The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 50 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 50 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, RPI was positively correlated with responses in right lPFC during Crash outcomes after social exclusion relative to before (Crash post > Crash pre).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.4 fMRI data: Regression and mediation analyses focused on resistance to peer influence
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.4 Resistance to peer influence, mentalizing during risky decisions, and regulation during negative outcomes
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 4.4 Resistance to peer influence, mentalizing during risky decisions, and regulation during negative outcomes · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.1 Behavioral data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.1 Behavioral effects of social exclusion on risk-taking
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results showed there was a significant indirect effect of resistance to peer influence through only one proposed mediating ROI, right TPJ, on the dependent variable, change in risk-taking behavior after social exclusion (unstandardized coefficient = 0.979, se = .405, Zmed effect = 2.42, p = .016; see Inline Supplementary Figure 1).”
- Also stated in: § 3.4 fMRI data: Regression and mediation analyses focused on resistance to peer influence · boosted
“This analysis demonstrated that the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect of RPI on change in risk-taking after social exclusion through right TPJ did not include zero (.1407–2.0224), providing additional support for the assertion that right TPJ mediated the effect of resistance to peer influence on change in risk-taking behavior after social exclusion.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“However, only right TPJ activity during risky decisions after social exclusion significantly mediated some degree of the relationship between resistance to peer influence and behavioral risk-taking after social exclusion.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.4 fMRI data: Regression and mediation analyses focused on resistance to peer influence
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 3.4 fMRI data: Regression and mediation analyses focused on resistance to peer influence · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, making a safe decision (Stop > Go) was associated with greater activity in right lateral PFC (see Table 1), specifically in the inferior frontal gyrus – a region frequently associated with self-regulation (Aron et al., 2004; Cohen, et al., 2013).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.2 fMRI data: Decisions and outcomes
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, greater activation in right lPFC during Crash outcomes after social exclusion relative to before social exclusion (Crash post > Crash pre) was positively correlated with higher resistance to peer influence.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.4 Resistance to peer influence, mentalizing during risky decisions, and regulation during negative outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, after social exclusion relative to before, safe decisions elicited greater responses in regions associated with social cognition, including bilateral TPJ and cortical midline structures.”
- Also stated in: § 4.3 Mentalizing and decision-making · hedged
“Our novel finding that safe decisions elicited greater responses in bilateral TPJ, mPPC, and mPFC following social exclusion suggests that social cognitive processes play a role in decision-making for adolescents.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 4.3 Mentalizing and decision-making · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, there were no significant increases in neural responses during Go decisions following social exclusion versus prior to it (post Go > pre Go).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.3 fMRI data: Effects of social exclusion on decisions and outcomes
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.2 Reward processing and cognitive control
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al., 2012
- Not checked yetcites Aron et al., 2004 source
- Not checked yetcites Knutson et al., 2008
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.1 Behavioral effects of social exclusion on risk-taking
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.2 fMRI data: Decisions and outcomes
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.1 Behavioral data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.2 fMRI data: Decisions and outcomes
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Methods > 2.1 Participants
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 20Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > 1.3 Neuroimaging of mentalizing in adolescence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pfeifer et al., 2009
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.2 fMRI data: Decisions and outcomes
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > 1.2 Social exclusion and adolescent risk-taking
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baumeister et al., 2005
- Not checked yetcites DeWall et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites Oaten et al., 2008
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > 1.3 Neuroimaging of mentalizing in adolescence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Methods > 2.2 Task descriptions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The degree to which responses in VS increased under peer influence was inversely related to self-reported resistance to peer influence.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > 1.3 Neuroimaging of mentalizing in adolescence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Methods > 2.6 fMRI data analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Adults engaged lPFC more than adolescents, but this was not impacted by peer presence.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > 1.3 Neuroimaging of mentalizing in adolescence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Results > 3.2 fMRI data: Decisions and outcomes
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Methods > 2.3 Task sequence
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > 1.3 Neuroimaging of mentalizing in adolescence
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any changes may also be due to other aspects of the intervening game of Cyberball, which featured both an inclusion and exclusion round.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.6 Limitations and future directions
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.5 Negative affect, regulation, and outcome processing
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.5 Negative affect, regulation, and outcome processing
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The current dominant perspective is that peer influences are exerted on risk-taking primarily via heightened reward sensitivity (e.g., Chein et al., 2011).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.3 Mentalizing and decision-making
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.3 Mentalizing and decision-making
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.4 Resistance to peer influence, mentalizing during risky decisions, and regulation during negative outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Niv & Montague, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Schultz, 2010 source
- Not checked yetcites Evans et al., 2011
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.6 Limitations and future directions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.7 Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.6 Limitations and future directions
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.4 Resistance to peer influence, mentalizing during risky decisions, and regulation during negative outcomes
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.7 Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: Neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making > Discussion > 4.4 Resistance to peer influence, mentalizing during risky decisions, and regulation during negative outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Evans et al., 2011
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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).”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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 the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“Prior research has largely examined adolescent decision making and reward sensitivity within a social vacuum, although studies are emerging that examine adolescent decision making in a social context (e.g., Peake et al., 2013, Braams et al., 2014, Chein et al., 2010).”
From Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: a new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation (2016) · cites this paper as Peake et al., 2013
In the citing paper
“The “peer influenced” adolescents also showed less activation of dlPFC when experiencing the consequences of said risks.”
From Adolescent neurobiological susceptibility to social context (2016) · cites this paper as Peake et al., 2013
In the citing paper
“This effect was mediated by increased activation of rostral TPJ (rTPJ) as adolescents made risky driving decisions while supposedly being watched by the rejecting peers.”
From Adolescent neurobiological susceptibility to social context (2016) · cites this paper as Peake et al., 2013
In the citing paper
“Peake et al. (2013) found that being excluded from Cyberball was related to more risk-taking on Stoplight in adolescents (ages 14–17) who were less able to resist the influence of peers.”
From Adolescent neurobiological susceptibility to social context (2016) · cites this paper as Peake et al., 2013
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”
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.
Citations
Cites
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
Fast robust automated brain extraction
Smith, S. M. (2002) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.10062 · Cited by 10,496
A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm
Ashburner, J. (2007) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.007 · Cited by 8,122
Ashburner, J., & Friston, K. J. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018 · Cited by 7,507
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 · Cited by 7,351
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542 · Cited by 5,688
A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking
Steinberg, L. (2008) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002 · Cited by 3,644
Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update
Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003 · Cited by 3,623
(2006) · PubMed · Cited by 3,378
Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex
Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.010 · Cited by 3,197
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–147 of 147
The Influence of Social Rejection on Cognitive Control
Wang, T., & Sha, H. (2018) · Psychology · doi:10.4236/psych.2018.97101 · Cited by 7
Aproximación Neurodinámica a la Cognición Social
Rodríguez, D. A. L., & Cárdenas, F. P. (2017) · Universitas Psychologica · doi:10.11144/javeriana.upsy15-5.ancs · Cited by 8
Tieskens, J. M., Buil, J. M., Koot, S., & van Lier, P. A. C. (2019) · International Journal of Behavioral Development · doi:10.1177/0165025419880617 · Cited by 7
van Hoorn, J., McCormick, E. M., Perino, M. T., Rogers, C. R., & Telzer, E. H. (2020) · Journal of Research on Adolescence · doi:10.1111/jora.12546 · Cited by 8
Neuroscientific insights and the Dutch adolescent criminal law: A brief report
Barendregt, C. S., & van der Laan, A. M. (2018) · Journal of Criminal Justice · doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.010 · Cited by 6
Affective Decision Making and Peer Influence in Youth with Intellectual Disability
Bexkens, A., & Müller, C. M. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74675-9_9 · Cited by 6
Exploring Genetic Numeracy Skills in a Sample of U.S. University Students
Bergman, M., Goodson, P., & Goltz, H. H. (2017) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00229 · Cited by 6
Cerniglia, L., Cimino, S., Tambelli, R., & Lauriola, M. (2023) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci13091248 · Cited by 6
Sex and drugs and self-control: how the teen brain navigates risk
Smith, K. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-018-02170-3 · Cited by 5
Rewarding safe choices in peer contexts: Adolescent brain activity during decision making
Hinnant, J. B., McWood, L. M., Yanes, J. A., McCormick, M., Murphy, J. E., Erath, S. A., & Robinson, J. L. (2019) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.01.008 · Cited by 8
Wood, E. E., Garza, R., Kennison, S. M., & Byrd‐Craven, J. (2021) · Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology · doi:10.1007/s40750-021-00164-6 · Cited by 6
Klithih: Faktor Risiko dan Developmental Pathway Pelakunya
Febriani, A. (2018) · Humanitas Indonesian Psychological Journal · doi:10.26555/humanitas.v15i2.10536 · Cited by 5
Social exclusion influenced intertemporal decision-making and its mechanism
ZHANG, S., HUANG, J., Feng, Z. H. A. O., & Kepeng, X. U. (2022) · Advances in Psychological Science · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2022.00486 · Cited by 5
Maturing Out of Victimization: Extending the Theory of Psychosocial Maturation to Victimization
Beckley, A. L., Rocque, M., Tuvblad, C., & Piquero, A. R. (2021) · Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology · doi:10.1007/s40865-021-00182-8 · Cited by 4
Goldingay, S., Stagnitti, K. E., Robertson, N., Pépin, G., Sheppard, L., & Dean, B. J. (2020) · Australian Occupational Therapy Journal · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12673 · Cited by 4
Development of Social Cognition in Adolescence and the Importance of Mating
Donaldson, S. H., & Mills, K. L. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198843290.003.0004 · Cited by 4
Amplified concern for social risk in adolescence: Development and validation of a new measurePreprint
Andrews, J. L., Foulkes, L., Bone, J. K., & Blakemore, S. (2019) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/vqhya · Cited by 4
Brain functional changes in juvenile delinquents: a preliminary meta-analysis
Wang, Y.-M., Yang, J.-S., Liu, X.-Q., Bie, Q.-W., Xie, Y.-S., Zhang, M., Tao, L., & Chen, X. (2025) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.04.032 · Cited by 3
Social isolation impacts risk perception but not peer influence in mid-adolescence
Thomas, K., Towner, E., Tomova, L., Chierchia, G., & Blakemore, S. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105886 · Cited by 3
Bereft and Left: The interplay between insecure attachment, isolation, and neurobiology
Bell, K., McMillin, K., & Ethridge, L. E. (2022) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2022.101020 · Cited by 3
Chapitre 7. Les relations entre pairs à l’adolescence
Poulin, F. (2014) · Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal eBooks · doi:10.4000/books.pum.5182 · Cited by 6
Cheng, T. W., Vijayakumar, N., Flournoy, J. C., de Macks, Z. A. O., Peake, S. J., Flannery, J., Mobasser, A., Alberti, S. L., Fisher, P. A., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/524934 · Cited by 4
Self-citationTao, R., Zhao, H., Zhang, C., & Xu, S. (2024) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhae171 · Cited by 2
Self-Regulation and Self-Regulation Failure
Heatherton, T. F., Lopez, R. B., & Wagner, D. D. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-397025-1.00151-2 · Cited by 2
Chan, S. K. W., Zhou, L., Cai, J. C., Liao, Y., Huang, Y., Deng, Z.-Y., Liu, Y., Chen, X.-C., Gao, R., Zhang, X.-F., et al. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.03.099 · Cited by 2
Understanding the Neural Circuitry of Emotion Regulation
Ladouceur, C. D., Versace, A., & Phillips, M. L. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139424745.013 · Cited by 2
Zhang, Z. (2022) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2022.101052 · Cited by 4
Social Selves and Social Others in Adolescent Development
Walsh, R. J. (2023) · doi:10.5463/thesis.360 · Cited by 2
Wu, Y., Lu, C., Li, M., Li, B., Shang, X., Jian, G., Zhang, Q., Chen, X., Cao, X., He, B., et al. (2025) · Autism Research · doi:10.1002/aur.70008 · Cited by 1
Differential Susceptibility to Friendship Quality: The Role of Need for Approval
Clapham, R. B., Kim, Y., Davis, M. M., Modi, H. H., Skymba, H. V., & Rudolph, K. D. (2025) · Social Development · doi:10.1111/sode.12807 · Cited by 2
Huang, J., Feng, R., Straube, B., He, Q., Zhang, S., & He, Y. (2025) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsaf065 · Cited by 1
St‐Jean, M., Closson, K., Salway, T. J., Card, K. G., Patterson, T. L., Hogg, R. S., & Lima, V. D. (2021) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-021-02141-6 · Cited by 1
Jackson, J. L., Dulfer, K., & Utens, E. M. W. J. (2016) · Congenital heart disease in adolescents and adults · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31139-5_6 · Cited by 1
Wan, J., Zhao, Q., Zhang, Y., Ji, L., Zhao, J., Qiao, S., & Li, X. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.898535 · Cited by 1
The neighborhood effects on the online financial investment of rural households: Evidence from China
Li, W., Han, K., Lao, Z., & Chen, Y.-Y. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296972 · Cited by 1
Andrews, J. L., Mills, K. L., Flournoy, J. C., Flannery, J., Mobasser, A., Ross, G., Durnin, M., Peake, S. J., Fisher, P. A., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3rqeb · Cited by 1
Self-citationLi, C., & Tsai, C. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.10957
Essays on financial decision making
Jayasundara, B. M. (2021) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.209038
Cannard, C. (2019) · De Boeck Supérieur eBooks · doi:10.3917/dbu.canna.2019.01.0385
Emotion Regulation in Individuals with ADHD: A Clinical Guide
Mahdavi, A., & Elaheh, H. (2024) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1006053
Experimental Research on Ostracism: Strengths and Applicability of Traditional and Online Paradigms
邝, 娅. (2025) · Advances in Social Sciences · doi:10.12677/ass.2025.141054
The Importance of Peers: Making the Most of Peer Relationships in Childhood and Adolescence
(2026) · Frontiers research topics · doi:10.3389/978-2-8325-7631-1
Zakirov, F., Hosseini, K., Morazzani, A. G., LaPlace, L., Pettit, J. W., & Buzzell, G. A. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.29.734887
Hazrati, M., & Borhani, K. (2026) · Discover Psychology · doi:10.1007/s44202-026-00881-7
Liu, P., Sun, M., & Zhu, H. (2026) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2026.116567
Metadata
- 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.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 82
- Pages
- 23-34
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
