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

In the paper

“A relatively consistent pattern in this line of inquiry is that adolescents exhibit enhanced reactivity in mPFC during mentalizing, relative to adults (Blakemore, 2008; Blakemore et al., 2007; Blakemore et al., 2010; Burnett et al., 2008; Gunther Moor et al., 2012; Pfeifer et al., 2009; Pfeifer & Blakemore, 2012; van den Bos et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2006).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Blakemore, 2008 source
• Supported

  The Discussion reports significantly greater medial PFC activation in adolescents than adults when thinking about intentional causality relative to physical causality. The Conclusion identifies this as a finding about the mentalising network, supporting the cited comparison. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites Blakemore et al., 2007 source
• ?Could not verify

  The functional brain development section discusses adolescent fMRI findings involving hippocampal and amygdala activity, but does not report mPFC activity during mentalizing or compare adolescents with adults on that task. Searches for mentalizing, mPFC, and medial prefrontal cortex found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  cites Blakemore et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“All three regions are associated with mentalizing and Theory of Mind (Scholz et al., 2009; Van Overwalle & Baetens, 2009), suggesting adolescents may be considering potential social evaluation by the peers who just excluded them and are currently watching their performance.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results (fMRI Results; page unavailable) report recruitment near the right TPJ during a Theory of Mind task. The paper does not establish the stated association for bilateral TPJ, mPPC, or mPFC; its analysis focuses on the right TPJ. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Scholz et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Not checked yetcites Van Overwalle & Baetens, 2009 source

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).”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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).”

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.”

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.”

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).”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“During risky decisions after social exclusion (Go post > Stop post), RPI was negatively correlated with responses in several structures including the right TPJ (see Figure 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”

In the paper

“Increased risky behavior following social exclusion correlated with low resistance to peer influence.”

• Also stated in: § 4.1 Behavioral effects of social exclusion on risk-taking · plain

  “However, teens with greater susceptibility to peer influence did take significantly more risks after being excluded by peers, suggesting that individual differences may shape the strategies adolescents employ for risk decisions in social contexts (Monahan et al., 2009; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007).”

In the paper

“Neither social need satisfaction as assessed by the Need-Threat Scale (NTS), nor the composite of real-world risk-taking behavior (CRT), were significantly related to changes in risk decisions after social exclusion (rs(18) = −.14 and .21, respectively, ns).”

In the paper

“NTS was not significantly correlated with the CRT (r(18) = −.27, ns).”

In the paper

“We also made comparisons between decision events (Go > Stop; Stop > Go) as well as between outcome events (Crash > NoCrash; NoCrash > Crash) across conditions (pre > post exclusion; post > pre-exclusion), but none of these contrasts produced any significant interactions between exclusion conditions and decision events or outcome events.”

In the paper

“Furthermore, after social exclusion relative to before, negative outcomes elicited greater responses in regions associated with self-regulation and negative affect, including lPFC and sACC.”

• Also stated in: § 4.5 Negative affect, regulation, and outcome processing · plain

  “It is worth noting that increased responses during Crash outcomes following social exclusion were observed in subgenual ACC and lPFC, regions that have been implicated in negative affect and emotion regulation.”

In the paper

“In this particular context, exclusion was associated with greater behavioral risk-taking among adolescents with low self-reported resistance to peer influence (RPI).”

• Also stated in: § 3.1 Behavioral data · plain

  “The degree of increase in risk-taking was negatively correlated with resistance to peer influence (RPI) scores (r(18) = −.55, p = .01; see Figure 2), revealing that adolescents with greater susceptibility to peer influence displayed larger increases in risky decisions after being socially excluded by peers.”

In the paper

“During risky decisions after social exclusion (Go post > Stop post), RPI was negatively correlated with responses in several structures including the right TPJ (see Figure 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”

• Also stated in: § Abstract · plain

  “When making risky decisions after social exclusion, adolescents who had lower RPI exhibited higher levels of activity in right temporoparietal junction (rTPJ)”

In the paper

“Neither social need satisfaction as assessed by the Need-Threat Scale (NTS), nor the composite of real-world risk-taking behavior (CRT), were significantly related to changes in risk decisions after social exclusion (rs(18) = −.14 and .21, respectively, ns).”

In the paper

“During negative outcomes after social exclusion (Crash post > NoCrash post), RPI was positively correlated with responses in both right and left lPFC (see Figure 4B).”

• Also stated in: § Abstract · plain

  “Lower RPI was also associated with lower levels of activity in lPFC during crashes following social exclusion”

In the paper

“In addition, making a risky decision (Go > Stop) elicited responses in the ventral striatum (VS), a region consistently implicated in reward motivation (Knutson et al., 2008) and specifically responsive during Go decisions in a prior study using this paradigm (Chein et al., 2011).”

In the paper

“In general, adolescents with low resistance to peer influence exhibited stronger activity during risky decisions in regions associated with social cognition including right TPJ, suggesting attention to the presence of peers and possible consideration of peer evaluations of adolescent decisions.”

• Also stated in: § 4.4 Resistance to peer influence, mentalizing during risky decisions, and regulation during negative outcomes · plain

  “One of two particularly notable findings from the regression analyses is that while making risky decisions following social exclusion (Go post > Stop post), teens with lower resistance to peer influence demonstrated greater neural activation in right TPJ, a region associated with mentalizing (Table 3; Scholz et al., 2009; Van Overwalle & Baetens, 2009).”

In the paper

“As expected, the RPI was significantly negatively correlated with the CRT (r(18) = −.50, p = .024).”

In the paper

“Stop decisions after social exclusion compared to before (post Stop > pre Stop) were associated with greater activation in right dorsolateral PFC (dlPFC) and a number of regions implicated in social cognition, including posterior cingulate cortex in mPPC, mPFC, bilateral TPJ, and medial OFC (see Figure 3A).”

In the paper

“Meanwhile, crash outcomes following social exclusion compared to before (post Crash > pre Crash) were associated with increased activation in subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sACC), left ventrolateral PFC (vlPFC), and mPFC (see Figure 3B).”

In the paper

“The typically-developing adolescents who participated in this study tended to engage in low rates of risky behavior such as substance use or affiliation with deviant peers, although there was meaningful variability in this measure that could provide clear a priori hypotheses about neural and behavioral differences.”

In the paper

“The results suggest that mentalizing and/or attentional mechanisms have a unique direct effect on adolescents’ vulnerability to peer influence on risk-taking.”

In the paper

“One particularly powerful and distressing form of social interaction is exclusion or rejection by peers (Williams, 2007), which can negatively affect individual and interpersonal behavior through decreased self-regulation (Baumeister et al., 2005), aggression (Ayduk et al., 2008), and self-defeating actions (Twenge et al., 2002).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Williams, 2007 source
• Not checked yetcites Baumeister et al., 2005 source
• Not checked yetcites Ayduk et al., 2008 source

In the paper

“Although previous work has examined the influence of peers on risk decisions using neuroimaging techniques (Chein et al., 2011), to our knowledge, no prior study has examined the effect of social exclusion on risk-taking.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“Collectively, these results suggest the existence of additional mechanisms for peer influence on decision-making during adolescence that vary according to the kind of social context experienced.”

In the paper

“Another emerging developmental pattern is a linear increase in TPJ responses during mentalizing (Gweon et al., 2012; van den Bos et al., 2011).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Gweon et al., 2012 source
• Not checked yetcites van den Bos et al., 2011 source

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.”

In the paper

“The social exclusion manipulation employed the Cyberball game (Williams et al., 2000) which creates the subjective experience of being excluded using a computerized ball-toss game played by the subject and two peers ostensibly connected via the Internet.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Williams et al., 2000 source

In the paper

“We suggest that mentalizing is a reasonable cognitive response to social exclusion in our paradigm, not only because mentalizing during decisions may reflect a concern with the peers’ evaluations of one’s decisions, but also because reactions to exclusion or rejection depend on the perceived intentions of the excluder (Molden et al., 2009; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Molden et al., 2009 source
• Not checked yetcites Smart Richman & Leary, 2009 source

In the paper

“While this possibility exists, we feel that any potential additive effect of increased interaction would be a small contributor to the change in risk when compared to the effect of exclusion.”

In the paper

“These results 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 & Robbins, 2012; Pfeifer & Allen, 2012).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Blakemore & Robbins, 2012 source
• Not checked yetcites Pfeifer & Allen, 2012

In the paper

“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.”

• Also stated in: § 4.3 Mentalizing and decision-making · hedged

  “Taken together, the enhanced response of regions involved in social cognition suggests that typically-developing adolescents may be considering the thoughts and potential evaluation of peers when deciding not to take risks after being socially excluded.”

In the paper

“Due to our concern that the potential affective, motivational, and regulatory consequences of social exclusion might linger through multiple rounds of the Stoplight task, we chose to run a fixed sequence which could not counterbalance the order of pre and post exclusion rounds.”

In the paper

“Beyond a pathway previously identified in VS suggesting reward sensitivity may support some forms of peer influence on adolescent risk-taking (Chein et al., 2011), this study suggests two additional relevant pathways.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“Subgenual ACC activation is common in tasks involving distress associated with social exclusion (Masten et al., 2009; Sebastian et al., 2009), negative self-referential processing (Yoshimura et al., 2009), and reappraisal of negative emotion (Wager et al., 2008).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Masten et al., 2009 source
• Not checked yetcites Sebastian et al., 2009 source
• Not checked yetcites Yoshimura et al., 2009 source

In the paper

“In the context of the current study, it may be that the expected value of high-risk rewards becomes greater due to the increased motivational currency of social approval or social status, particularly following an episode of social exclusion for adolescents with low resistance to peer influence.”

In the paper

“The ability to better regulate the effect of negative emotions may be related to the ability to make less emotional (more rational) decisions in peer contexts (Figner et al., 2009).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Figner et al., 2009 source

In the paper

“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 adolescents’ social self-concept, although perhaps in a sample of high-risk teens”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites D’Argembeau et al., 2007
• Not checked yetcites Northoff et al., 2011 source
• Not checked yetcites Pfeifer et al., 2007 source

In the paper

“Taken together, neural response profiles during processing of risky decisions and negative outcomes suggest that some teenagers are better able to regulate their actions and reactions following social exclusion, while other teenagers may experience an increase in the salience of the thoughts of peers after exclusion, or shift their attention from the choices at hand. These varying neural profiles”

In the paper

“However, this explanation seems less likely to account for significant increases from pre to post exclusion, such as those observed in social cognition and regulatory regions.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“Based on the aforementioned studies showing lPFC involvement in emotion regulation and suppression, this suggests that teens who are less susceptible to peer influence (i.e., those with higher RPI) show more activity potentially related to self-regulation when experiencing negative outcomes in a peer context.”

In the paper

“Second, when the outcome of a risky decision is known, engagement of lPFC in adolescents following social exclusion may indicate regulatory processes likewise play a critical role in supporting healthy decisions, perhaps especially when negative affect is already high.”

In the paper

“This view is informed by the considerable number of Cyberball 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 & French, 2009; Carter-Sowell et al., 2008; Geniole et al., 2011; van Beest & Williams, 2006).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Boyes & French, 2009
• Not checked yetcites Carter-Sowell et al., 2008 source
• Not checked yetcites Geniole et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“Beyond the contributions of reward sensitivity illustrated in prior research (Chein et al., 2011), the brain-behavior relationships illustrated here suggest that mentalizing and regulation processes also serve to impact decision-making and outcome processing in ways that may amplify or buffer against risk-taking in adolescence.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“To achieve this, each decision (Go, Stop) and outcome (Crash No Crash) following exclusion was contrasted with the same condition prior to exclusion. This controlled for the basic effects of expected value and reward prediction error, enabling the examination of effects specifically attributable to social contextual aspects of decisions.”