An interventional study of Social Learning Task Battery, Clinical Cohort and Social Learning Task Battery, Online Cohort in Social Cognition, Personality Disorder and Mental Health, sponsored by University of Pittsburgh. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 100 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-06.
Sponsored by University of Pittsburgh · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science
The purpose of this study is to understand brain function, how people make decisions when they interact with others, and how brain function and behavior relate to personality traits.
Problems in cooperating with others define antagonism, a transdiagnostic dimension of psychopathology expressed in personality and externalizing disorders. People high on antagonism are prone to aggressive, callous, and exploitative behaviors that damage relationships and incur substantial costs in the form of productivity loss, substance misuse, and criminality. While clinical theories link antagonism to deficits in social cognition, it is hard to deny that exploiting others requires an understanding of their mind. This apparent contradiction can be resolved by distinguishing between two facets of antagonism: callousness and exploitativeness. Prior work by the investigators and preliminary data inform the hypothesis that exploitativeness reflects an enhanced capacity to learn about the mental states and behaviors of others coupled with an increased sensitivity to personal, rather than shared, rewards. In contrast, callousness reflects a broader insensitivity to social feedback. The investigators hypothesize that these dissociable social learning processes are instantiated in canonical circuits that expanded during anthropogenesis to support mentalizing and self-directed thought. These learning signals, which track behaviorally salient features of the social environment, are integrated in the posterior hub of the default network (DN) where they drive adaptive cooperation. This study proposes to test these hypotheses in two samples elevated on antagonism. At the behavioral level, participants are characterized using a battery of personality and psychopathology measures, social and reward-based decision-making tasks, and corresponding hierarchically estimated reinforcement learning (RL) models (Aim 1). In a model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, model-derived learning signals and facets of antagonism are linked to underlying neural activity during cooperative decision-making (Aim 2). Leveraging the multi-timescale design of our study, the investigators plan to relate neurocomputational signatures of callousness and exploitativeness to mentalizing abilities, multi-informant reports of momentary interpersonal behavior, and prospective stress generation. Certain elements of study design are withheld from this record to protect the scientific integrity of the study design.
126 studies on the registry are indexed under Personality Disorders; 24 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 1,612 is above the median of 84 across 81 interventional studies indexed under Personality Disorders.
Browse Personality Disorders studies →University of Pittsburgh is the lead sponsor of 1,419 studies on the registry; 168 are open to participants now.
Of its 9 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 4 (44%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Online cohort inclusion criteria:
Online cohort exclusion criteria:
Clinical cohort inclusion criteria:
Clinical cohort exclusion criteria:
Informant inclusion criteria:
Informant exclusion criteria:
- Lack of a smartphone with cellular data at study baseline
The online cohort will include 718 adults ages 18-100 who will complete 1) a battery of behavioral tasks designed to assess social learning and mentalizing abilities, and 2) self-report measures assessing personality, externalizing symptoms, interpersonal functioning, and psychopathology.
Behavioral: Social Learning Task Battery, Online Cohort
The study will enroll up to 416 clinical-cohort participants, with an anticipated final eligible sample of 239 adults ages 20-60 who will complete 1) a structured clinical interview and neuropsychological assessments, 2) self-report measures assessing personality, externalizing symptoms, interpersonal functioning, and psychopathology, 3) lab-based tasks designed to assess social learning and mentalizing abilities while monitoring physiological responding with Biopac, 4) task-based fMRI, 5) 21-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocol, and 6) additional self-report questionnaires at three yearly follow-ups. The investigators expect to enroll 416 participants for the start of the protocol to yield 239 final eligible participants to complete fMRI and EMA.
Behavioral: Social Learning Task Battery, Clinical Cohort
Additionally, 2 informants (ages 18+) for each participant will be recruited to complete self-report measures, one of whom will also enroll in EMA.
In the primary study task, participants engage in a modified iterative trust game. The task is completed in the fMRI scanner and takes about 35 minutes. Participant choices earn feedback in the form of monetary gains or losses. All participants are debriefed on the motivation behind the task at the end of their visit.
In the primary study task, participants engage in a modified iterative trust game. Participant choices earn feedback in the form of monetary gains or losses. All participants are debriefed on the motivation behind study task at the end of their visit.
Participant-level Coaxing Score
Participant coaxing behavior will be measured during the primary social learning task. Coaxing will be operationalized as the difference in the participant's return rate between exchange and secrecy modes on trials in which the coplayer decides not to share. In exchange mode, the participant knows whether the coplayer chose to share or keep the monetary incentive before indicating whether they would return it. In secrecy mode, the participant must make the return decision before learning the coplayer's choice. The coaxing score is calculated as the exchange-mode return rate minus the secrecy-mode return rate. Scores range from -1 to 1, with positive values indicating greater strategic coaxing and 0 indicating no difference between modes.
Time frame: During behavioral task visit at study baseline (clinical cohort) or during single online study session (online cohort)
Mean Informant-rated Momentary Manipulativeness
Manipulativeness will be assessed using the study-specific Interpersonal Dynamics EMA Battery. The informant-rated manipulativeness scale contains 3 items, each rated from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). At each assessment, responses to the 3 items will be averaged to produce a momentary manipulativeness score that ranges from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater informant-rated manipulativeness.
Time frame: Post-baseline 21-day EMA period within year 1 of the study
Latent Mentalizing Factor
A latent mentalizing factor will be derived using CFA, with participants' scores on three social cognition tasks serving as indicators. The latent factor will be standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 in the study sample and therefore has no fixed theoretical minimum or maximum. Higher factor scores indicate greater mentalizing ability.
Time frame: Baseline
Interpersonal Stress
Interpersonal stress will be assessed using the marital- or partner-relationship and other-relationship life domains of the Stress and Adversity Inventory for Adults. At each follow-up, the frequency scores for stressors in these two domains will be averaged to produce an interpersonal stress score. The score ranges from a minimum of 0 stressors, with no limit on reported stressor maximums. Higher scores indicate more frequent exposure to interpersonal relationship stressors.
Time frame: At 12, 24, and 36 months after baseline
Plan to share: Yes — Individual participant data (IPD) will be shared via the National Institute of Mental Health Data Archive (NDA) in accordance with National Institutes of Health (NIH) Data Management and Sharing Policy. Data will be de-identified and made available to qualified researchers upon request after publication of primary results or completion of the study, as outlined in the NIH-approved Data Sharing Plan. Task code will be posted on GitHub and/or OSF.
Supporting information: Analytic code
Time frame: All data will be deposited to NDA starting 12 months after the award begins and will be deposited every six months thereafter following the usual NDA data submission dates. IPD and supporting information will be available when the award ends (anticipated 06/30/2031). NDA will make decisions about how long to preserve the data, but that data archive has not deleted any deposited data up to now.
Access criteria: Deidentified data will be findable for the research community through the NDA Collection that will be established when this application is funded. For all publications, an NDA study will be created. Each of those studies is assigned a digital object identifier (DOI). This data DOI will be referenced in the publication to allow the research community easy access to the exact data used in the publication. To request access to the data, qualified researchers will use the standard processes at NDA, and the NDA Data Access Committee will decide which requests to grant. The standard NDA data access process allows access for one year and is renewable.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.