The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 35 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Effects of anonymous peer observation on adolescents’ preference for immediate rewards
Open accessAbstract
Research suggests that the presence of peers influences adolescent risk‐taking by increasing the perceived reward value of risky decisions. While prior work has involved observation of participants by their friends, the current study examined whether observation by an anonymous peer could elicit similarly increased reward sensitivity. Late adolescent participants completed a delay discounting task either alone or under the belief that performance was being observed from a neighboring room by an unknown viewer of the same gender and age. Even in this limited social context, participants demonstrated a significantly increased preference for smaller, immediate rewards when they believed that they were being watched. This outcome challenges several intuitive accounts of the peer effect on adolescent risk‐taking, and indicates that the peer influence on reward sensitivity during late adolescence is not dependent on familiarity with the observer. The findings have both theoretical and practical implications for our understanding of social influences on adolescents' risky behavior.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Late adolescents who believed they were being observed by an anonymous same-gender, same-age peer showed a stronger preference for smaller immediate rewards on a delay discounting task than those who completed it alone. The findings suggest peer effects on adolescent reward sensitivity do not require familiar, multiple, or physically present observers.
Key findings
- Participants in the anonymous peer-observer condition had significantly lower average indifference points (M = $656.68, SD = 150.92) than those in the alone condition (M = $768.16, SD = 150.76), F(1,62) = 8.58, η² = .12, p < .01.
- Discount rates were steeper in the peer condition (k = .0136) than in the alone condition (k = .0053), t(62) = 3.05, η² = .13, p = .003; this remained significant after excluding outliers with k z-scores > 2.5 (N = 60), t(58) = 3.373, η² = .16, p = .001.
- Group differences in indifference points were significant at 1 month, t(62) = −2.233, p < .05; 6 months, t(62) = −2.785, p < .01; and 1 year, t(62) = −2.823, p < .01, with a marginally significant delay × condition interaction, F(5,310) = 1.998, η² = .03, p = .079.
- The authors report no group difference in choice reversals, t(62) = 0.19, p = .85, arguing the effect was not simply due to distraction.
Methods
- Sixty-four undergraduates ages 18–22 (M = 19.3, SD = .98) were randomly assigned to an anonymous peer-observer condition (N = 32) or an alone condition (N = 32); two additional participants were excluded because debriefing suggested they may not have believed the manipulation.
- In the peer condition, participants were told a same-gender, comparable-age student would observe their performance via closed-circuit computer system and make predictions; a brief two-way radio introduction was staged with a voice recording. In the alone condition, participants were told no one would directly observe their performance.
- The delay discounting task was identical to O’Brien et al. (2011): delayed reward fixed at US$1000, immediate reward starting at US$200, US$500, or US$800, six delays from 1 day to 1 year, titrating choices to indifference points; discount rate k was computed as V = A/(1 + kD). Analyses used repeated-measures ANOVA and independent-samples t-tests.
Limitations
- The paper states the sample may be considered late adolescent or early adult, so generalizability to early adolescents remains unknown; risk-taking, sensation seeking, and impulsivity tend to peak earlier in adolescence.
- The paper notes that the findings show familiarity, multiple observers, and physical proximity are not necessary preconditions for the peer effect, but do not provide direct evidence about whether these factors moderate the magnitude of the effect.
- The paper acknowledges a comparison caveat with O’Brien et al. (2011): the current sample was slightly older (M = 19.3 vs. 18.5 years), which may help explain different average indifference points.
- Evident from the text: the sample was a small undergraduate convenience sample drawn from psychology and marketing courses, mostly ages 18–20 (all but 5), and the study focused on one delay discounting task within a larger battery; the observer was not real, and the manipulation relied on deception.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 35 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an independent samples t-test based on k value estimates revealed a highly significant main effect of experimental condition, t(62) = 3.05, η2=.13, p=.003, indicating that participants who believed they were being observed by a peer exhibited steeper discounting on average (k=.0136) than those who were not observed (k=.0053).”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Results > Discount Rate (k)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
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
“participants demonstrated a significantly increased preference for smaller, immediate rewards when they believed that they were being watched.”
- Also stated in: § Indifference Point · plain
“participants in the peer condition evinced significantly lower indifference points (M=$656.68, SD=150.92) than those in the alone condition (M=$768.16, SD=150.76).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“The present results indicate that, in late adolescents, the knowledge that one is being observed by an anonymous person of like gender and age can increase sensitivity to immediate rewards.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
- Also stated in: § Indifference Point · plain
In the paper
“and the condition effect size was actually larger in the present sample (Cohen’s d = .74) than in the O’Brien et al sample (Cohen’s d = .40).”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites O’Brien et al
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
In the paper
“Despite these differences, the magnitude of the peer effect (expressed as a percentage of the alone average) is almost identical across the two studies – 85% in the present sample, and 89% in the O’Brien et al (2011) sample”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites O’Brien et al (2011)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
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
“Comparisons conducted on the remaining subjects (N=60) again indicated a highly significant main effect of experimental condition, t(58)= 3.373, η2=.16, p=.001”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Results > Discount Rate (k)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“However, the discount function seen in the responses of the participants who believed they were observed does not appear at all random, but, rather, follows the pattern of hyperbolic discounting obtained in a very large number of prior studies”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Teuscher & Mitchell, 2011
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesWhat 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
“Although reversals did occur, there were no group differences, (t(62)=0.19, p=.85), indicating that the anonymous peer manipulation was not especially distracting.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We do know from prior studies, however, that early adolescents are more susceptible to the peer effect than college undergraduates (Chein et al., 2011; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005)”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011
- Not checked yetcites Gardner & Steinberg, 2005
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
“While this approach affords a degree of ecological validity, it also limits the potential to generalize the results to social situations where adolescents may not personally know the peers who are observing their behavior, such as in large public settings or on Internet websites.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Increased activation in these brain structures, both of which are closely linked to the prediction and valuation of rewards (Ernst et al., 2004; McClure, Laibson, Loewenstein, & Cohen 2004), suggests that peer observation affects adolescents’ decisions about risk by increasing sensitivity to opportunities for reward.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ernst et al., 2004
- Not checked yetcites McClure, Laibson, Loewenstein, & Cohen 2004
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
In the paper
“perhaps owing to the slightly, but significantly, older age of the current group (M=19.3 years) relative to that of O’Brien et al (M=18.5 years); t(162) = 6.5, p <.01.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites O’Brien et al
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two groups did not differ in age, t(62)=.38, p=.71, gender, χ2(1)=.25, p=.62, race, χ2(3)=2.095, p=.55, or ethnicity, χ2(1)=.21, p=.88.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Method > Participants
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 64Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental (N=32) or control condition (N=32).”
- Also stated in: § Procedure · plain
“After completing the questionnaires, participants were randomly assigned to either an alone or a peer-observer condition.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Method > Participants
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Procedure · plain
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
“Two additional participants provided data, but were excluded from analyses because their responses during debriefing indicated that they may not have believed the social context manipulation.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Method > Participants
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedn = 2Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the O’Brien et al. (2011) study, participants in the peer condition displayed a greater preference for immediate rewards than participants who completed the task by themselves, as indicated by significantly lower average indifference points and higher rates of discounting.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites O’Brien et al. (2011)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The dual systems account explains adolescent behavioral tendencies in terms of the developmental interaction between a ventral reward system and a dorsal cortical control system (Steinberg, 2010)”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steinberg, 2010
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Mid- and late adolescents who completed the task in the presence of peers took significantly more risks than those who performed the same task alone, an effect that was not seen among the adults.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gardner and Steinberg (2005)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, because participants could not communicate freely with the observer, the peer effect on immediate reward sensitivity in this study can be attributed only to the participant’s belief that he or she is being observed by an age-mate, and not to any overt peer pressure.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
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
“The results also address (and discount) several alternative explanations for the phenomenon, and validate a novel experimental paradigm for future research in the area.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Conclusions
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
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
“In sum, the present study provides essential clues regarding the origins of the impact of peers on adolescents’ decision-making.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Conclusions
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
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 use of an anonymous peer minimized the participant’s consideration of the observer’s values or opinions.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“The finding that an anonymous peer who is not physically present can affect adolescents’ reward preferences, and likely their risk taking, also has important implications for the safety of adolescents who use the Internet to communicate.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
In the paper
“As noted in the introduction, another possible limitation of the study is the fact that the present sample contained individuals who might categorically be referred to as either late adolescents or early adults. Risk-taking behaviors, sensation seeking, and impulsivity tend to peak somewhat earlier in adolescence (Steinberg, 2010), so the generalizability of the present findings to early”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steinberg, 2010
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
In the paper
“O’Brien et al. (2011) acknowledged this issue, and suggested that an important goal of future research would be to rule out the possibility that explicit persuasion underlies the peer effect.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites O’Brien et al. (2011)
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The dual systems framework explains risk taking during this period by proposing that increased sensitivity to immediate rewards (which can be obtained by risky behavior) overwhelms a still maturing cognitive control system.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steinberg, 2010
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of the current study suggest that, while interacting with friends or even anonymous strangers over the Internet, adolescents’ risk taking may be increased to the same degree and through the same mechanism as when adolescents are actually with their friends.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, this system undergoes rapid developmental change in early adolescence (e.g., Laviola, Pascucci & Pieretti, 2001), leading to increased sensitivity to rewarding stimuli (Galvan, 2010; Leijenhorst, Moor, Op de Macks, Rombouts, Westenberg & Crone, 2010; Spear, 2009).”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Laviola, Pascucci & Pieretti, 2001
- Not checked yetcites Galvan, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Leijenhorst, Moor, Op de Macks, Rombouts, Westenberg & Crone, 2010
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Previous studies have indicated that the average indifference point evinced by individuals tested alone increases as a function of age (Steinberg et al., 2009).”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steinberg et al., 2009
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Adolescent participants (ages 14–18) in the scanner took more risks in a simulated driving game when they believed that two close friends were observing their behavior from an adjacent room and also exhibited relatively greater activation in the ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex when their peers were observing them than when they were alone.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chein et al. (2011)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We do know from prior studies, however, that early adolescents are more susceptible to the peer effect than college undergraduates (Chein et al., 2011; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005), so we have no reason to think that the present findings would not also apply to younger teenagers.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chein et al., 2011
- Not checked yetcites Gardner & Steinberg, 2005
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
In the paper
“Risk-taking behaviors, sensation seeking, and impulsivity tend to peak somewhat earlier in adolescence (Steinberg, 2010)”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steinberg, 2010
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“they do not provide any direct evidence for whether the magnitude of the effect is moderated by these factors.”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This pattern of brain development coincides with greater behavioral reward sensitivity among adolescents relative to adults (Cauffman, Shulman, Steinberg, Claus, Banich, Graham et al., 2010).”
§ Effects of Anonymous Peer Observation on Adolescents’ Preference for Immediate Rewards > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cauffman, Shulman, Steinberg, Claus, Banich, Graham et al., 2010
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants in the peer-observer condition believed that they were being observed by an anonymous peer of the same gender and comparable age.
“Two additional participants provided data, but were excluded from analyses because their responses during debriefing indicated that they may not have believed the social context manipulation.”
“In the peer-observer condition, the participant was told that another student of the same gender and comparable age would be observing his or her task performance via a closed-circuit computer system, and would be making predictions about the participant’s performance on the computerized tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants in the alone condition believed that no one was observing their performance.
“In the alone condition, participants were explicitly told that no one would directly observe their performance.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The undergraduate sample aged 18 to 22 is representative of a late adolescent population.
“We note that in that study, and in the present study, we construe this undergraduate age cohort as representative of a “late adolescent” sample, but acknowledge that individuals in the older half of these samples might also be referred to as young adults”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Consistent with this claim, we have shown that, in the presence of peers, adolescents evince a stronger preference for immediate (as opposed to delayed) rewards on a Delay Discounting task that does not involve risk taking (O’Brien et al., 2011, Weigard et al., 2014).”
From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Weigard et al., 2014
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Inconsistent p-value: χ2(1)=.21, p = .88
MinorThe paper reports p = .88 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .647. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.
Reported p = .88 · recomputed p = .647
“χ2(1)=.21, p=.88”
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.
- Doesn’t add upχ²(1) = 0.21reported p = .88 · recomputed p = .647
“χ2(1)=.21, p = .88”
- Consistentt(62) = 0.38reported p = .71 · recomputed p = .705
“t(62)=.38, p = .71”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 0.25reported p = .62 · recomputed p = .617
“χ2(1)=.25, p = .62”
- Consistentχ²(3) = 2.095reported p = .55 · recomputed p = .553
“χ2(3)=2.095, p = .55”
- Consistentt(162) = 6.5reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001
“t(162) = 6.5, p < .01”
- Consistentt(62) = 0.19reported p = .85 · recomputed p = .850
“t(62)=0.19, p = .85”
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
Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1440.010 · Cited by 3,345
Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards
McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1100907 · Cited by 3,089
Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625 · Cited by 2,218
Self-citationEmotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex
Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J., & Everitt, B. J. (2002) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(02)00007-6 · Cited by 2,129
The social brain in adolescence
Blakemore, S.-J. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2353 · Cited by 1,896
Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2008) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012955 · Cited by 1,542
Self-citationAge differences in future orientation and delay discounting
Steinberg, L., Graham, S., O’Brien, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., & Banich, M. (2009) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01244.x · Cited by 1,237
Self-citationA dual systems model of adolescent risk‐taking
Steinberg, L. (2010) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.20445 · Cited by 1,187 · cited 4×
“This reward bias diminishes with age, perhaps due to the maturation of cognitive control (Steinberg, 2010).”
InfluentialSelf-citationPeers 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 9×
“Like prior neuroimaging results (Chein et al., 2011), the findings from O’Brien et al.”
InfluentialSelf-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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–139 of 139
Peer mediation and bullying at school
Dončevová, S. (2022) · Family Upbringing · doi:10.61905/wwr/170364 · Cited by 2
Prosecuting Race and Adolescence
Henning, K. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190905422.013.23 · Cited by 2
La prise de risque à l'adolescence
Habib, M., & Cassotti, M. (2017) · doi:10.1016/b978-2-294-75466-1.00037-6 · Cited by 2
Impulsivity-related predictors of adolescent substance use initiation
Gilman, J. M., Potter, K. W., Kaur, J., Lee, P., Schuster, R. M., Bjork, J. M., Weigard, A. S., Evins, A. E., Roffman, J. L., & Tervo‐Clemmens, B. (2026) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291726103225 · Cited by 1
Self-citationMeehan, Z. M., & Hubbard, J. A. (2026) · Journal of Adolescence · doi:10.1002/jad.70214 · Cited by 2
Howard, A. K., Kaiser, R. H., & Friedman, N. P. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1823262 · Cited by 1
Multidimensional decision making
Mills‐Finnerty, C. (2015) · doi:10.7282/t3b27x9r · Cited by 1
The effects of sleep quality on risk-taking behavior: Evidence and explanation
Liu, X.-T., Zhang, L.-J., & Zhang, N. (2019) · Advances in Psychological Science · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2019.01875 · Cited by 1
Andrews, T. E. A., Starkey, N. J., & Sargisson, R. J. (2025) · The Psychological Record · doi:10.1007/s40732-025-00636-1 · Cited by 1
Fryt, J., & Czernecka, K. (2015) · Postępy Psychiatrii i Neurologii · doi:10.1016/j.pin.2015.10.004 · Cited by 2
Psychosocial Development of Adolescents With and Without Deviations
Evans, Y. N. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32122-6_18 · Cited by 1
How Cues of Being Watched Promote Risk Seeking in Fund Investment in Older Adults
Li, M., & Peng, H. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.765632 · Cited by 1
Social Influences on Similarity Judgments and Intertemporal Choice
Goh, F. W., & Stevens, J. R. (2023) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.31234/osf.io/xz68b · Cited by 1
Runions, K., Bak, M., & CROSS, D. S. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33228-4_780 · Cited by 1
The Peer Network as a Context for the Socialization of Academic Engagement
Newton-Curtis, L. (2000) · doi:10.15760/etd.2648
Risicogedrag bij adolescenten met adhd
Dekkers, T. J., Popma, A., Jansen, B. R. J., Bexkens, A., & Huizenga, H. M. (2016) · Kind & Adolescent Praktijk · doi:10.1007/s12454-016-0047-6
Br�ll (2019) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20190206pb
Peer Presence Makes Adolescents More Risk Taking: Evidence from Brain Science Research
程, 丹. (2020) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.12677/ap.2020.107107
Intertemporal Choices of Children and Adults from Poor Roma Communities: A Case Study from Slovakia
Želinský, T. (2021) · Eastern European Economics · doi:10.1080/00128775.2021.1909424
Peer influence processes as applied to externalizing behavior outcomes
Vitaro, F., & Brendgen, M. R. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818872-9.00048-0
(2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-397937-7.16001-x
Malik, Z. A., Rahim, N. A., Nadzalan, A. M., & Abdullah, M. A. (2022) · International journal of human movement and sports sciences · doi:10.13189/saj.2022.101302
Socio‐emotional Learning: How do We Learn in Connection with Others?
Cassotti, M. (2022) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394150458.ch6
Sijtsma, H. (2023) · doi:10.5463/thesis.49
The Effect and Neural Mechanism of Peers on Intertemporal Choice of Teenagers
侯, 立. (2023) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.12677/ap.2023.139462
Risky and Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence
Manasse, M., & Rebellon, C. J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197549513.013.11
Transitioning to Adulthood in the Legal System
Gillespie, M. L., Riano, N. S., & Cauffman, E. E. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197549513.013.22
Neural correlates of social feedback from friends and self-reported happiness in adolescence
Breiner, K., & Galván, A. (2024) · Journal of Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.15406/jpcpy.2024.15.00798
Suo, T., Zhang, X., Yin, H., Liu, Y., & Wang, M. (2025) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-07405-x
Learning From Observing Others
Patel, K., & Bixter, M. T. (2025) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000645
Ewing, S. W. F., Dash, G. F., Hudson, K. A., Hyun, B., Yang, M., Stahl, L., Thomsen, K. R., Donate, A. P. G., & Filbey, F. M. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2025.12.10.25341908
Wun, V. L., & Luciana, M. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.3389/fradm.2025.1654784
Developmental trajectories of head and eye cue integration in gaze perception
Otsuka, Y., Watanabe, K., & Clifford, C. W. G. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-34625-9
L'influence du contexte social sur le contrôle inhibiteur et la créativité au cours du développement
Bouhours, L. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/302dfd17z8214z4263z8df5zf30855e8a5d1
Executive Functions, Reward Systems and Addiction in Adolescents and Young Adults
(2026) · Frontiers research topics · doi:10.3389/978-2-8325-7932-9
Ewing, S. W. F., Dash, G. F., Hudson, K. A., Hyun, B., Yang, M., Stahl, L., Thomsen, K. R., & Filbey, F. M. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0349575
Metadata
- Authors
- Weigard, A., Chein, J., Albert, D., Smith, A., & Steinberg, L.
- Affiliations
- Temple University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chein, Jason
- Venue
- Developmental Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-11-06
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-78
- ISSN
- 1363-755X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-7687
- PMC
- PMC3869036
- OpenAlex
- W2117186845
- Semantic Scholar
- e03f7adb700866a8c77c76203ccd872a54d02d80
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 8.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21 DA022546)
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA020006)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- peer influence, adolescent risk-taking, delay discounting, reward sensitivity, immediate rewards, late adolescence, risk-taking
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Communication, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Peer Group, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reward, Risk-Taking, Social Behavior, Young Adult
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 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (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
