CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionBullying, Victimization, and AggressionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Development of self-protective biases in response to social evaluative feedback

Open access
Rodman, Alexandra M., Powers, Katherine E., Somerville, Leah H.·2017·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1712398114PMC PMC5740641
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: The growing popularity of social media, especially among youth, has resulted in peer feedback (including rejection) pervading everyday life. Given that peer ostracism has been linked to depression and suicide, it is critical to understand the psychological impact of peer feedback from a developmental perspective. We demonstrate that adolescents and adults use peer feedback to inform views of themselves and of others in very different ways. Of particular interest, early adolescents internalized rejection from peers and felt worse about themselves, whereas adults exhibited evidence of self-protective biases that preserved positive self-views. This work advances theoretical insights into how development shapes social-evaluative experiences and informs sources of vulnerability that could put adolescents at unique risk for negative mental health outcomes.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a cross-sectional sample ages 10–23, adolescents and adults processed equivalent peer acceptance/rejection feedback differently: early adolescents showed rejection-congruent expectations and a task-induced drop in self-views, whereas adults showed self-protective biases, including enhanced self-views and deprecating peers who rejected them. The authors propose that heightened rejection reactivity and later-emerging self-protective processes codevelop across adolescence.

Key findings

  • Participants predicted being liked 53.22% of the time (SE = 1.32%) despite receiving 50% acceptance and 50% rejection feedback, an overestimation versus the 50% base rate [t(106) = 2.439, P = 0.016].
  • Self-views showed no overall task-induced change [t(103) = 1.463, P = 0.146], but age predicted percent change (linear B = 0.219, P = 0.037), with early adolescents showing a drop in self-views and self-enhancement emerging toward adulthood.
  • Peer likability ratings became more positive after acceptance (M = 0.37, SE = 0.94) and more negative after rejection (M = −3.16, SE = 1.09; B = 0.035, P < 0.001), and this feedback-dependent updating increased with age (feedback type × linear age: B = 0.340, P = 0.001).
  • Memory for feedback was above chance (62.74%, SE = 0.73%; t(106) = 17.474, P < 0.001) and equivalent across age (main effect and interaction with age: Ps > 0.132), supporting comparable encoding of feedback across development.

Methods

  • N = 107 participants ages 9.98–23.29 years (M = 16.45, SD = 3.71; 49.5% female) completed a reciprocal social evaluation task in which they predicted and received peer acceptance/rejection feedback, plus pre/post self-esteem (Self Perception Profile) and peer likability ratings, and a surprise memory test for feedback.
  • Analyses used linear and linear mixed-effects regressions, generalized additive models/generalized additive mixed models with thin plate regression smoothing splines, and model comparison via AIC; R-squared was reported as an effect-size estimate.

Limitations

  • The paper states that preadolescents showed little change in self- and other-views despite understanding the task and remembering feedback, a potentially meaningful null result warranting further investigation.
  • The paper states that causal links and proposed developmental mechanisms were not tested, and that future work with real social feedback from known peers (e.g., classmates) would improve ecological validity and permit longitudinal approaches, which were not possible here due to deception.
  • Evident from the text: the cross-sectional age comparisons cannot establish developmental change or causality, and the sample was recruited from the local Boston/Cambridge communities with limited reported demographic characterization beyond age and gender.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1712398114

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 52 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Predictions of being liked increased linearly with age.

    “predictions of being liked increased linearly with age (B = 0.299, P = 0.025)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Predictions of being liked also followed a cubic function of age.

    “and also followed a cubic function (B = −0.274, P = 0.039).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Discussion

    This study revealed age-related differences in how peer feedback impacts self-views.

    “This study also revealed age-related differences in how peer feedback impacts self-views.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Child, Adolescent, and College-Aged versions of the SPP measure self-views comparably across age groups.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 50% acceptance and 50% rejection feedback was subjectively equivalent across age groups.
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    On average, participants rated peers as relatively neutral before the task.

    “On average, participants rated peers as relatively neutral before the task (M = 45.59, SE = 1.44).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Adolescents showed consistency in their impressions of peers, even after being rejected.

    “Meanwhile, adolescents showed consistency in their impressions of peers, even after being rejected.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 29
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Participants predicted they would be liked 53.22% of the time, overestimating compared with the 50% base rate.

    “In general, participants predicted that they would be liked 53.22% of the time (SE = 1.32%; min = 19.60%, max = 85.00%), which is an overestimation compared with the base rate of 50% [participants received 50% acceptance and 50% rejection feedback across the task; one-sample t(106) = 2.439, P = 0.016].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Across all participants, response times for predicting acceptance and rejection did not differ.

    “Across all participants, response times for predicting acceptance [mean (M) = 1,363 ms, SE = 33.83 ms] and rejection (M = 1,350 ms, SE = 34.43 ms) did not differ [paired t test: t(106) = 1.023, P = 0.308].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Overall response times were equivalent across age.

    “Overall, response times were equivalent across age [r(105) = 0.024, P = 0.802].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Young adolescents predicted they would be liked less frequently than young adults, who overestimated the extent to which they would be accepted by peers.

    “The observed pattern indicated that young adolescents predicted that they would be liked less frequently than young adults, who overestimated the extent to which they would be accepted by peers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Early adolescents exhibited slower reaction times for predicting acceptance than rejection, whereas older participants exhibited slower reaction times for predicting rejection relative to acceptance.

    “Specifically, early adolescents exhibited slower reaction times for predicting acceptance than rejection, suggestive of an internal heuristic more consistent with expecting rejection from others. Conversely, older participants exhibited slower reaction times for predicting rejection relative to acceptance, suggestive of an internal heuristic more consistent with expecting others to accept them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Across the sample, ratings became more positive following acceptance and more negative following rejection.

    “Across the sample as a whole, ratings became more positive following acceptance (M = 0.37, SE = 0.94) and more negative following rejection (M = −3.16, SE = 1.09; B = 0.035, P < 0.001), suggesting that participants “upgraded” peers who provided positive feedback and “downgraded” their impressions of peers who provided negative feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Being accepted or rejected by peers exerted a greater influence on how individuals viewed their peers with increasing age; children and early adolescents maintained impressions regardless of feedback, while young adults updated impressions based on acceptance or rejection.

    “Results suggested that being accepted or rejected by peers exerted a greater influence on how individuals viewed their peers with increasing age. While children and early adolescents maintained impressions of peers regardless of peer feedback, young adults updated impressions of peers based on whether that peer accepted or rejected them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Adolescents did not enhance self-views or denigrate impressions of rejecting peers.

    “In contrast to adults, we found that adolescents did not enhance self-views or denigrate impressions of rejecting peers, suggesting that adolescents do not avail themselves of the self-protective biases that adults do.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Child, Adolescent, and College-Aged versions of the SPP measure self-views comparably across age groups.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 50% acceptance and 50% rejection feedback was subjectively equivalent across age groups.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Early adolescents experienced a unique drop in self-views, whereas self-enhancement emerged during the transition to adulthood.

    “This pattern indicated that early adolescents experienced a unique drop in self-views, whereas self-enhancement emerged during the transition to adulthood.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Our findings demonstrated clear convergence in rejection-related biases in early adolescence and self-protective biases in early adulthood.

    “Our findings demonstrated clear convergence in rejection-related biases in early adolescence and self-protective biases in early adulthood, while individuals between adolescence and adulthood showed “partial profiles” of reactivity to rejection and self-protective biases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Age-related differences observed in this cross-sectional study reflect developmental change rather than cohort effects.
    • Rests on an assumption: The Child, Adolescent, and College-Aged versions of the SPP measure self-views comparably across age groups.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 50% acceptance and 50% rejection feedback was subjectively equivalent across age groups.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Self-protective processes are theorized to maintain favorable self-views and are broadly linked with improved well-being.

    “This collection of self-protective processes is theorized to maintain favorable self-views and is broadly linked with improved well-being (12).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Alloy LB, Abramson LY. Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? J Exp Psychol Gen. 1979;108:441–485. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.108.4.441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Adolescence is characterized by an increase in social attunement and concern with being accepted by peers.

    “Adolescence is a period of development characterized by an increase in social attunement and concern with being accepted by peers (3, 13).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Somerville LH. Special issue on the teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2013;22:121–127. doi: 10.1177/0963721413476512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] Brown BB. Peer groups and peer cultures. In: Feldman SS, Elliott GR, editors. At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent. Harvard Univ Press; Cambridge, MA: 1990. pp. 171–196. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Adults devalue the source of negative feedback to challenge its importance.

    “and to devalue the source of feedback to challenge its importance (8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Dunning D, Cohen GL. Egocentric definitions of traits and abilities in social judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63:341–355. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Results

    Response time biases can reflect implicit conceptual conflict, such that slowing reflects cognitive interference and speeding reflects facilitative association.

    “Prior work has demonstrated that response time biases can reflect implicit conceptual conflict (30, 31), such that slowing reflects cognitive interference induced when pairing incongruent constructs and speeding reflects facilitative association when pairing congruent constructs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [30] Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74:1464–1480. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [31] Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol. 1935;18:643–662. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Adolescents, compared with children and adults, are especially oriented to recognize negative socioemotional cues.

    “Previous research has revealed that adolescents, compared with children and adults, are especially oriented to recognize negative socioemotional cues (14)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Thomas LA, De Bellis MD, Graham R, LaBar KS. Development of emotional facial recognition in late childhood and adolescence. Dev Sci. 2007;10:547–558. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00614.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Baseline likability ratings were equivalent across age, suggesting age-customized stimulus sets were well balanced.

    “A test for age differences in pretask likability ratings indicated that baseline ratings were equivalent across age [r(105) = 0.071, P = 0.464], suggesting that the age-customized stimulus sets were well balanced.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Adults tend to rate accepting peers more favorably, respond to negative feedback by denigrating others, and engage in retaliatory impression updating, consistent with previous work.

    “The tendency for adults to rate accepting peers more favorably (36), respond to negative feedback by denigrating others (5, 9, 10), and engage in retaliatory impression updating (11) aligns with previous work.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [36] Jones RM, et al. Behavioral and neural properties of social reinforcement learning. J Neurosci. 2011;31:13039–13045. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2972-11.2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] Beauregard KS, Dunning D. Turning up the contrast: Self-enhancement motives prompt egocentric contrast effects in social judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74:606–621. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] DeWall CN, Twenge JM, Gitter SA, Baumeister RF. It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;96:45–59. doi: 10.1037/a0013196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Vohs KD, Heatherton TF. Ego threat elicits different social comparison processes among high and low self-esteem people: Implications for interpersonal perceptions. Soc Cogn. 2004;22:168–191. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [11] Achterberg M, van Duijvenvoorde AC, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Crone EA. Control your anger! The neural basis of aggression regulation in response to negative social feedback. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016;11:712–720. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsv154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The self-concept encompasses evaluative self-knowledge and self-worth, which are informed by status or competency across multiple domains.

    “The self-concept encompasses evaluative self-knowledge and self-worth, which are informed by status or competency across multiple domains (e.g., social, athletic, and appearance) (40).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] Harter S, Waters P, Whitesell NR. Relational self-worth: Differences in perceived worth as a person across interpersonal contexts among adolescents. Child Dev. 1998;69:756–766. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Adults displayed faster response times when associating the self with positive attributes.

    “Similar tendencies have been demonstrated previously, wherein adults displayed faster response times when associating the self with positive attributes (34).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] Greenwald AG, Farnham SD. Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79:1022–1038. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.1022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Adults have a complex, multifaceted self-concept and can draw upon alternative domains of self-views to buffer against threat in a specific domain.

    “Research has shown that adults have a complex, multifaceted self-concept and can draw upon alternative domains of self-views to buffer against threat in a specific domain (41).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [41] Tesser A. On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mechanisms. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2000;4:290–299. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Healthy adults maintain inherently positive or inflated self-views and report having more positive and less negative attributes than others (above average effect).

    “These findings align with previous work positing that healthy adults maintain inherently positive or inflated self-views (4, 32) and report having more positive and less negative attributes than others, known as the “above average effect” (6, 33).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [4] Baumeister RF. Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: A dilemma of reputation. J Pers. 1982;50:29–45. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [32] Chavez RS, Heatherton TF, Wagner DD. Neural population decoding reveals the intrinsic positivity of the self. Cereb Cortex. 2017;27:5222–5229. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhw302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Hughes BL, Beer JS. Protecting the self: The effect of social-evaluative threat on neural representations of self. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013;25:613–622. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] Chambers JR, Windschitl PD. Biases in social comparative judgments: The role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects. Psychol Bull. 2004;130:813–838. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results

    The reaction time pattern suggests an internal heuristic more consistent with expecting rejection in early adolescents and acceptance in older participants.

    “Specifically, early adolescents exhibited slower reaction times for predicting acceptance than rejection, suggestive of an internal heuristic more consistent with expecting rejection from others. Conversely, older participants exhibited slower reaction times for predicting rejection relative to acceptance, suggestive of an internal heuristic more consistent with expecting others to accept them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    One prior study showed that early adolescents expected to be liked less frequently than adults.

    “these findings are consistent with one prior study showing that early adolescents expected to be liked less frequently than adults (20).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Gunther Moor B, van Leijenhorst L, Rombouts SARB, Crone EA, Van der Molen MW. Do you like me? Neural correlates of social evaluation and developmental trajectories. Soc Neurosci. 2010;5:461–482. doi: 10.1080/17470910903526155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    These strategies may help preserve self-views by promoting future affiliation with accepting rather than rejecting peers, undercutting the validity of negative feedback sources, and discouraging peers from future exclusionary behavior.

    “These strategies may help to preserve self-views by promoting future affiliation with accepting rather than rejecting peers, undercutting the validity of negative feedback sources, and discouraging peers from future exclusionary behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Adolescents are in the process of building up self-referential knowledge, identity, and social group affiliations.

    “Adolescents, by contrast, are in the process of building up self-referential knowledge, identity, and social group affiliations (40).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] Harter S, Waters P, Whitesell NR. Relational self-worth: Differences in perceived worth as a person across interpersonal contexts among adolescents. Child Dev. 1998;69:756–766. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Across explicit and implicit measures, adolescents expected and internalized rejection, negatively impacting self-views, while adults expected acceptance and processed peer evaluation in a way that enhanced self-views.

    “Across explicit and implicit measures of behavior, we found evidence that adolescents expected and internalized rejection, which negatively impacted their self-views, while adults expected acceptance and processed peer evaluation in a way that enhanced self-views.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Theoretical accounts describe adult self-enhancing processes as complex regulation strategies deployed to mitigate the negative affect experienced following a threat to self-positivity.

    “Indeed, theoretical accounts describe adult self-enhancing processes as complex regulation strategies deployed to mitigate the negative affect experienced following a threat to self-positivity (35).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Rudman LA, Dohn MC, Fairchild K. Implicit self-esteem compensation: Automatic threat defense. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;93:798–813. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Self-protective biases emerge later in development and buffer adults from the effects of rejection experiences.

    “Together, our findings indicate that adolescents exhibit a particular sensitivity to rejection, whereas self-protective biases, which emerge later in development, buffer adults from the effects of rejection experiences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Age-related differences observed in this cross-sectional study reflect developmental change rather than cohort effects.
    • Rests on an assumption: The Child, Adolescent, and College-Aged versions of the SPP measure self-views comparably across age groups.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 50% acceptance and 50% rejection feedback was subjectively equivalent across age groups.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Prior work has demonstrated that adolescents' ability to regulate emotional and behavioral responses toward social and emotional cues continues to improve through adolescence.

    “Consistent with this perspective, prior work has demonstrated that adolescents’ ability to regulate emotional and behavioral responses toward social and emotional cues continues to improve through adolescence (37–39).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [37] Somerville LH, Hare T, Casey BJ. Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents. J Cogn Neurosci. 2011;23:2123–2134. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [38] Tottenham N, Hare TA, Casey BJ. Behavioral assessment of emotion discrimination, emotion regulation, and cognitive control in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Front Psychol. 2011;2:39. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [39] Silvers JA, et al. Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion. 2012;12:1235–1247. doi: 10.1037/a0028297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Adolescents exhibited the reverse trend of longer response times to predict acceptance, which could reflect the fundamentality of biased expectancies of rejection in adolescence.

    “Adolescents exhibited the reverse trend of longer response times to predict acceptance, which could reflect the fundamentality of biased expectancies of rejection in adolescence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Adolescents' impressions of peers were unaffected by feedback, whereas adults deprecated peers who rejected them.

    “Furthermore, adolescents’ impressions of their peers were unaffected by the feedback they received, whereas adults deprecated the peers who rejected them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    The findings implicate codeveloping processes of reactivity to rejection and self-protective defenses resulting in adolescents internalizing and adults externalizing negative social feedback.

    “Together, these findings implicated codeveloping processes of reactivity to rejection and self-protective defenses that resulted in adolescents internalizing and adults externalizing negative social feedback.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    Participants accurately remembered 62.74% of feedback, significantly above chance.

    “Overall, participants accurately remembered 62.74% (SE = 0.73%) of the feedback they received, which was significantly above chance [50%; one-sample t(106) = 17.474, P < 0.001].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    These findings demonstrated robust differences in social expectancies across development, with the transition from adolescence to adulthood characterized by a shift from rejection-congruent to acceptance-congruent expectations.

    “In all, these findings demonstrated robust differences in social expectancies across development, with the transition from adolescence to adulthood characterized by a shift from rejection-congruent to acceptance-congruent expectations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Young adults showed relatively faster responses when predicting acceptance compared with rejection, which could reflect an internal schema more consistent with expecting acceptance.

    “Young adults showed relatively faster responses when predicting acceptance compared with rejection, which could reflect an internal schema more consistent with expecting acceptance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Adolescents spend more time with peers.

    “Adolescents spend more time with peers (42), experience more fluidity in social groups (43), and encounter more frequent feedback from peers (44).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [42] Larson RW. How U.S. children and adolescents spend time: What it does (and doesn’t) tell us about their development. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10:160–164. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    A key challenge of adolescence is to readily incorporate social feedback and flexibly adjust behavior to successfully navigate their dynamic social environments.

    “A key challenge of adolescence is to readily incorporate social feedback and flexibly adjust behavior to successfully navigate their dynamic social environments (45).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [45] Nelson EE, Leibenluft E, McClure EB, Pine DS. The social re-orientation of adolescence: A neuroscience perspective on the process and its relation to psychopathology. Psychol Med. 2005;35:163–174. doi: 10.1017/s0033291704003915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Discussion

    Preadolescents understood the task and showed robust memory for social feedback.

    “Preadolescents showed little change in self- and other-views, despite understanding the task and showing robust memory for social feedback, constituting a potentially meaningful null result that warrants further investigation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Methods

    The Child, Adolescent, and College-Aged versions of the SPP were administered as validated.

    “We administered the Child (ages 9–14) (24), Adolescent (ages 15–17) (25), and College-Aged (ages 18–23) (26) versions of the questionnaire as validated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [24] Harter S. Self-Perception Profile for Children. Univ of Denver; Denver: 1983. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] Harter S. Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Univ of Denver; Denver: 1988. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Neemann J, Harter S. Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for College Students. Univ of Denver; Denver: 1986. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The transition to adolescence is accompanied by a marked change in the complexity of the social environment.

    “The transition to adolescence is accompanied by a marked change in the complexity of the social environment (13).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Brown BB. Peer groups and peer cultures. In: Feldman SS, Elliott GR, editors. At the Threshold: The Developing Adolescent. Harvard Univ Press; Cambridge, MA: 1990. pp. 171–196. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusions

    The resulting adolescent-specific internalization of social feedback may reflect a key challenge of this phase of development: growth in social competence and group affiliation along with progressive tuning of cognitive strategies that help individuals thrive in complex social worlds as adults.

    “The resulting adolescent-specific internalization of social feedback may reflect a key challenge of this phase of development: growth in social competence and group affiliation along with progressive tuning of cognitive strategies that help individuals thrive in complex social worlds as adults.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Age-related differences observed in this cross-sectional study reflect developmental change rather than cohort effects.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Adolescents experience more fluidity in social groups.

    “Adolescents spend more time with peers (42), experience more fluidity in social groups (43), and encounter more frequent feedback from peers (44).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [43] Cairns RB, Leung M-C, Buchanan L, Cairns BD. Friendships and social networks in childhood and adolescence: Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Dev. 1995;66:1330–1345. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods

    All participants were questioned by using a funnel debriefing procedure to confirm their belief in the cover story.

    “All participants were questioned by using a funnel debriefing procedure to confirm their belief in the cover story.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    According to the sociometer theory, shifts in self-views serve to reflect inclusionary status, with a drop in self-views signaling risk of exclusion.

    “According to the sociometer theory (46), shifts in self-views serve to reflect inclusionary status, with a drop in self-views signaling risk of exclusion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [46] Leary MR, Tambor ES, Terdal SK, Downs DL. Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;68:518–530. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

44 of 44

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Age-related differences observed in this cross-sectional study reflect developmental change rather than cohort effects.

    “This study also revealed age-related differences in how peer feedback impacts self-views.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Child, Adolescent, and College-Aged versions of the SPP measure self-views comparably across age groups.

    “We administered the Child (ages 9–14) (24), Adolescent (ages 15–17) (25), and College-Aged (ages 18–23) (26) versions of the questionnaire as validated.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 50% acceptance and 50% rejection feedback was subjectively equivalent across age groups.

    “Although the social evaluation task delivered an equivalent rate of 50% acceptance and 50% rejection feedback, this mixed evaluative experience was incorporated into self-views in strikingly different ways across development.”
3 of 3

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?

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.

  • Consistentt(106) = 2.439reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .016

    “t(106) = 2.439, p = .016”

  • Consistentr(105) = 0.024reported p = .802 · recomputed p = .806

    “r(105) = 0.024, p = .802”

  • Consistentt(106) = 1.023reported p = .308 · recomputed p = .309

    “t(106) = 1.023, p = .308”

  • Consistentr(104) = 0.061reported p = .537 · recomputed p = .534

    “r(104) = 0.061, p = .537”

  • Consistentt(103) = 1.463reported p = .146 · recomputed p = .147

    “t(103) = 1.463, p = .146”

  • Consistentr(105) = 0.071reported p = .464 · recomputed p = .467

    “r(105) = 0.071, p = .464”

  • Consistentt(106) = 17.474reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(106) = 17.474, p < .001”

7 of 7

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Linear self-view model has two reported AIC values

    Minor

    The linear regression model for change in self-views is reported with an AIC of −175.6 in the regression comparison but −175.5 in the subsequent spline comparison.

  • Likability difference score has the opposite sign from its interpretation

    Minor

    Subtracting the posttask rating from the pretask rating makes an increase in likability negative and a decrease positive. The reported positive score after acceptance and negative score after rejection are interpreted in the opposite direction.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. J Neemann, S Harter Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for College Students (Univ of Denver, Denver, 1986).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rodman, A. M., Powers, K. E., & Somerville, L. H.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2017-11-27
Volume
114
Issue
50
Pages
13158-13163
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1712398114
PMC
PMC5740641
OpenAlex
W2770241776
Cited by
110
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8
FWCI
9.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/site/aboutpnas/licenses.xhtml (vor, 181 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Psychological Association (Elizabeth Munsterberg Koppitz Fellowship, F.J. McGuigan Prize)
  • Dr. Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation (Sackler Scholars Programme in Psychobiology)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
peer rejection, peer feedback, adolescents, adults, self-concept, social development (developmental psychology), depression, suicide risk, social media
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Self Concept, Psychological Distance, Feedback, Psychological, Adolescent Development, Young Adult, Social Media

About these checks

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

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

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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