CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionBullying, Victimization, and Aggression

Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making

Open access
Peake, Shannon J., Dishion, Thomas J., Stormshak, Elizabeth A., Moore, William E., Pfeifer, Jennifer H.·2013·NeuroImage
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.061PMC PMC3820094
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social exclusion and risk-taking are both common experiences of concern in adolescence, yet little is known about how the two may be related at behavioral or neural levels. In this fMRI study, adolescents (N=27, 14 male, 14-17years-old) completed a series of tasks in the scanner assessing risky decision-making before and after an episode of social exclusion. In this particular context, exclusion was associated with greater behavioral risk-taking among adolescents with low self-reported resistance to peer influence (RPI). When making risky decisions after social exclusion, adolescents who had lower RPI exhibited higher levels of activity in the right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), and this response in rTPJ was a significant mediator of the relationship between RPI and greater risk-taking after social exclusion. Lower RPI was also associated with lower levels of activity in lPFC during crashes following social exclusion, but unlike rTPJ this response in lPFC was not a significant mediator of the relationship between RPI and greater risk-taking after social exclusion. The results suggest that mentalizing and/or attentional mechanisms have a unique direct effect on adolescents' vulnerability to peer influence on risk-taking.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In an fMRI study of adolescents, social exclusion by peers was linked to greater subsequent risk-taking mainly among those with low self-reported resistance to peer influence (RPI). Right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ) activity during risky decisions after exclusion mediated the relationship between low RPI and increased risk-taking, whereas lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) activity during crashes did not.

Key findings

  • Risk-taking increased after social exclusion, but the group-level effect was not statistically significant: t(19) = 1.84, two-tailed p = .08.
  • Greater increase in risk-taking after exclusion was correlated with lower RPI: r(18) = −.55, p = .01.
  • During risky decisions after exclusion, lower RPI was associated with higher right TPJ activity; rTPJ significantly mediated the RPI–risk-taking relationship (unstandardized coefficient = 0.979, se = .405, Zmed = 2.42, p = .016; bias-corrected 95% CI .1407–2.0224).
  • Lower RPI was also associated with lower lPFC activity during crashes after exclusion, but lPFC did not significantly mediate the RPI–risk-taking relationship.

Methods

  • Adolescents completed the Stoplight driving task in the scanner before and after a Cyberball social exclusion manipulation; 27 participated, but 7 were excluded, leaving 20 analyzed (10 girls, 10 boys, 14.0–16.8 years, M = 15.3, SD = 0.8).
  • Self-report measures included the Resistance to Peer Influence (RPI) scale, Need-Threat Scale (NTS), and a composite real-world risk-taking measure (CRT).
  • fMRI data were analyzed with a general linear model using decision (Go, Stop) and outcome (Crash, NoCrash) regressors, random-effects group analyses, and mediation analyses using the INDIRECT SPSS macro with bootstrapping.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the fixed pre- then post-exclusion sequence could not be counterbalanced, so changes may reflect boredom, fatigue, or adaptation/repetition suppression rather than exclusion alone.
  • The paper notes that Cyberball included both inclusion and exclusion rounds, so increased peer awareness from interaction could contribute; it also notes the sample was typically developing and low in real-world risk behavior, and age specificity is unclear.
  • Evident from the text: the analyzed sample was small (N = 20), and there was no between-subjects post-inclusion control condition to isolate exclusion-specific effects.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.061

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 50 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    RPI was positively correlated with responses in right lPFC during Crash outcomes after social exclusion relative to before (Crash post > Crash pre).

    “Similarly, RPI was positively correlated with responses in right lPFC during Crash outcomes after social exclusion relative to before (Crash post > Crash pre).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was no significant indirect effect of resistance to peer influence on post-exclusion risk through lPFC.

    “Although this finding is suggestive that lPFC plays a role in decreased risk after exclusion, the mediation analysis failed to find a significant indirect effect of RPI on post-exclusion risk through lPFC.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.4 Resistance to peer influence, mentalizing during risky decisions, and regulation during negative outcomes · hedged
      “This indicates that lPFC activity (considered as a possible proxy for self-regulation) is not sufficient to explain the difference in post-exclusion risk related to RPI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    NTS was significantly correlated with RPI (r(18) = .51, p = .021).

    “The NTS was also significantly correlated with the RPI (r(18) = .51, p = .021), indicating that adolescents with less resistance to peer influence also experienced lower levels of social need satisfaction after social exclusion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The rTPJ response was a significant mediator of the relationship between RPI and greater risk-taking after social exclusion.

    “When making risky decisions after social exclusion, adolescents who had lower RPI exhibited higher levels of activity in right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ), and this response in rTPJ was a significant mediator of the relationship between RPI and greater risk-taking after social exclusion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Risk-taking after exclusion was not strongly correlated with self-reported social need satisfaction (Need Threat Scale).

    “The low correlation between risk after exclusion and self-reported social need satisfaction (Need Threat Scale) suggests that some individuals with decreased social need satisfaction may respond with increased risk while others may respond with decreased risk.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Collapsed across pre- and post-exclusion conditions, safe decisions (Stop > Go) produced more activation in lPFC and risky decisions (Go > Stop) produced more activation in VS.

    “Neuroimaging results of the main effect of decision type collapsed across pre- and postexclusion conditions confirmed activation in expected regions (Cohen et al., 2012; Aron et al., 2004; Knutson et al., 2008), with safe decisions (Stop > Go) producing more activation in lPFC and risky decisions (Go > Stop) producing more activation in VS.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohen et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Aron et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Knutson et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    As a group, adolescents took more risks following social inclusion and subsequent exclusion in the Cyberball task, but the increase did not reach statistical significance in this small sample.

    “As a group, adolescents took more risks following social inclusion and subsequent exclusion in the Cyberball task, although the increase did not reach statistical significance in this small sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    Crash outcomes showed a similar but more pronounced pattern of activation than Stop decisions.

    “A similar but more pronounced pattern of activation was found during Crash outcomes, most likely due to the auditory and visual effects of the car crash (see Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Risky decisions increased following the social exclusion manipulation, but this effect failed to reach statistical significance (t(19) = 1.84, two-tailed p = .08).

    “Risky decisions were found to increase following the social exclusion manipulation, but this effect failed to reach statistical significance (t(19) = 1.84, two-tailed p = .08).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Stop decisions were associated with a robust response in primary sensory regions including temporal lobe (bilateral superior temporal gyrus) and occipital lobe (lingual gyrus).

    “A robust response during Stop decisions was also found in primary sensory regions including temporal lobe (bilateral superior temporal gyrus) and occipital lobe (lingual gyrus), which likely reflect the auditory and visual effects of the car coming to a stop (i.e., the sound of tires squealing, the light turning red, and sudden cessation of movement).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Seven subjects were excluded, leaving a total of 20 participants included in the analyses.

    “Seven subjects were excluded, for various reasons: five for behavioral data lost due to software error, one for excessive movement that resulted in an unusable structural scan, and one due to scanner mechanical malfunction. Therefore, a total of 20 participants (10 girls, 10 boys, 14.0–16.8 years old, M = 15.3, SD = 0.8) were included in the following analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents and adults utilize TPJ to ascertain what others think specifically about one's self, and adolescents engage in this reflective perspective-taking even when not prompted to do so.

    “Prior work in our laboratory suggests that adolescents and adults also utilize TPJ to ascertain what others (parents, friends, and peers) think specifically about one’s self (Pfeifer et al., 2009), and that adolescents engage in this reflective perspective-taking even when they are not prompted to do so.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pfeifer et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The activation pattern during Crash outcomes most likely reflects the auditory and visual effects of the car crash.

    “A similar but more pronounced pattern of activation was found during Crash outcomes, most likely due to the auditory and visual effects of the car crash (see Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Single experiences of social exclusion have been linked to decreased self-regulation, poor health choices, and taking irrational, self-defeating risks.

    “Single experiences of social exclusion have been linked to decreased self-regulation (Baumeister et al., 2005; DeWall et al., 2008), poor health choices (Oaten et al., 2008), and taking irrational, self-defeating risks (Twenge et al., 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Baumeister et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites DeWall et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Oaten et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The presence of peers during risk decisions heightened responses in VS and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) more for adolescents than adults.

    “A recent and highly relevant study examining peer influence on decision-making, for example, concluded that the presence of peers during risk decisions heightened responses in VS and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) more for adolescents than adults (Chein et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chein et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Five practice rounds were included to reduce presumed learning effects and allow risk performance to reach stable levels.

    “Pilot sessions for this study, and previous studies using the Stoplight task (Chein et al., 2011), found learning effects in the form of higher behavioral risk performance during initial rounds of the task followed by decreased and more stable risk patterns thereafter. To reduce these presumed learning effects, five practice rounds were included to allow risk performance to reach stable levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chein et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The degree to which responses in VS increased under peer influence was inversely related to self-reported resistance to peer influence.

    “The degree to which responses in VS increased under peer influence was inversely related to self-reported resistance to peer influence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chein et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to determine the minimum cluster size needed for a family-wise error rate of .05, given a voxel-wise threshold of p = .005.

    “Monte Carlo simulations were conducted using AlphaSim (implemented in Neuroelf) to determine the minimum cluster size needed for an FWE rate of .05, given a voxel-wise threshold of p = .005.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adults engaged lPFC more than adolescents, but this was not impacted by peer presence.

    “Adults engaged lPFC more than adolescents, but this was not impacted by peer presence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chein et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The sensory responses during Stop decisions likely reflect the auditory and visual effects of the car coming to a stop.

    “A robust response during Stop decisions was also found in primary sensory regions including temporal lobe (bilateral superior temporal gyrus) and occipital lobe (lingual gyrus), which likely reflect the auditory and visual effects of the car coming to a stop (i.e., the sound of tires squealing, the light turning red, and sudden cessation of movement).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Manipulation checks indicated that only 1 of 20 subjects explicitly expressed disbelief that they were interacting with real peers, while 90% either believed they were interacting with real peers or were not certain.

    “Manipulation checks following the scanning procedure indicated that only 1 of the 20 subjects explicitly expressed disbelief that they were interacting with real peers, while 90% either believed they were interacting with real peers or were not certain (16 believed completely, 2 indicated they “weren’t sure,” 1 participant did not believe the peers were real, and 1 participant declined to respond”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents exhibit decreased VS response to some reward conditions, or increased VS activity is associated with more adaptive functioning such as increased resistance to peer influence and decreased risky behavior.

    “Complicating this view, however, are studies in which adolescents exhibit decreased VS response to some reward conditions (Geier et al., 2010; van Leijenhorst et al., 2010; and Bjork et al., 2010), or increased VS activity is associated with more adaptive functioning such as increased resistance to peer influence and decreased risky behavior (Pfeifer et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Geier et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites van Leijenhorst et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bjork et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Any changes may also be due to other aspects of the intervening game of Cyberball, which featured both an inclusion and exclusion round.

    “Any changes may also be due to other aspects of the intervening game of Cyberball, which featured both an inclusion and exclusion round.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Ventral lPFC has been identified in studies of negative affect following social exclusion, emotion regulation in labeling negative affect, and negative emotion reappraisal.

    “Similarly, ventral lPFC has also been identified in studies of negative affect following social exclusion (Sebastian et al., 2009), emotion regulation in labeling negative affect (Lieberman et al., 2007), and negative emotion reappraisal (Wager et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sebastian et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lieberman et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wager et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Poor performance in the presence of peers (crashing) following exclusion generates even greater negative emotion and subsequent emotional regulation, which may include labeling or reappraisal.

    “Collectively, the pattern of increased activity in this network of regions points to the possibility that poor performance in the presence of peers (crashing) following exclusion generates even greater negative emotion and subsequent emotional regulation (which may include labeling or reappraisal).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The current dominant perspective is that peer influences on risk-taking are exerted primarily via heightened reward sensitivity.

    “The current dominant perspective is that peer influences are exerted on risk-taking primarily via heightened reward sensitivity (e.g., Chein et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chein et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Making safe decisions in an amplified social-evaluative context may be more salient to adolescents' social self-concept.

    “raising the possibility that making safe decisions in such an amplified social-evaluative context may be more salient to adolescents’ social self-concept, although perhaps in a sample of high-risk teens the pattern would be reversed, as suggested by the brain-behavior correlations between RPI and right TPJ during risky decisions after social exclusion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Decisions are assumed to track increased expected value, and social reward can influence value calculations.

    “From a reward-learning perspective, decisions are assumed to track increased expected value (Niv & Montague, 2008; Schultz, 2010) and social reward can influence value calculations (Evans et al., 2011; Fehr, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Niv & Montague, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Schultz, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Evans et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because the post-exclusion round was always performed after the pre-exclusion round, any changes observed in neural responses may be due simply to boredom, fatigue, or adaptation (repetition suppression), particularly significant decreases.

    “The post-exclusion round was always performed after the pre-exclusion round, and as such any changes observed in neural responses may be due simply to boredom, fatigue, or adaptation (repetition suppression) – particularly significant decreases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Engagement of TPJ in adolescents following social exclusion may be associated with mentalizing processes and/or shifting attention away from the decision, which mediates relations between resistance to peer influence and behavioral risk-taking after social exclusion.

    “First, at the point of making a decision, engagement of TPJ in adolescents following social exclusion may be associated with mentalizing processes and/or shifting attention away from the decision, which mediates relations between resistance to peer influence and behavioral risk-taking after social exclusion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Interaction with peers during Cyberball could result in increased awareness of peers that influenced risk without being due specifically to exclusion.

    “It is possible that interaction with peers during Cyberball could result in increased awareness of peers that influenced risk without being due specifically to exclusion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Adolescents with lower resistance to peer influence may experience divided attention, including thinking more about the thoughts of peers who excluded them, and these attention-shifting and mentalizing processes may affect their risk decisions.

    “These results suggest that, in contrast to teens with higher resistance to peer influence, adolescents with lower resistance to peer influence may be experiencing divided attention – which may include thinking more about the thoughts of the peers who just excluded them – and these processes of attention-shifting and mentalizing may affect their risk decisions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In normative development, TPJ engagement following social exclusion may be associated with playing it safe, but in youth with low self-reported resistance to peer influence it may instead facilitate more risky behavior.

    “Thus, in normative development, this may actually be associated with playing it safe, but in youth with low self-reported resistance to peer influence it may instead facilitate more risky behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The effects of emotional preferences on decision-making are mediated by mentalizing networks, including TPJ regions.

    “This is consistent with a recent study showing that the effects of emotional preferences on decision-making are mediated by mentalizing networks (Evans et al., 2011), including the TPJ regions found in the current study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Evans et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

29 of 29

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The pre- versus post-exclusion Stoplight comparison isolates the effect of social exclusion, with no confounding by repeated testing, time, fatigue, or order.

    “After being trained on the task by playing five rounds alone (to eliminate learning effects), subjects first complete the Stoplight task while the peers are watching, then play the Stoplight task again after an experience of being excluded from a different game by the peers.”
    “Following the Cyberball game, subjects completed the Stoplight task again and were told that their performance was still being watched, again by the same peers that previously excluded them from the Cyberball game (post-exclusion condition).”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adolescents are particularly sensitive to peer rejection and social approval.

    “Adolescents are particularly sensitive to peer rejection 137-139 and social approval. 140”

    From The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [137]

    The cited paper supports the peer-rejection part: Discussion §4.1 reports that adolescents more susceptible to peer influence took significantly more risks after peer exclusion. It does not establish that adolescents are particularly sensitive to rejection relative to other age groups, and it emphasizes variation among adolescents. The separate citation after “social approval” is not judged here. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Activation in the temporal parietal junction, an area of the brain involved in self-other metalizing, mediates the relationship between adolescents' increased risk taking and their ability to resist peer influence, specifically after experiencing social exclusion.

    “Instead these studies have found activation in the temporal parietal junction, an area of the brain involved in self-other metalizing, to mediate the relationship between adolescents’ increased risk taking and their ability to resist peer influence, specifically after experiencing social exclusion”

    From Becoming a sexual being: The “elephant in the room” of adolescent brain development (2017) · cites this paper as Peake et al., 2013

  • Other studies have not replicated the result that increased VS activation is associated with increased risk taking in the presence of peers.

    “while other studies have not replicated this result”

    From Becoming a sexual being: The “elephant in the room” of adolescent brain development (2017) · cites this paper as Peake et al., 2013

  • In tasks involving peer rejection, adolescents show increased activation of ACC and mPFC, regions associated with depression and social pain.

    “Similarly, in tasks involving peer rejection, adolescents show increased activation of ACC and mPFC, regions which have been associated with depression and social pain; individual difference factors like rejection sensitivity, depression and resistance to peer influence may moderate these effects [53,54].”

    From The neuroscience of emotion regulation development: Implications for education (2016) · cites this paper as [54]

  • Individual difference factors like rejection sensitivity, depression and resistance to peer influence may moderate the effects of peer rejection on ACC and mPFC activation.

    “Similarly, in tasks involving peer rejection, adolescents show increased activation of ACC and mPFC, regions which have been associated with depression and social pain; individual difference factors like rejection sensitivity, depression and resistance to peer influence may moderate these effects [53,54].”

    From The neuroscience of emotion regulation development: Implications for education (2016) · cites this paper as [54]

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentr(18) = -0.55reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .012

    “r(18) = −.55, p = .01”

  • Consistentr(18) = -0.5reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .025

    “r(18) = −.50, p = .024”

  • Consistentr(18) = 0.51reported p = .021 · recomputed p = .022

    “r(18) = .51, p = .021”

  • Consistentr(18) = -0.27reported n.s. · recomputed p = .250

    “r(18) = −.27, ns”

4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Peake, S. J., Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E. A., Moore, W. E., & Pfeifer, J. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Pfeifer, Jennifer H.
ORCID
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
82
Pages
23-34
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.061
PMC
PMC3820094
OpenAlex
W2163515328
Cited by
147
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse to the Center on Early Adolescence (DA018760)
  • NIMH Development, Emotion, Ecology, and Psychopathology Research Training (5T32-MH20012)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Keywords
social exclusion, risk-taking, risky decision making, peer influence, resistance to peer influence, adolescents, temporoparietal junction, prefrontal cortex, mentalization, attention, mediation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Brain, Brain Mapping, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Peer Group, Risk-Taking, Psychological Distance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review