between-groups analyses to examine these effects across
two cultural groups in order to identify points of conver-
gence and divergence as a function of culture.

METHODS (STUDIES 1 AND 2)

In a first study, 15 American participants simultaneously
read and heard arguments related to a number of different
objects and activities (e.g., flossing, blood donation) during
an fMRI scanning session. Participants were reminded of
each argument and were asked to rate its persuasiveness
shortly after exiting the scanner. In order to identify the
neural mechanisms associated with finding an argument
persuasive, we compared blood oxygenation level depen-
dent (BOLD) response as participants were exposed to
trials that they subsequently rated as persuasive relative
to BOLD response during trials that they subsequently
rated as unpersuasive.

Numerous social science phenomena studied exclu-
sively within Western countries (i.e., North America, West-
ern Europe) were once thought to be universal until
examination of those phenomena in East Asian popula-
tions revealed strong cross-cultural differences (Nisbett,
2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Likewise, persuasive ef-

fects have been shown to differ along cultural dimensions
such as individualism/collectivism (Uskul, Sherman, &
Fitzgibbon, 2009; Khaled, Ronald, Noble, & Biddle, 2008;
Kreuter & Mcclure, 2004; Aaker & Williams, 1998). We
therefore conducted a second study within a cultural neuro-
science framework (Chiao & Ambady, 2007) using the
same methodology but with a culturally different sample
to replicate the findings and examine whether they would
generalize across cultural boundaries. Topics and wording
were also reviewed by individuals from America and Korea
to confirm similar relevance of the topics and presentation
in each culture.

Participants (Study 1)

Fifteen participants (7 women; mean age = 20.75 years,
SD = 3.21) were recruited from the UCLA subject pool
and through mass emails and posted fliers, and received
either course credit or financial compensation for their par-
ticipation. All participants were right-handed, European
American, born and raised in the United States, and spoke
English as their first language. Participants also met the fol-
lowing criteria related to fMRI safety: (1) were not claustro-
phobic; (2) had no metal in their bodies (other than tooth
fillings); and (3) were not pregnant or breastfeeding. Po-
tential participants were excluded if they were currently
taking any psychoactive medication.

Participants (Study 2)

Fourteen participants (11 women; mean age = 22.06 years,
SD = 3.96) were recruited from the UCLA subject pool and
from mass emails and posted fliers, and received either
course credit or financial compensation for their participa-
tion. All participants were right-handed, Asian, were born
and raised for more than half of their lifetime in Korea,
and spoke Korean as their first language. Participants met
identical safety criteria to Study 1.

Materials (Studies 1 and 2)

Materials for Studies 1 and 2 included text-based persuasive
arguments about 20 different objects and activities. Each
set of arguments about a given object or activity consisted
of five phrases (one main argument and four supporting
phrases), resulting in 100 total phrases across the 20 blocks.
Phrases were developed by a team of American and Korean
researchers to minimize cultural biases. The phrases were
selected to be highly comprehensible, range in level of
persuasiveness, and pertain to objects and activities about
which people were likely to have weak initial attitudes.
In Study 1, all phrases and instructions were presented
in English. In Study 2, phrases and instructions were pre-
sented in Korean. Individual difference measures relevant
to culture, including individualism/collectivism (Singelis,
Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis, 1995) and

2448

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 22, Number 11

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

o
n

1
8

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

independence/interdependence (Singelis, 1994), were
collected from each participant.

Translation (Study 2)

Instructions and stimuli were all translated by a native
Korean-speaking professional translator with prior expe-
rience working in and translating for the psychological
sciences. After discussion of the aims of the research, the
primary translator provided a first draft translation, which
was reviewed by a bilingual member of the research team,
and corrections were made in line with the scientific goals
of the study. After approval of all changes by the primary
translator, a second, native English-speaking translator
was hired to provide a back-translation to correct any errors.
All mismatches were addressed and the final translation was
approved by the primary translator, the secondary transla-
tor, and a bilingual reviewer on the research team.

Procedure (Studies 1 and 2)

While in an fMRI scanner, each participant viewed all 20
blocks (100 phrases) arranged into four runs, with order of
the runs counterbalanced across subjects. Each run con-
tained five randomly ordered blocks, with each block per-
taining to a different object or activity. Each block began
with one argument phrase followed by four supporting
phrases, for a total of five phrases about any given object
or activity. Blocks ranged from 33 to 61 sec in English, and
33 to 57 sec in Korean, and were separated by a 15-sec
fixation-cross baseline period. Participants were instructed
to read each phrase, to consider each phrase carefully, and
were told that they would later be asked some questions
about what they had read (persuasion was not mentioned
at any point prior to the postscan questionnaires). The
instructions were repeated before each run. In order to con-
trol for reading speed, each phrase displayed on the screen
was also presented aurally via prerecorded cues. Follow-
ing the scanner session, participants were asked to rate
whether each group of phrases as a whole was persuasive on
a 4-point scale (“This paragraph, as a whole, is PERSUASIVE:
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Somewhat 3 = Agree
Somewhat 4 = Agree Strongly”). Participants also rated the
extent to which they believed that the arguments were
based on information and based on feelings, using the same
4-point scale. Aside from language, Korean and American
participants completed an identical task.

Data Acquisition and Analysis

Imaging data were acquired using a Siemens Allegra 3-Tesla
head-only MRI scanner at the UCLA Ahmanson-Lovelace
Brainmapping Center. Head motion was minimized using
foam padding and surgical tape; goggles were also fixed
in place using surgical tape connecting to the head coil
and scanner bed. A set of high-resolution structural T2-
weighted echo-planar images were acquired coplanar with

the functional scans (spin-echo; TR = 5000 msec; TE =
33 msec; matrix size = 128 × 128; 36 axial slices; FOV =
20 cm; voxel size = 1.6 × 1.6 × 3.0 mm). Four functional
runs were recorded (echo-planar T2-weighted gradient-
echo, TR = 2000 msec, TE = 25 msec, flip angle = 90°,
matrix size = 64 × 64, 36 axial slices, FOV = 20 cm; voxel
size = 3.1 × 3.1 × 3.0 mm) lasting 328, 312, 310, and
298 sec, respectively, for Study 1, and 321, 302, 307, and
295 sec, respectively, for Study 2.

The data were analyzed using Statistical Parametric
Mapping (SPM5, Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neu-
rology, Institute of Neurology, London, UK). Images were
realigned to correct for motion, slice timed, normalized
into standard stereotactic space (Montreal Neurological
Institute [MNI]), and smoothed with an 8-mm Gaussian
kernel, full width at half maximum. The task was modeled
for each participant using a weighted linear contrast, com-
paring neural responses during arguments rated persua-
sive (rating of 3 or 4) vs. unpersuasive (rating of 1 or 2);
the subjectsʼ primary ratings were used to sort the blocks
(persuasive or not) for each individual and then a 1, −1
dummy variable was used for persuasive or not. All analyses
were run at a threshold of p < .001, uncorrected, with a 5-voxel extent threshold. All coordinates are reported in MNI space. RESULTS (STUDIES 1 AND 2) Study 1: Persuasiveness of Text-based Messages (American Participants) In examining the neural response to persuasive compared to unpersuasive arguments in American participants view- ing text-based messages, DMPFC, bilateral pSTS, and bilat- eral TP, were each more active during the presentation of arguments that were subsequently rated as persuasive compared to arguments that were rated as unpersuasive (Table 1A; Figure 1). These three regions have been re- peatedly observed to be coactive in “theory-of-mind” and mentalizing studies (Frith & Frith, 2003) and do not typi- cally appear together during other kinds of processing (Cabeza & Nyberg, 2000). Mentalizing refers to the ability to infer the mental states (desires, intentions and beliefs) of other people, and has been extensively studied in the brain (Frith & Frith, 2003). Bilateral medial temporal lobe and left VLPFC, regions often implicated in memory processes (Badre & Wagner, 2007; Wagner et al., 1998), were also more active to persua- sive, relative to unpersuasive, arguments. Visual cortex was the only other brain region where activity was greater dur- ing persuasive than unpersuasive passages. Study 2: Persuasiveness of Text-based Messages (Korean Participants) The results of Study 2 were remarkably consistent with Study 1 (Figure 1; Table 1A). In fact, there was no brain Falk et al. 2449 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j t t f / i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j . . . t f / o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 Table 1. Brain Regions Showing Differences in Brain Activity for Persuasive Relative to Unpersuasive Passages (Thresholded at p < .001, Uncorrected, 5 Voxel Extent) A. Brain Regions Showing Increased Activity for Persuasive Relative to Unpersuasive Passages Phrases (American) Brodmannʼs Area Laterality Study 1 DMPFC pSTS pSTS TP TP VLPFC VLPFC HCMP HCMP 9 22 22 21/38 21/38 45 44 Lingual gyrus 17/18 L L R L R L L L R L Phrases (Korean) Brodmannʼs Area Laterality Study 2 DMPFC pSTS pSTS TP TP VLPFC VLPFC VLPFC HCMP HCMP Lingual gyrus 8/9 22 22 38 38 45 45 47 17 L L R L R L L L L R L Video (American) Brodmannʼs Area Laterality Study 3 DMPFC DMPFC pSTS pSTS TP TP VLPFC VMPFC VMPFC L L R L R L 9 8/6 22 22 21/38 21/38 47 11 11 x −14 −58 60 −58 56 −52 −48 −16 18 −10 x −8 −60 66 −50 54 −58 −56 −44 −20 26 −18 x −14 −2 −54 50 −54 50 −52 −4 2 y 66 −36 −26 4 10 32 14 −28 −30 −90 y 54 −26 −14 18 16 28 26 48 −30 −28 −88 y 54 24 −40 −36 6 12 20 56 26 z 28 4 −2 −26 −20 0 18 −4 −2 −14 z 48 8 −4 −28 −22 14 18 −16 −2 −2 −16 z 40 60 2 0 −28 −30 −2 −12 −22 t 4.69 4.82 5.19 3.99 4.11 5.06 5.15 4.94 4.21 6.30 t 4.83 9.64 7.96 4.21 4.09 12.07 7.02 7.74 5.47 5.02 10.44 t 3.72 4.53 4.46 4.55 4.36 1.98 3.91 3.72 4.58 Vox 15 418 356 10 8 103 94 176 23 434 Vox 27 381 276 19 21 43 195 14 98 43 505 Vox 14 163 338 199 15 103 76 60 44 2450 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 11 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j t t f / i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j . . t f . / o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 Table 1. (continued ) B. Brain Regions Showing Increased Activity for Unpersuasive Relative to Persuasive Passages Phrases (American) Inferior parietal lobe Inferior parietal lobe Insula Middle frontal gyrus Middle temporal Gyrus Middle temporal gyrus Postcentral gyrus Precuneus Precuneus Precuneus SMA Superior frontal gyrus Superior frontal gyrus Superior frontal gyrus/middle frontal gyrus Superior occipital Superior occipital Superior parietal Supramarginal gyrus VLPFC Phrases (Korean) Inferior parietal lobe Inferior temporal gyrus Insula Insula Middle frontal gyrus Middle frontal gyrus Middle frontal gyrus Middle occipital Middle temporal gyrus OFC OFC SMA Superior frontal gyrus Superior frontal sulcus Study 1 Brodmannʼs Area Laterality 40 40 13 8 39 37/21 3/1/2 7 7/ 31 7 6 10 6 9 19 19 5 40 47 R L L R R R R L R L R R L R R L L L R Study 2 Brodmannʼs Area Laterality 40 20 13 13 46 10/46 9 19/39 39 11/47 47 6 10 8 L R L R R L L L R R R R R R x 36 −40 −34 48 52 58 44 −16 2 −8 4 28 −16 20 44 −38 −24 −56 44 x −38 54 −36 42 28 −36 −30 −36 42 24 32 18 20 26 y −46 −58 12 20 −74 −62 −22 −46 −50 −68 22 48 4 42 −82 −90 −52 −28 36 y −48 −26 12 4 40 50 46 −88 −70 30 12 10 66 24 z 48 48 −4 42 14 −2 36 50 44 42 64 8 66 34 26 22 72 34 −6 z 42 −28 12 4 32 10 34 32 16 −18 −26 66 10 40 t 8.13 4.22 6.17 5.28 5.07 4.78 4.58 4.39 4.78 6.31 6 4.25 4.06 9.02 5.04 5.22 4.44 4.68 6.72 t 5.04 4.3 4.27 5.75 4.52 7.83 6.89 7.32 10.02 4.66 4.55 5.33 4.41 4.46 Vox 406 12 385 109 62 73 7 15 117 244 89 8 8 278 42 55 15 71 70 Vox 36 15 10 314 50 205 250 143 451 18 69 114 18 61 Falk et al. 2451 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j t t f / i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j f . . . t / o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 Table 1. (continued ) Phrases (Korean) Brodmannʼs Area Laterality Study 2 TP VLPFC Video (American) Calcarine Fusiform/parahippocampal gyrus Inferior occipital Middle occipital gyrus Posterior cingulate Precuneus Supramarginal gyrus 38 10/46 L R Study 3 Brodmannʼs Area Laterality 30 36 19 19 31 5/7 40 L R L R L R R x −40 40 x −18 20 −34 52 −16 10 58 y 10 48 y −56 −40 −88 −74 −24 −44 −26 z −20 2 z 12 −12 24 6 44 58 34 t 7.52 4.88 t 3.63 3.6 5.12 6.52 4.17 4.86 4.01 Vox 453 84 Vox 10 6 242 286 108 220 37 DMPFC = dorsomedial prefrontal cortex; pSTS = posterior superior temporal sulcus; TP = temporal pole; VLPFC = ventrolateral prefrontal cortex; HCMP = hippocampus; VMPFC = ventromedial prefrontal cortex; OFC = orbito-frontal cortex; Amer = American participants; Kor = Korean par- ticipants; vox = number of voxels in cluster. region significantly activated to persuasive, relative to un- persuasive, messages in one sample that was not sig- nificantly activated in the other sample. A conjunction analysis also confirmed that there was overlap in all key regions at p < .005, uncorrected (Table 2). Cross-cultural Differences Examining individual differences that commonly differ by cultural group, we found that the American sample was higher in independence [mean_american = 5.15, Figure 1. Neural regions that were more active during persuasive than unpersuasive passages in Study 1 (Americans, text-based messages), Study 2 (Koreans, text-based messages), and Study 3 (Americans, video- based messages). For display purposes, all activations in this figure use a threshold of p = .005, uncorrected. Note: Korean activations were statistically equivalent in many of the displayed regions but appear weaker because the color scales are different (see scales on left). Also, only a small portion of the actual VLPFC cluster appears in axial slice selected for the Korean sample. As shown in the Table 1A, the spatial extent of these activations is comparable. DMPFC = dorsomedial prefrontal cortex; pSTS = posterior superior temporal sulcus; TP = temporal pole; HCMP = hippocampus; VLPFC = ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. 2452 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 11 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j f / t t i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j f t . . / . o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 Table 2. Results of Conjunction Analysis of Activations in Studies 1 and 2, Run at p < .005, Uncorrected for Each Analysis Region DMPFC DMPFC Lateral temporal cortex TP pSTS pSTS Lateral temporal cortex TP VLPFC HCMP HCMP Precentral gyrus Middle occipital gyrus Cuneus Lingual gyrus Brodmannʼs Area Laterality x,y,z (Max) t (Amer) t (Kor) Vox 8/9 9/10 21 21/38 22 22 21 21/38 45 6 18 18 18 L L L L L R R R L L R L L R L −12 60 36 −10 52 44 −64 −22 −2 −56 8 −18 −56 −30 8 68 −14 −6 58 −4 −6 60 4 −16 −58 28 10 −16 −30 −2 24 −26 −4 −52 0 50 −18 −106 4 24 −100 −8 −14 −90 −16 3.54 3.10 4.23 3.33 4.00 4.60 3.58 3.34 4.16 4.91 3.86 4.34 5.19 5.12 6.02 3.37 3.44 9.73 7.26 9.13 7.75 8.93 6.68 6.12 5.10 4.97 8.08 15.47 12.83 9.93 29 10 312 142 482 214 282 114 264 216 71 346 274 279 443 mean_ korean = 4.48, t(27) = 2.88, p < .01], and horizontal individualism [mean_american = 6.73, mean_korean = 6.13, t(27) =2.28, p < .05], whereas the Korean group was higher in vertical collectivism [mean_american = 5.02, mean_korean = 6.09, t(27) = 2.85, p < .01]. Group means for measures of interdependence (mean_american = 4.76, mean_korean = 5.13) and vertical individualism (mean_ american = 5.61, mean_korean = 5.30) were in the expected direction, but were not statistically significant at p < .05. Examining behavioral responses to the persuasive mes- sages, the correlation across average block persuasiveness ratings followed a similar pattern between groups (r = .83), as did the average information ratings (r = .85). Further- more, none of the average persuasion ratings for a block differed across groups at p < .05 (see Table 3A). A paired- samples t test (pairing across items) also suggested that there were no significant differences in average persuasion [t(19) = 1.41, p = ns] or information ratings [t(19) = 1.72, p = ns] across samples. Although the average block emo- tion scores were also highly correlated between samples (r = .75), on average, Korean participants rated the argu- ments as more emotional than did the American partici- pants [t(19) = 2.81, p = .01]. Comparing neural activation in the two samples, al- though the same set of brain regions were active in the American and Korean samples, there were statistical differ- ences in activity when the samples were directly compared to one another. A variety of areas were more active in Ameri- can participants (compared to Korean participants) when viewing arguments that were later rated as persuasive (com- pared to those that were rated as unpersuasive). These included areas that are typically implicated in emotion processing (amygdala, ventral striatum), social cognition (pSTS, posterior cingulate cortex), and memory encoding (medial temporal lobe; see Table 4; Figure 2). In examining areas that were more active in Korean participants (com- pared to American participants) for persuasive (compared to unpersuasive arguments), the only regions showing in- creased activity were in areas of inferior occipital cortex associated with visual processing. MATERIALS AND METHODS (STUDY 3) In addition to replicating across culturally diverse groups, we explored whether the results would replicate across stimulus modality (i.e., beyond text-based persuasive mes- sages). Therefore, in a third study, we measured BOLD signal as participants viewed a series of video-based com- mercials. The design and the analysis of this study differed from the first two in the following ways: in terms of design, participants viewed professionally developed video-based commercials as persuasive stimuli instead of text-based mes- sages, and participants rated how persuasive they found each video immediately after seeing the clip instead of waiting to exit the scanner as they had in Studies 1 and 2; in terms of analysis, we interrogated specific regions based on the activations reported above in addition to whole-brain analyses. This analysis was motivated by the strong similarity in the activations observed in Studies 1 and 2, and tested whether the same discrete network of brain regions were associated with persuasion across stimulus modality and di- verse participant samples. To begin to test this, in Study 3, Falk et al. 2453 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j f / t t i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j . . f t . / o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 Table 3. Behavioral Ratings of Stimuli on Persuasion, Emotion and Information Dimensions A. Behavioral Responses, Text-based Messages Americans Koreans Avg Pers 2.33 3.53 3.13 1.93 3.73 2.87 2.20 3.80 3.38 1.88 3.25 3.33 3.20 3.50 3.13 2.53 3.60 3.07 3.19 2.00 Std Pers 0.87 0.81 0.62 1.00 0.57 0.81 0.83 0.40 0.48 0.86 0.56 0.60 0.83 0.61 0.62 0.96 0.49 0.77 0.95 0.82 Avg Info 1.53 2.80 2.20 2.93 3.47 3.33 3.27 3.60 3.56 3.00 2.25 3.47 3.40 3.44 3.47 3.53 3.60 2.80 3.25 2.53 Std Info 0.81 0.98 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.60 0.85 0.61 0.50 0.87 0.83 0.62 0.49 0.50 1.03 0.50 0.49 0.65 0.66 0.81 Avg Emo Std Emo 3.87 3.80 3.40 1.87 2.93 2.00 1.27 2.33 2.13 1.56 3.50 2.87 2.07 2.38 1.73 1.40 2.33 3.07 2.81 1.80 0.50 0.40 0.71 0.81 1.00 0.90 0.44 0.79 0.93 0.86 0.61 0.81 0.77 1.11 0.68 0.61 1.01 0.57 0.88 1.11 Avg Pers 2.50 3.43 2.86 2.71 3.64 3.00 2.79 3.71 3.07 2.57 3.43 3.43 3.14 3.43 2.57 2.93 3.79 3.21 3.00 2.64 Std Pers 0.63 0.62 0.74 1.10 0.48 0.54 1.08 0.45 0.59 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.98 0.88 0.41 0.41 0.85 1.04 Avg Info 2.00 3.00 2.86 3.00 3.57 3.43 3.14 3.79 3.36 2.71 3.07 3.57 3.36 3.57 3.07 3.36 3.79 3.29 3.29 2.57 Std Info 0.66 0.76 0.64 0.66 0.50 0.62 0.92 0.41 0.72 0.88 0.46 0.62 0.72 0.62 1.10 0.61 0.41 0.59 0.80 0.90 Avg Emo Std Emo 3.21 3.64 2.79 2.64 3.36 2.50 2.57 3.00 2.86 2.00 3.36 2.79 2.36 2.86 2.43 2.29 3.36 2.57 3.00 2.43 0.77 0.61 0.86 0.90 0.72 1.18 1.30 1.07 0.92 1.00 0.72 0.86 0.97 0.99 1.12 0.96 1.11 0.73 0.54 1.05 Topic1 Topic2 Topic3 Topic4 Topic5 Topic6 Topic7 Topic8 Topic9 Topic10 Topic11 Topic12 Topic13 Topic14 Topic15 Topic16 Topic17 Topic18 Topic19 Topic20 B. Behavioral Responses, Video-based Messages Avg Persuasive Std Persuasive Avg Emotional Std Emotional Avg Informative Std Informative Video 1 Video 2 Video 3 Video 4 Video 5 Video 6 Video 7 Video 8 Video 9 Video 10 Video 11 2.81 3.11 2.44 1.85 2.81 1.74 2.35 2.35 3.19 1.77 1.85 0.83 1.01 0.93 0.91 0.96 0.66 1.00 0.92 0.69 0.75 0.91 2.81 3.22 2.90 2.96 2.78 2.41 2.77 3.07 2.58 3.38 3.15 0.88 0.75 0.96 1.09 0.97 1.22 1.01 0.88 0.85 0.65 0.94 2.63 2.89 1.70 1.60 2.59 1.15 2.42 2.23 2.66 2.00 1.46 0.74 1.01 0.72 0.57 0.80 0.46 0.65 0.75 0.79 0.49 0.65 Average persuasion, information and emotion ratings for messages presented. Pers = persuasive; Info = informative; Emo = emotional. 2454 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 11 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j t t f / i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j / t . . f . o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 Table 4. Regional Differences between the American Sample and the Korean Sample for Persuasive Relative to Unpersuasive Arguments ( Hi > Lo Persuasive)

Brodmannʼs Area

Laterality

Vox

American > Korean

Amygdala

Middle temporal gyrus

Medial temporal lobe

Posterior cingulate

Precentral gyrus

Postcentral gyrus

Supramarginal gyrus

pSTS

SubgenACC

Superior frontal gyrus

Superior occipital gyrus

Ventral striatum

Korean > American

Middle occipital gyrus

Inferior occipital gyrus

Middle occipital gyrus

IOC

36/37

5/31

39/22

−13

−34

−48

−6

−54

−66

−56

−48

−28

−64

−38

−42

−34

−14

−40

−18

−28

−56

−80

−88

−90

−92

−90

−20

−14

−12

−4

−12

3.77

4.28

4.25

3.93

4.45

3.94

3.74

4.41

3.86

3.66

3.67

4.54

3.88

3.53

4.03

4.10

3.88

4.29

3.83

4.08

146

119

141

656

It should be noted that these are relative activations across groups, and thus, may reflect the difference between two within-group deactivations
(thresholded at p < .001, uncorrected, 5-voxel extent). pSTS = posterior superior temporal sulcus; SubgenACC = subgenual anterior cingulate cortex. we created a set of regions of interest (ROIs) based on func- tional responses during Study 1 and examined the relation- ship of activity in those regions to persuasion in Study 3. comprehensible, to range in level of persuasiveness, and pertain to objects and activities about which people were likely to have weak initial attitudes. Participants (Study 3) Twenty-seven European–American participants (15 women, mean age = 20.11 years, SD = 2.66) were recruited from the UCLA subject pool and through mass emails and posted fliers, and received either course credit or financial compensation for their participation. Participants met identical exclusion and safety criteria as in Study 1. Materials (Study 3) Widely viewed commercials were piloted to develop a final set of test videos. All videos were selected to be highly Procedure (Study 3) While in an fMRI scanner, each participant viewed all com- mercials arranged into two runs, with order of the runs counterbalanced across subjects. Commercials ranged from 30 to 75 sec, and were separated by a 15-sec fixation-cross period. Participants were instructed to watch each video, and were told that they would later be asked some ques- tions about what they had seen. Directly following each video clip, participants were asked to rate whether the clip was persuasive on a 4-point scale (PERSUASIVE: 1 = Not at all, 4 = Definitely). Equivalent ratings were also made for informative and emotional. Falk et al. 2455 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j t t f / i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j . f t . / . o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 Lastly, in order to explore whether regions outside of the putative social cognition network were also activated in response to persuasive, compared to unpersuasive, vid- eos, we conducted a further exploratory whole-brain analysis, using a threshold of p < .001, uncorrected, with a 5-voxel extent threshold. All coordinates are reported in MNI space. RESULTS (STUDY 3) Comparing the two American groups behaviorally, the video-based messages in Study 3 were rated as less per- suasive than the text-based messages in Study 1 [mean_ american_text = 2.98, mean_american_video = 2.39; t(29) = 2.66, p < .01], with the video-based messages being rated as less informative [mean_american_text = 3.07, mean_ american_video = 2.12; t(29) = 4.44, p < .01] and more emotional [mean_american_text = 2.46, mean_american_ video = 2.91; t(26) = 1.84, p = .03] than the text-based messages (Table 3B). Examining the neural data, how- ever, results from our ROI analysis revealed that activity in all regions of the social cognition network were asso- ciated with persuasion, with the exception of the ROI in left pSTS (Table 5; Figure 3). Results from our whole-brain search demonstrated that as in Studies 1 and 2, finding arguments persuasive was associated with increased activ- ity in DMPFC, bilateral pSTS, bilateral TP, and left VLPFC (Figure 1; Table 1A). Aside from these regions, the only other region that was significantly activated in response to persuasive compared to unpersuasive videos was VMPFC, a region that has typically been associated with affective processing and implicit evaluation (Koenigs & Tranel, 2008; Knutson, Wood, Spampinato, & Grafman, 2006; Mcclure et al., 2004). DISCUSSION Taken together, these results suggest that across linguistically and culturally diverse groups, as well as across different me- dia, a distinct set of neural regions typically invoked by men- talizing tasks is associated with the experience of persuasion. Table 5. Results of ROI Analyses in Study 3 ROI Right pSTS Left pSTS Right TP Left TP DMPFC (anterior) DMPFC (posterior) t 1.65 0.47 2.66 2.27 2.51 3.35 p .056 .320 .007 .016 .009 .001 ROIs were developed using functional activations in Study 1 that fell within the anatomically defined pSTS, TP, and DMPFC. t Statistics were computed by averaging over all voxels in the ROI using Marsbar. Figure 2. Neural regions that were more active in American participants than in Korean participants for persuasive compared to unpersuasive arguments. For display purposes, all activities in this figure use a threshold of p = .005, uncorrected. pSTS = posterior superior temporal sulcus; Post. Cingulate = posterior cingulate. Data Acquisition and Analysis Imaging data were acquired using the same physical set- up and imaging parameters as described in Studies 1 and 2. Two functional runs were recorded lasting 481 and 422 sec, respectively. The data were analyzed using Statis- tical Parametric Mapping (SPM5; Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, Institute of Neurology, London, UK). Images were realigned to correct for motion, nor- malized into standard stereotactic space (MNI), and smoothed with an 8-mm Gaussian kernel, full width at half maximum. The task was modeled at the first level in two ways: first, using an ANOVA model to compare activity during the task to activity during rest, and then as a regression relat- ing neural activity to on-line persuasiveness ratings for each video. Based on the results from Studies 1 and 2, and the prior literature linking pSTS, TP, and DMPFC to social cognition, we hypothesized that activity in this net- work would be associated with persuasion during Study 3. To directly test this hypothesis, we extracted ROIs based on functional activations from Study 1 (thresholded at p = .005, uncorrected) that were within DMPFC, TP, and pSTS as defined by the Automated Anatomical Labeling atlas (AAL; Tzourio-Mazoyer et al., 2002). Thus, we created functionally defined ROIs based on Study 1 effects that were anatomically constrained by a priori hypotheses. For each subject, we created six ROIs (right pSTS, left pSTS, right TP, left TP, and two regions in DMPFC) that each rep- resented the average across all voxels within the circum- scribed region using Marsbar (Brett, Anton, Valabregue, & Poline, 2002). 2456 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 11 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j t t f / i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j / f . t . . o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 cognition and persuasion (Campbell & Babrow, 2004). However, most behavioral studies of persuasion have not focused directly on perspective taking as a mechanism of persuasion, and thus, these results suggest an important new direction for persuasion research. The overlap between the brain regions associated with persuasion effects and mentalizing in Study 3 is poten- tially revealing about how persuasion operates. In Stud- ies 1 and 2, there was a single voice conveying all of the arguments; however, in Study 3, there was no ob- vious person serving as the message source in the video advertisements. Thus, in Study 3, there was no individual to mentalize about or whose perspective to take. One in- triguing prospect is that mentalizing about a particular personʼs beliefs, desires, and intentions is just a special case of thinking about beliefs, desires, and intentions more generally, regardless of whether they are tied to a particular individualʼs mind or presented as part of a more general argument. In other words, these regions may be involved in considering a point-of-view with or without a particular source. Humans are surrounded by signs and other artifacts that suggest particular beliefs (e.g., smoking is bad) without these signs referring back to a particular person who is promoting this belief. Although we typically associate perspectives and points- of-view with individuals, content often has a perspective long after its association with the content creator is lost. Left VLPFC was the only other region that was more active in response to persuasive compared to unpersua- sive messages in all three studies. Given that mid-VLPFC (pars triangularis) was the specific region of VLPFC acti- vated in each study, it is plausible that this region plays a role in selecting among competing beliefs and memory representations regarding the persuasion topic. This sub- region of VLPFC has been regularly observed in studies of memory selection (selecting among multiple activated memory representations) and emotional reappraisal (in which a new interpretation for an event is selected over a prior interpretation) (Badre & Wagner, 2007; Ochsner & Gross, 2005). As persuasion involves adopting a new interpretation over an existing one, VLPFC may play a role in this selection process. Still, it is not yet clear what role VLPFC is playing in persuasion, from the current findings alone. Our results also speak to the modulation of neural re- sponses by message medium. Although the majority of re- gions observed in any one study were replicated across all three, and five out of six regions in the main mentalizing network of interest were significantly active when using ROIs from Study 1 to predict activity in Study 3, there were some differences between the responses to persuasive text-based versus video-based arguments. For example, the medial temporal lobe was observed in response to persuasive compared to unpersuasive text based mes- sages, whereas VMPFC was observed in response to per- suasive compared to unpersuasive commercials. It is possible that this difference is related to the informational Falk et al. 2457 Figure 3. Mean ROI contrast values for persuasive and unpersuasive videos compared to baseline, corresponding to ROIs reported in Table 5. Note: Error bars are calculated on the difference scores across subjects as these are the errors relevant to each region-specific comparison. * Denotes significant difference at p < .05, ∼ denotes marginally significant difference. Moreover, using an ROI approach, nearly all mentalizing regions that were sensitive to the experience of persuasion in a text-based message task were also sensitive to the ex- perience of persuasion in a video-based message task. In sum, across all three studies, increased activity in DMPFC, pSTS, TP, and left VLPFC while viewing persua- sive messages was associated with feeling persuaded afterward. Consistent with work documenting the neural underpinnings of expert effects (Klucharev, Smidts, & Fernandez, 2008), persuasion was associated with in- creased activity in the medial temporal lobes and visual cortex in the first two studies, in which participants viewed text-based messages and made ratings following the scan- ner session, but not in the third study when participants viewed video-based messages and made ratings directly following each message. Persuasion was also associated with increased activity in VMPFC in the third study. The DMPFC, pSTS, and TP have well-documented roles in social cognitive and mentalizing tasks (Frith & Frith, 2003). The present work extends the role of this network to include the experience of persuasion. The notion that persuasion relies on a social cognition network is consis- tent with Emersonʼs proposal that the goal of persuasion “is to bring another out of his bad sense into your good sense” (Emerson, 1880). To the extent that coordinated activity in this mentalizing network reflects consideration of another personʼs mental state and perspective, our re- sults suggest that Emerson may have been pretty close to the mark. Our results are also in line with prior behavioral research that has suggested a relationship between social D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j t t f / i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j . / . t . f o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 versus emotional content of the material. VMPFC has been associated with emotional processing and the medial tem- poral lobe has been associated with cognitive processing. Thus, each region may have been sensitive to types of ap- peals that were differentially emphasized through the two media. Manipulation checks concerning the behavioral data support this distinction; the text-based messages in Studies 1 and 2 were rated as more information-based than the commercials in Study 3, whereas the commercials were rated as more feelings-based than the text appeals. The differential activations in the medial temporal lobe and VMPFC may also reflect the temporal distance be- tween the persuasive messaging and self-reports of per- suasion. In the first two studies, persuasion was reported after leaving the scanner, and thus, encoded associations about the persuasive messages, supported by the medial temporal lobe, may have played a role in discriminating which messages would subsequently be remembered as persuasive. In contrast, in the third study, self-reports of persuasion were obtained after each message, rendering memory processes less relevant and immediate affective re- sponses perhaps more relevant. VMPFC has been observed in multiple studies of automatic affect (Knutson et al., 2006; Kawasaki et al., 2001) and nonreflective evaluations (Koenigs & Tranel, 2008). Indeed, the VMPFC and medial temporal lobe tradeoff is reminiscent of similar results from studies of evaluation in the “Pepsi Challenge” (Koenigs & Tranel, 2008; Mcclure et al., 2004). In one fMRI study (Mcclure et al., 2004), soda preferences based solely on im- mediate experience of taste were associated with VMPFC ac- tivity, whereas soda preferences after seeing brand names, which would presumably activate previously encoded as- sociations, were linked to medial temporal lobe activity. Despite these differences, the results were remarkably consistent across American (Study 1) and Korean (Study 2) subjects when the same medium was used. When analyzed separately, each group activated the same set of regions as the other. This provides initial support for the generaliz- ability of the results in the context of this type of commu- nication. Nevertheless, when pitted against one another, some differences did emerge cross-culturally. Specifically, Americans appeared to engage brain regions involved in socioemotional processing to a greater degree than did Koreans when reading persuasive, relative to unpersuasive, messages (Table 4; Figure 2). Interestingly, Korean partici- pants explicitly rated the arguments as more emotional than did the American participants, whereas American participants showed comparatively more activity in regions associated with affective processing (amygdala, ventral striatum). Given that there has been relatively little re- search on cross-cultural differences in persuasion and the fact that cultural neuroscience (Han & Northoff, 2008; Chiao & Ambady, 2007) is a relatively new field, the impli- cation of these differences is unclear. Future work that spe- cifically targets known cultural differences should help to make sense of the activation differences observed. For ex- ample, it will be of interest to explore whether the neural response to differently framed messages (e.g., individually framed vs. collectively framed messages; gain/approach framed vs. loss/avoidance framed messages) elicit differing neural responses, in parallel with behavioral studies sug- gesting differences along these dimensions (Uskul et al., 2009; Khaled et al., 2008; Aaker & Williams, 1998). This will also complement interdisciplinary applications of cul- tural psychology to fields such as public health and health communication (Kreuter & Mcclure, 2004). In summary, these studies identify for the first time the neurocognitive processes occurring at the moment that persuasion occurs. Neural activations associated with feeling persuaded were almost exclusively, and repeat- edly, associated with a neural network involved in men- talizing and perspective taking. Furthermore, the specific regions identified within this network that were active in response to persuasion following text-based messages also generalized to a task in which participants were per- suaded by video-based commercials. Building on the base- line provided here, future work can use neuroimaging to further advance our understanding of how people are per- suaded and by what means. Acknowledgments Funding for this work was made possible by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (E.F). We thank Scott Gerwehr, Shelley Taylor, Chris Frith, Traci Mann, Brett Hemenway, Shalin Pei, Mihn-Chau Do, and Chu Kim for their feedback and assistance. For generous support, we also thank the Brain Mapping Medical Research Organization, Brain Map- ping Support Foundation, Pierson-Lovelace Foundation, The Ahmanson Foundation, William M. and Linda R. Dietel Philan- thropic Fund at the Northern Piedmont Community Founda- tion, Tamkin Foundation, Jennifer Jones-Simon Foundation, Capital Group Companies Charitable Foundation, Robson Fam- ily, and Northstar Fund. This work is dedicated to the memory of Scott Gerwehr. Reprint requests should be sent to Matthew Lieberman, Depart- ment of Psychology, UCLA, 1285 Franz Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, or via e-mail: lieber@ucla.edu. D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j f / t t i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j . t . f / . o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 REFERENCES Aaker, J. L., & Williams, P. (1998). Empathy versus pride: The influence of emotional appeals across cultures. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 241–261. Albarracin, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.) (2005). The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Aristotle. (1926). The art of rhetoric/Aristotle; with an English translation by J. H. Freese. London: Loeb Classical Library/ Harvard University Press. Badre, D., & Wagner, A. D. (2007). Left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the cognitive control of memory. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2883–2901. Brett, M., Anton, J., Valabregue, R., & Poline, J. (2002). Region of interest analysis using an SPM toolbox. Paper presented at the The 8th International Conference on Functional Mapping of the Human Brain, June 2-6, 2002, Sendai, Japan. (Available on CD Rom, Neuroimage Vol. 16. No. 2). 2458 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 22, Number 11 Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition: II. An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1–47. Campbell, R. G., & Babrow, A. S. (2004). The role of empathy in responses to persuasive risk communication: Overcoming resistance to HIV prevention messages. Health Communication, 16, 159–182. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman and J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press. Chiao, J., & Ambady, N. (2007). Cultural neuroscience: Parsing universality and diversity across levels of analysis. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 237–254). New York: Guilford Press. Crano, W., & Prislin, R. (2008). Attitudes and attitude change. New York: Psychology Press. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Emerson, R. W. (1880). Letters and social aims ( Vol. 4). Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press. Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 358, 459–473. Han, S., & Northoff, G. (2008). Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: A transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 646–654. Johnson, B. T., Maio, G. R., & Smith-McLallen, A. (2005). Communication and attitude change: Causes, processes, and effects. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Handbook of Attitude (pp. 617–669). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kawasaki, H., Kaufman, O., Damasio, H., Damasio, A. R., Granner, M., Bakken, H., et al. (2001). Single-neuron responses to emotional visual stimuli recorded in human ventral prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 15–16. Khaled, R., Ronald, F., Noble, J., & Biddle, R. (2008). A Qualitative Study of Culture and Persuasion in a Smoking Cessation Game. Paper presented at the Persuasive Technology: Third International Conference, Oulu, Finland, June 4-6, 2008. Klucharev, V., Smidts, A., & Fernandez, G. (2008). Brain mechanisms of persuasion: How “expert power” modulates memory and attitudes. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 3, 353–366. Knutson, K., Wood, J., Spampinato, M., & Grafman, J. (2006). Politics on the brain: An fMRI investigation. Social Neuroscience, 1, 25–40. Koenigs, M., & Tranel, D. (2008). Prefrontal cortex damage abolishes brand-cued changes in cola preference. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 3, 1–6. review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. Mcclure, S., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K., Montague, L., & Montague, P. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44, 379–387. Meyers-Levy, J., & Peracchio, L. A. (1995). Moderators of the impact of self-reference on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 408–423. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently … and why. New York: Free Press. Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 242–249. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Singelis, T. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. Singelis, T., Triandis, H., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275. Stayman, D. M., & Batra, R. (1991). Encoding and retrieval of ad affect in memory. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 232–239. Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Landeau, B., Papathanassiou, D., Crivello, F., Etard, O., Delcroix, N., et al. (2002). Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. Neuroimage, 15, 273–289. Uskul, A., Sherman, D., & Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 535–541. Wagner, A. D., Schacter, D. L., Rotte, M., Koutstaal, W., Maril, A., Dale, A. M., et al. (1998). Building memories: Remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity. Science, 281, 1188–1191. Wilson, T., & Schooler, J. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181–192. Kreuter, M., & Mcclure, S. (2004). The role of culture in health communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 439–455. Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 123–131. Falk et al. 2459 D o w n l o a d e d l l / / / / j f / t t i t . : / / f r o m D h o t w t n p o : a / d / e m d i t f r p o m r c h . s p i l d v i e r e r c c t h . m a i r e . d c u o o m c / n j a o r c t i n c / e a - p r d t i 2 c 2 l e 1 1 - p 2 d 4 f 4 / 7 2 1 2 9 / 4 1 0 1 0 / 4 2 4 4 o 4 c 7 n / 2 1 0 7 0 7 9 0 6 2 4 1 3 1 6 / 3 j o p c d n . b y 2 0 g 0 u 9 e . s t 2 o 1 n 3 6 0 3 8 . S p e d p f e m b y b e r g u 2 0 e 2 s 3 t / j / f . . . t o n 1 8 M a y 2 0 2 1 The Neural Correlates of Persuasion: A Common Network image

Download pdf