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
30 Own result · 26 Not checked yet · 19 Own interpretation · 7 Own method · 1 No basis given
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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plaindirectn = 27- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 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
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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, 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
Psychophysiological and Modulatory Interactions in Neuroimaging
Friston, K. J., Buechel, C., Fink, G. R., Morris, J., Rolls, E., & Dolan, R. J. (1997) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.1997.0291 · Cited by 3,097
Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility
Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3313 · Cited by 2,507
Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the Internet
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748 · Cited by 2,276
Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625 · Cited by 2,218
The social brain in adolescence
Blakemore, S.-J. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2353 · Cited by 1,896
Williams, K. D. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641 · Cited by 1,828
Age differences in resistance to peer influence.
Steinberg, L. D., & Monahan, K. C. (2007) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531 · Cited by 1,789
Prefrontal-Subcortical Pathways Mediating Successful Emotion Regulation
Wager, T. D., Davidson, M. L., Hughes, B. L., Lindquist, M. A., & Ochsner, K. N. (2008) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.09.006 · Cited by 1,761 · cited 6×
“…teens with higher resistance to peer influence exhibited greater activation in right and left lPFC, regions associated with cognitive control in general (Hampshire et al., 2010) and with regulation or suppression of emotional responses in particular (Lieberman et al., 2007; Wager et al., 2008).”
InfluentialYouth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 2009
Eaton, D. K., Kann, L. K., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J., Harris, W. A., Lowry, R., McManus, T., Chyen, D., et al. (2010) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e661322010-001 · Cited by 1,754
Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2008) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012955 · Cited by 1,542
Social exclusion impairs self-regulation
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589 · Cited by 1,401
Understanding others' actions and goals by mirror and mentalizing systems: a meta-analysis
Van Overwalle, F., & Baetens, K. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.009 · Cited by 1,329
The role of the right inferior frontal gyrus: inhibition and attentional control
Hampshire, A., Chamberlain, S. R., Monti, M. M., Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.109 · Cited by 1,327
Galvan, A., Hare, T. A., Parra, C. E., Penn, J., Voss, H., Glover, G., & Casey, B. J. (2006) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1062-06.2006 · Cited by 1,282
Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56 · Cited by 1,271
A dual systems model of adolescent risk‐taking
Steinberg, L. (2010) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.20445 · Cited by 1,187 · cited 2×
“…imbalances between the maturation rates of cortical and subcortical regions respectively associated with cognitive control and reward have been proposed as an explanation for heightened adolescent risk-taking (Casey et al., 2011; Ernst et al., 2009; Somerville et al., 2010; Steinberg, 2008, 2010).”
Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry
Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x · Cited by 1,180 · cited 12×
“, 2008) and specifically responsive during Go decisions in a prior study using this paradigm (Chein et al., 2011).”
InfluentialDoes social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42 · Cited by 1,165
Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x · Cited by 1,150
Self-citationSomerville, L. H., Jones, R. M., & Casey, B. J. (2010) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.07.003 · Cited by 1,025
The role of puberty in the developing adolescent brain
Blakemore, S., Burnett, S., & Dahl, R. E. (2010) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.21052 · Cited by 1,011
Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0015250 · Cited by 942
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M. (2003) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.7402004 · Cited by 933
Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2007) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.068 · Cited by 759
Decision-making in the adolescent brain
Blakemore, S.-J., & Robbins, T. W. (2012) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3177 · Cited by 711 · cited 4×
“…illustrate the value of considering multiple pathways for social influence that may vary according to the risk behaviors and interpersonal contexts being assessed, especially the role of mentalizing regions in social influences on risk-taking (Blakemore and Robbins, 2012; Pfeifer and Allen, 2012).”
InfluentialThe self and social cognition: the role of cortical midline structures and mirror neurons
Uddin, L. Q., Iacoboni, M., Lange, C., & Keenan, J. P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.01.001 · Cited by 704
Adolescent risk taking, impulsivity, and brain development: Implications for prevention
Romer, D. (2010) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.20442 · Cited by 691
A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency
Sampson, R. J., & Laub John, H. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203793350-4 · Cited by 657
Dopamine signals for reward value and risk: basic and recent data
Schultz, W. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Functions · doi:10.1186/1744-9081-6-24 · Cited by 653
Imaging brain development: The adolescent brain
Blakemore, S.-J. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.080 · Cited by 649
Ernst, M., Nelson, E. E., Jazbec, S., McClure, E. B., Monk, C. S., Leibenluft, E., Blair, J., & Pine, D. S. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.038 · Cited by 635
Johnson, S. B., Blum, R. W., & Giedd, J. N. (2009) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.05.016 · Cited by 631 · cited 2×
“However, outstandingmethodological questions and results inconsistent with these models (Blakemore and Robbins, 2012; Johnson et al., 2009; Pfeifer and Allen, 2012; Romer, 2010) suggest that additional factors play a role in adolescent risky decision-making.”
Youth risk behavior surveillance - United States, 2009.
Eaton, D. K., Kann, L. K., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S. L., Ross, J. G., Hawkins, J., Harris, W. A., Lowry, R., McManus, T., Chyen, D., et al. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 631
Figner, B., Mackinlay, R. J., Wilkening, F., & Weber, E. U. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0014983 · Cited by 625
Braking and accelerating of the adolescent brain
Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Somerville, L. H. (2011) · Journal of Research on Adolescence · doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00712.x · Cited by 621
When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts.
van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.918 · Cited by 567
Incentive-elicited brain activation in adolescents: Similarities and differences from young adults
Bjork, J. M., Knutson, B., Fong, G. W., Caggiano, D. M., Bennett, S. M., & Hommer, D. W. (2004) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4862-03.2004 · Cited by 567
Masten, C. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Borofsky, L. A., Pfeifer, J. H., McNealy, K., Mazziotta, J. C., & Dapretto, M. (2009) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsp007 · Cited by 529
Self-citationFrontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents
Somerville, L. H., Hare, T., & Casey, B. J. (2011) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21572 · Cited by 523
Adolescent development of the reward system
Galvan (2010) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/neuro.09.006.2010 · Cited by 521
Social exclusion causes self-defeating behavior.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.606 · Cited by 503
D'Argembeau, A., Ruby, P., Collette, F., Degueldre, C., Balteau, E., Luxen, A., Maquet, P., & Salmon, E. (2007) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.6.935 · Cited by 495 · cited 2×
“All three regions are also centrally implicated in self-referential processing (D'Argembeau et al., 2007; Northoff et al., 2011; Pfeifer et al., 2007; Pfeifer et al., 2009; Pfeifer & Peake, 2011), raising the possibility that making safe decisions in such an amplified social-evaluative context may be more salient to a…”
Peer ecology of male adolescent drug use
Dishion, T. J., Capaldi, D. M., Spracklen, K. M., & Li, F. (1995) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579400006854 · Cited by 488
Self-citationActivity in Right Temporo-Parietal Junction is Not Selective for Theory-of-Mind
Mitchell, J. P. (2008) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhm051 · Cited by 469 · cited 2×
“4A), a region associated with mentalizing and attention-shifting (Mitchell, 2008; Scholz et al., 2009), and positively correlated with responses in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a region associated with error detection and conflict resolution (Botvinick et al.”
Adolescent risky decision-making: Neurocognitive development of reward and control regions
Van Leijenhorst, L., Moor, B. G., Op de Macks, Z. A., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., Westenberg, P. M., & Crone, E. A. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.038 · Cited by 467 · cited 7×
“All three regions are associated with mentalizing and Theory of Mind (Scholz et al., 2009; Van Overwalle and Baetens, 2009), suggesting adolescents may be considering potential social evaluation by the peers who just excluded them and are currently watching their performance.”
InfluentialPredicting early adolescent disorder from childhood aggression and peer rejection.
Coie, J. D., Lochman, J. E., Terry, R., & Hyman, C. (1992) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.60.5.783 · Cited by 463
The observed effects of teenage passengers on the risky driving behavior of teenage drivers
Simons-Morton, B., Lerner, N., & Singer, J. (2005) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.014 · Cited by 446
Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2009) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017417 · Cited by 439
Dishion, T. J., & Owen, L. D. (2002) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.480 · Cited by 409
Self-citationImmaturities in reward processing and its influence on inhibitory control in adolescence.
Geier, C. F., Terwilliger, R., Teslovich, T., Velanova, K., & Luna, B. (2010) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp225 · Cited by 396
Eshel, N., Nelson, E. E., Blair, R. J., Pine, D. S., & Ernst, M. (2007) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.004 · Cited by 355
Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. L. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012958 · Cited by 352
Prinstein, M. J., & Aikins, J. W. (2004) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1023/b:jacp.0000019767.55592.63 · Cited by 303
Pfeifer, J. H., & Allen, N. B. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.011 · Cited by 299
Self-citationPfeifer, J. H., Lieberman, M. D., & Dapretto, M. (2007) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1323 · Cited by 294
Self-citationPfeifer, J. H., Masten, C. L., Moore, W. E., Oswald, T. M., Mazziotta, J. C., Iacoboni, M., & Dapretto, M. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.019 · Cited by 294
Self-citationSpear, L. P. (2011) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2011.08.001 · Cited by 292
Predicting early adolescent disorder from childhood aggression and peer rejection.
Coie, J. D., Lochman, J. E., Terry, R., et al. (1992) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.60.5.783 · Cited by 292
Development during Adolescence of the Neural Processing of Social Emotion
Heyes, S. B., Bird, G., Moll, J., Frith, C., & Blakemore, S. (2008) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21121 · Cited by 290
Pfeifer, J. H., Masten, C. L., Piero, L. B. D., Dapretto, M., Fuligni, A. J., & Lieberman, M. D. (2009) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01314.x · Cited by 283
Self-citationLeary, M. R., Schreindorfer, L. S., & Haupt, A. L. (1995) · Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1521/jscp.1995.14.3.297 · Cited by 261
Scholz, J., Triantafyllou, C., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Brown, E. N., & Saxe, R. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004869 · Cited by 256 · cited 4×
“All three regions are associated with mentalizing and Theory of Mind (Scholz et al., 2009; Van Overwalle and Baetens, 2009), suggesting adolescents may be considering potential social evaluation by the peers who just excluded them and are currently watching their performance.”
InfluentialErnst, M., Romeo, R. D., & Andersen, S. L. (2008) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2008.12.013 · Cited by 250
Adolescent development of the neural circuitry for thinking about intentions
Blakemore, S.-J., den Ouden, H., Choudhury, S., & Frith, C. (2007) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsm009 · Cited by 250
Self-development: Integrating cognitive, socioemotional, and neuroimaging perspectives
Pfeifer, J. H., & Peake, S. J. (2011) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2011.07.012 · Cited by 246
Self-citationStormshak, E. A., Connell, A. M., Véronneau, M., Myers, M. W., Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., & Caruthers, A. S. (2011) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01551.x · Cited by 244
Self-citationDeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012632 · Cited by 243
Adolescent Peer Crowd Affiliation: Linkages With Health-Risk Behaviors and Close Friendships
Greca, A. M. L. (2001) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/26.3.131 · Cited by 243
Ostracism increases social susceptibility
Carter‐Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2008) · Social Influence · doi:10.1080/15534510802204868 · Cited by 233
Developmental changes in the neural basis of interpreting communicative intent
Wang, A. T., Lee, S. S., Sigman, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsl018 · Cited by 232
Changing Brains, Changing Perspectives: The Neurocognitive Development of Reciprocity
van den Bos, W., van Dijk, E., Westenberg, M., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., & Crone, E. A. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610391102 · Cited by 229
Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.004 · Cited by 223
Metzler, C. W., Biglan, A., Rusby, J. C., & Sprague, J. R. (2001) · Education and Treatment of Children · Cited by 218
Prinstein, M. J., & Greca, A. M. L. (2004) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.72.1.103 · Cited by 216
The Effects of Ostracism on Self–Regulation in the Socially Anxious
Oaten, M., Williams, K., Jones, A. M., & Zadro, L. (2008) · Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.5.471 · Cited by 215
Social exclusion and punishment of excluders: Neural correlates and developmental trajectories
Gunther Moor, B., Güroğlu, B., Op de Macks, Z. A., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., Van der Molen, M. W., & Crone, E. A. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.028 · Cited by 207
Gweon, H., Dodell-Feder, D., Bedny, M., & Saxe, R. (2012) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01829.x · Cited by 206 · cited 1×
“Another emerging developmental pattern is a linear increase in TPJ responses during mentalizing (Gweon et al., 2012; van den Bos et al., 2011).”
Adolescents’ heightened risk-seeking in a probabilistic gambling task
Burnett, S., Bault, N., Coricelli, G., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2010) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.11.003 · Cited by 165
Adolescent social cognitive and affective neuroscience: past, present, and future
Pfeifer, J. H., & Blakemore, S. (2012) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsr099 · Cited by 159
Self-citationYoshimura, S., Ueda, K., Suzuki, S.-I., Onoda, K., Okamoto, Y., & Yamawaki, S. (2009) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2008.07.010 · Cited by 140
Brain imaging of the self-conceptual, anatomical and methodological issues
Northoff, G., Qin, P., & Feinberg, T. E. (2011) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.011 · Cited by 135
Geniole, S. N., Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2011) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.02.020 · Cited by 129 · cited 2×
“…studies that have found strong exclusion effects in between-subjects designs where one group received only the inclusion condition and another group received both inclusion and exclusion rounds (Boyes and French, 2009; Carter-Sowell et al., 2008; Geniole et al., 2011; van Beest and Williams, 2006).”
Incentive‐elicited mesolimbic activation and externalizing symptomatology in adolescents
Bjork, J. M., Chen, G., Smith, A. R., & Hommer, D. W. (2010) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02201.x · Cited by 120
Varieties of Interpersonal Rejection
Williams, K. D., Forgas, J. P., & Hippel, W. V. (2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203942888-9 · Cited by 92
Developmental differences in posterior mesofrontal cortex recruitment by risky rewards
Bjork, J. M., Smith, A. R., Danube, C. L., & Hommer, D. W. (2007) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5469-06.2007 · Cited by 90
Reactions to ostracism in adolescents with autism spectrum conditions
Sebastian, C., Blakemore, S.-J., & Charman, T. (2009) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-009-0725-4 · Cited by 86
Boyes, M. E., & French, D. J. (2009) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.005 · Cited by 84
Mallott, M. A., Maner, J. K., DeWall, N., & Schmidt, N. B. (2009) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.20555 · Cited by 75
Representation of Subjective Value in the Striatum
Knutson, B. D., Delgado, M. R., & Phillips, P. E. M. (2009) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374176-9.00025-7 · Cited by 68
Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Learning
Niv, Y., & Montague, P. R. (2009) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374176-9.00022-1 · Cited by 65
Bjork, J. M., Smith, A. R., Chen, G., & Hommer, D. W. (2011) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2011.07.005 · Cited by 55
Intentional and Incidental Self-Control in Ventrolateral PFC
Cohen, J. R., Berkman, E. T., & Lieberman, M. D. (2011) · Cited by 44
Evans, S., Fleming, S. M., Dolan, R. J., & Averbeck, B. B. (2010) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21584 · Cited by 32
Slow vasomotor fluctuation in fMRI of anesthetized child brain
Kiviniemi, V., Jauhiainen, J., Tervonen, O., P��kk�, E., Oikarinen, J., Vainionp��, V., Rantala, H., & Biswal, B. (2000) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/1522-2594(200009)44:3
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health
McGorry, P. D., Mei, C., Dalal, N., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Blakemore, S.-J., Browne, V., Dooley, B., Hickie, I. B., Jones, P. B., McDaid, D., et al. (2024) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00163-9 · Cited by 663
Social Influence on Risk Perception During Adolescence
Knoll, L. J., Magis-Weinberg, L., Speekenbrink, M., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615569578 · Cited by 433
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Bowker, J. C. (2015) · Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science · doi:10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy405 · Cited by 430
Studying individual differences in human adolescent brain development
Foulkes, L., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0078-4 · Cited by 413
The development of social cognition in adolescence: An integrated perspective
Kilford, E. J., Garrett, E., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.016 · Cited by 412
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
