Fig. 2: Susceptibility to social influence quantified by the signed Kullback-Leibler divergence (D_KL).

A Older adults were more influenced by impulsive social influence than young adults (W = 1861, Z = −2.67, r₍₁₄₀₎ = 0.22 [0.07 0.38], P = 0.008). In contrast, older and young adults demonstrated similar susceptibility to patient social influence (W = 2723, Z = −1.15, r₍₁₃₈₎ = 0.10 [0.01 0.25], P = 0.252, BF₀₁ = 3.30). Sample sizes differ across conditions due to the unavailability of relevant data for some participants (N = 68 for young impulsive, N = 72 for young patient, N = 74 for older impulsive, and N = 68 for older patient). Bars show group means, error bars are standard errors of the mean, dots are raw data, and asterisks represent significant two-sided between-group and within-group nonparametric t-tests. **P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; ns: not significant. B A significant positive correlation was found between impulsive D_KL and the factor ‘Affective empathy & emotional motivation’ scores amongst older adults (r_s(71) = 0.29 [0.06 0.48], P = 0.014). This positive correlation remained significant after correcting for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR-corrected for three factor comparisons P = 0.043). N = 73 for this analysis as an additional participant’s self-report questionnaires were missing. C Example of shifts in self discounting distributions after learning about the preferences of an Impulsive Other and a Patient Other. (upper) In this example, the participant firstly completed a baseline block to assess their own baseline temporal preference (Self1, dark green solid line) before learning about the preference of an Impulsive Other (Other1, blue dashed line). After learning the preference of Impulsive Other, they completed another block making their own intertemporal choices (Self2, green solid line). For this participant, their preference shifted away from that of Impulsive Other (‘Impulsive D_KL’), meaning that the participant’s own temporal preference became less similar to that of the Impulsive Other (represented by a negative signed D_KL value). (lower) Following this, the participant learnt about the preference of a Patient Other (Other2, yellow dashed line) before making their own intertemporal choice again (Self3, light green solid line). For this participant, their preference shifted towards that of Patient Other (‘Patient D_KL’). The positive signed D_KL value here means that the participant’s preference became more similar to that of the Patient Other after observing their preference.