CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 85Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesTraffic and Road SafetySubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Buffering social influence: neural correlates of response inhibition predict driving safety in the presence of a peer

Open access
Cascio, Christopher N., Carp, Joshua, O'Donnell, Matthew Brook, Tinney, Francis J., Bingham, C. Raymond, Shope, Jean T., Ouimet, Marie Claude, Pradhan, Anuj K. +2 more·2015·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
DOI 10.1162/jocn_a_00693PMC PMC4719161
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Adolescence is a period characterized by increased sensitivity to social cues, as well as increased risk-taking in the presence of peers. For example, automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for adolescents, and driving with peers increases the risk of a fatal crash. Growing evidence points to an interaction between neural systems implicated in cognitive control and social and emotional context in predicting adolescent risk. We tested such a relationship in recently licensed teen drivers. Participants completed an fMRI session in which neural activity was measured during a response inhibition task, followed by a separate driving simulator session 1 week later. Participants drove alone and with a peer who was randomly assigned to express risk-promoting or risk-averse social norms. The experimentally manipulated social context during the simulated drive moderated the relationship between individual differences in neural activity in the hypothesized cognitive control network (right inferior frontal gyrus, BG) and risk-taking in the driving context a week later. Increased activity in the response inhibition network was not associated with risk-taking in the presence of a risky peer but was significantly predictive of safer driving in the presence of a cautious peer, above and beyond self-reported susceptibility to peer pressure. Individual differences in recruitment of the response inhibition network may allow those with stronger inhibitory control to override risky tendencies when in the presence of cautious peers. This relationship between social context and individual differences in brain function expands our understanding of neural systems involved in top–down cognitive control during adolescent development.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In recently licensed male adolescents, neural activity in a response-inhibition network (right inferior frontal gyrus and basal ganglia) during an fMRI go/no-go task interacted with experimentally manipulated peer norms to predict later simulated driving risk. Stronger response-inhibition activity predicted safer driving in the presence of a cautious peer but not in the presence of a risky peer.

Key findings

  • Participants drove through red-light intersections more often with a peer than alone: 20.7% vs. 12.6%, t(36) = 4.33, p < .001. Within peer drives, risk was higher with a risky peer than a cautious peer: 26.6% vs. 15.0%, t(35) = −2.27, p = .029.
  • The response-inhibition network × passenger-type interaction predicted red-light running, β = .25, t(29) = 2.55, p = .016, controlling for drive order, solo-drive behavior, self-reported susceptibility to peer pressure, and no-go accuracy.
  • Simple slopes showed that response-inhibition activity predicted safer driving with a cautious peer, β = −.34, t(29) = −2.72, p = .011, accounting for an additional 10.9–22.8% of variance across driving measures. It did not predict driving risk with a risky peer, β = .16, t(29) = 1.06, p = .297.
  • There was no significant main effect of response-inhibition network activity on passenger-drive risk, β = −.09, t(29) = −.93, p = .358, and no significant prediction of solo-drive risk, β = .05, t(35) = .22, p = .825.

Methods

  • Forty-three male adolescents aged 16–17 (M = 16.9 years, SD = 0.47) with a Level 2 Intermediate Michigan driver’s license were recruited; 1 was excluded for a prior autism diagnosis and 5 for simulator motion sickness or technical problems.
  • Participants completed an fMRI session with a go/no-go response-inhibition task, followed approximately 1 week later by a driving simulator session. They drove alone and with a male peer confederate randomly assigned to express risk-promoting or cautious norms in a 2 × 2 × 2 counterbalanced design.
  • fMRI analyses extracted percent signal change from a priori ROIs for the response-inhibition network (bilateral basal ganglia and right inferior frontal gyrus) during correct no-go vs. correct go trials. Driving outcomes were proportion of red-light intersections entered, failure to stop at yellow lights, and total time in intersections while red; brain-as-predictor ordinary least squares regressions tested neural activity, passenger type, and their interaction.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a formal limitations section. It states that the data cannot directly explain why self-reported susceptibility to peer pressure explained different variance from neural measures, and it calls for future work on different tasks and striatal subregions.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was all male, narrowly aged 16–17, recently licensed, and recruited from one Michigan context, limiting generalizability.
  • Evident from the text: the peer was always a young male confederate, the driving measure was a simulator rather than real-world driving, and the follow-up interval was approximately 1 week.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn_a_00693

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 42 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Response inhibition network activation did not predict total time red during the solo drive, β = .04, t(35) = .20, p = .842.

    “Results were similar for failed to stop (β = .04, t(35) = .19, p = .849) and total time red (β = .04, t(35) = .20, p = .842).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Response inhibition network activation significantly predicted percent red with a cautious peer, controlling for drive order, solo-drive behavior, self-reported SPP, and successful no-go percentage, β = -.34, t(29) = -2.72, p = .011.

    “Activation in the response inhibition network significantly predicted in the presence of a cautious peer (percent red), controlling for drive order, behavior during the solo drive, self-reported SPP, and the percentage of successful no-go trials, β = −.34, t(29) = −2.72, p = .011.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    BG activation significantly predicted failed to stop with a cautious peer, β = -.30, t(29) = -2.61, p = .014.

    “These results were consistent when examining failed to stop (β = −.30, t(29) = −2.61, p = .014) and total time red (β = −.47, t(29) = −2.84, p = .008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    rIFG activity was marginally associated with percent red with a cautious peer, β = -.28, t(29) = -2.02, p = .053.

    “Consistent with the interaction analysis, neural activity within the rIFG was marginally associated with driving risk in the presence of a cautious peer (percent red), controlling for drive order, behavior during the solo drive, self-reported SPP, and the percentage of successful no-go trials, β = −.28, t(29) = −2.02, p = .053.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the cautious confederate condition, VMPFC and putamen/caudate among other regions were significantly associated with driving risk across all conditions.

    “In the cautious confederate condition, it was found that the ventral medial pFC (VMPFC) and putamen/caudate among other regions were significantly associated with driving risk across all conditions (for a full list of activations, see Table 4), whereas in the risky confederate condition, no regions were significantly associated with driving risk across all participants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

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

    Findingown data

    Participants' average self-reported ability to resist peer influence was 2.93 on a 1-4 scale, with SD 0.46 and Cronbach's alpha .53.

    “On average, participants reported feeling somewhat able to resist peer influence (M = 2.93, SD = 0.46, Cronbach's alpha = .53)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Signal detection analysis yielded d′ = 3.10.

    “In addition, participants had an average hit rate of 99%, a 22% false alarm rate, and signal detection analysis d′ = 3.10.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants drove through red lights 20.7% of the time with a peer versus 12.6% alone, showing higher risk-taking with peers, t(36) = 4.33, p < .001.

    “Results based on behavior in the driving simulator indicate that on average participants drove through intersections with red lights 20.7% of the time when they drove with a peer versus 12.6% of the time when they drove alone, thus demonstrating higher risk-taking in the presence of peers, t(36) = 4.33, p < .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Results for solo driving were consistent for BG and rIFG independently, p > .05.

    “Results were consistent for both the BG and rIFG independently, p > .05.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Participants had an average false alarm rate of 22%.

    “In addition, participants had an average hit rate of 99%, a 22% false alarm rate, and signal detection analysis d′ = 3.10.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    The proportion of correct no-go trials ranged from 55.7% to 93.2%.

    “The proportion of correct no-go trials ranged from 55.7% to 93.2%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Participants' average self-reported susceptibility to peer pressure was 1.95 on a 1-4 scale, with SD 0.49 and Cronbach's alpha .78.

    “In addition, participants reported on average that they felt somewhat unsusceptible to peer pressure (M = 1.95, SD = 0.49, Cronbach's alpha = .78)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Participants had an average hit rate of 99%.

    “In addition, participants had an average hit rate of 99%, a 22% false alarm rate, and signal detection analysis d′ = 3.10.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    Conclusions were substantively the same when SPP and RPI were used as predictors.

    “(conclusions were substantively the same using SPP and RPI as predictors)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Both dorsal and ventral striatum have been implicated in emotion regulation in teens.

    “Importantly, prior research provides evidence for at least partially overlapping resources underpinning different forms of cognitive control and emotion regulation (Berkman, Burklund, & Lieberman, 2009), and both dorsal and ventral striatum have been implicated in emotion regulation in teens (Pfeifer et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pfeifer et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Activity in these regions is associated with reduced risk-taking under some circumstances.

    “However, recent research notes that development of limbic structures such as the ventral and dorsal striatum in early adolescence can also be used for emotion regulation (Pfeifer et al., 2011; Masten et al., 2009) and activity in these regions is associated with reduced risk-taking under some circumstances (Pfeifer et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pfeifer et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Asymmetric brain development between emotional and regulatory systems alone does not fully explain adolescent risk-taking or susceptibility to risky influence.

    “In addition, recent reviews note that asymmetric brain development between emotional and regulatory systems alone does not fully explain adolescent risk-taking or susceptibility to risky influence (Crone & Dahl, 2012; Pfeifer & Allen, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Crone & Dahl, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pfeifer & Allen, 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Longitudinal research using a go/no-go task showed that improvement over time was associated with more effective recruitment of the right inferior frontal gyrus and decreasing activity in other parts of the prefrontal cortex.

    “For example, longitudinal research examining changes from diffuse to focal recruitment within participants during a response inhibition (go/no-go) task demonstrated that over time improvement on task performance was associated with more effective recruitment of the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) and decreasing activity in other parts of the pFC (Durston et al., 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Durston et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Most studies have considered neural maturation, individual differences, and social context separately.

    “However, most studies have considered these variables separately.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    During adolescence, prefrontal cognitive control systems that facilitate self-regulation mature more slowly than subcortical affective processing systems.

    “One dominant account in the literature suggests that during adolescence prefrontal cognitive control systems that facilitate self-regulation are slower to mature than subcortical affective processing systems (Blakemore, 2008, 2012; Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008; Steinberg, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Blakemore, 2008, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Steinberg, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The extent to which neural activity within this network in adolescents might predict risk behaviors under different social circumstances is not known.

    “However, the extent to which neural activity within this network in adolescents might predict risk behaviors under different social circumstances is not known.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents may make risky decisions while around friends but not around their parents, as shown for risky driving.

    “For example, adolescents may make risky decisions while around friends but not around their parents, which has been shown for risky driving (Simons-Morton et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Simons-Morton et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus among Parkinson patients increases motor inhibitory control.

    “For example, deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus among Parkinson patients increases motor inhibitory control (Van den Wildenberg et al., 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van den Wildenberg et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Development of limbic structures such as the ventral and dorsal striatum in early adolescence can also be used for emotion regulation.

    “However, recent research notes that development of limbic structures such as the ventral and dorsal striatum in early adolescence can also be used for emotion regulation (Pfeifer et al., 2011; Masten et al., 2009) and activity in these regions is associated with reduced risk-taking under some circumstances (Pfeifer et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pfeifer et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Masten et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents have more mature subcortical affective processing systems, which can lead to bottom-up, emotionally driven decision-making.

    “Concurrent to the relatively slower developing prefrontal cognitive control systems, adolescents have more mature subcortical affective processing systems, which can lead to bottom–up, emotionally driven decision-making (Hare et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hare et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Driving simulators provide an externally valid measure of driving behavior without the risks associated with manipulating the context in real-world driving.

    “The use of driving simulators has been shown to provide an externally valid measure of driving behavior without the risks associated with manipulating the context in real-world driving (Caird & Horrey, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Caird & Horrey, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Individual differences in development within the striatum in adolescence have also been associated with increased emotion regulation and increased resistance to risky peer influence.

    “However, individual differences in development within the striatum in adolescence have also been associated with increased emotion regulation and increased resistance to risky peer influence (Pfeifer et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pfeifer et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Peers may serve as a cue that biases behaviors that occur in the presence of peers through the decision-making and reinforcement learning process.

    “Consistent with both of these accounts, peers may serve as a cue that biases behaviors that occur in the presence of peers through the decision-making and reinforcement learning process; for a review, see Albert et al. (2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Albert et al. (2013) source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Peers may serve as a social cue that primes reward sensitivity and may place increased value on riskier short-term decisions rather than the safer long-term benefits of decisions.

    “Peers may serve as a social cue that primes reward sensitivity and may place increased value on riskier short-term decisions rather than the safer long-term benefits of decisions (O'Brien et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O'Brien et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Individual differences in impulsivity and sensation seeking are associated with risk-taking among adolescents; individuals with increased tendencies toward impulsiveness and sensation seeking are more likely to engage in problem and risky behaviors during adolescence.

    “For example, individual differences in impulsivity and sensation seeking are associated with risk-taking among adolescents, such that individuals who show increased tendencies toward impulsiveness and sensation seeking are more likely to engage in problem and risky behaviors during adolescence (Romer, Duckworth, Sznitman, & Park, 2010; Romer et al., 2009; Rolison & Scherman, 2002; Donohew et al.,”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Romer, Duckworth, Sznitman, & Park, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Romer et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rolison & Scherman, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisenone given

    We still know relatively little about how neural systems interact with social variables relevant to risk-taking during adolescence.

    “However, we still know relatively little about how neural systems interact with social variables relevant to risk-taking during adolescence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The rIFG and BG have been shown to coordinate and execute successful response inhibition, respectively.

    “Together the rIFG and BG have been shown to coordinate and execute successful response inhibition, respectively (Aron & Poldrack, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aron & Poldrack, 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Previous studies have highlighted the importance of neural maturation, individual differences, and social context in predicting risk-taking behavior among adolescents.

    “In summary, previous studies have highlighted the importance of neural maturation, individual differences, and social context in predicting risk-taking behavior among adolescents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Prior research provides evidence for at least partially overlapping resources underpinning different forms of cognitive control and emotion regulation.

    “Importantly, prior research provides evidence for at least partially overlapping resources underpinning different forms of cognitive control and emotion regulation (Berkman, Burklund, & Lieberman, 2009), and both dorsal and ventral striatum have been implicated in emotion regulation in teens (Pfeifer et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Berkman, Burklund, & Lieberman, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    The imbalance between bottom-up and top-down processing has been suggested as one cause of vulnerability to risk-taking during adolescence.

    “This imbalance between bottom–up and top–down processing has been suggested as one cause of vulnerability to risk-taking during this period (Steinberg, 2010; Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010; Hare et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Steinberg, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hare et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Driving in the presence of peers remains a major risk factor contributing to adolescent driving fatalities.

    “Driving in the presence of peers remains a major risk factor contributing to adolescent driving fatalities (IIHS, 2010; NHTSA, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites IIHS, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites NHTSA, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Five participants were excluded from analysis because of simulator motion sickness or technical problems during the driving session.

    “In addition, five participants were excluded from the analysis because of simulator motion sickness or technical problems encountered during the driving session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Baseline response inhibition network activation predicted safer driving with a cautious peer but not with a risky peer.

    “cognitive control resources at baseline predicted less risk in the presence of a cautious peer but did not show such an effect in the presence of a risky peer.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
      “Our results suggest that adolescents who show stronger activation in brain regions linked to response inhibition at baseline demonstrate safer driving behaviors in the presence of a cautious peer, but not in the presence of a risky peer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Adolescent participants increased risk-taking in the presence of peers compared with solo driving, regardless of peer norms, with greatest increases when norms favored risk.

    “on average, our adolescent participants increased their risk-taking behavior in the presence of peers compared with solo driving, regardless of the norms the peer embodied, with the greatest increases when social norms favored risk.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both individual differences and social context are important predictors of risk.

    “The current results suggest that both individual differences and social context are important predictors of risk”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Individual differences in neural responses during a cognitive control task do not independently predict risk-taking, but social situations moderate the effects of such individual differences.

    “Our results suggest that individual differences in neural responses during a cognitive control (response inhibition) task do not independently predict risk-taking, but rather that social situations moderate the effects of such individual differences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Combining neuroimaging data during a basic response inhibition task with risk-taking data collected in a driving simulator 1 week later offers a unique way to study the interaction between basic cognitive control processes in the brain and social context variables on risk-taking, while maintaining both a high degree of experimental control and external validity, but not subjecting participants to

    “Thus, combining data obtained in a neuroimaging context during a basic response inhibition task with risk-taking data collected in a driving simulator 1 week later offers a unique way to study the interaction between basic cognitive control processes in the brain and social context variables on risk-taking, while maintaining both a high degree of experimental control and external validity, but not”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Six-second intersection events were dropped from the analysis because all participants stopped at every 6-sec event.

    “Six-second intersection events were dropped from the analysis because all participants stopped at every 6-sec event.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants were randomly assigned to conditions by an investigator not involved in simulator testing, and all investigators and the confederate were blind to the assigned condition until just before the confederate enacted his role.

    “Participants were randomly assigned into their condition by an investigator who was not involved in any of the simulator testing, and all investigators and the confederate were blind to the assigned condition until just before the confederate enacting his role.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Individual differences in activity within response inhibition regions are associated with buffering risk-taking with cautious peers, but not when peers express risk-accepting norms.

    “individual differences in activity within response inhibition regions are associated with buffering the effects of risk-taking in the presence of cautious peers, but individual differences are not associated with risk levels when peers express explicitly risk-accepting social norms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    One participant was excluded from analysis because of a prior autism diagnosis.

    “One participant was excluded from analysis because of a prior autism diagnosis that was brought to the investigative team's attention at the scanner session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
41 of 41

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The driving simulator measures used—time spent in an intersection while the light was red and failure to stop at a yellow light—validly index distinct dimensions of driving risk.

    “These measures help discern varying dimensions of driving risk; stopping behaviors at yellow-light intersections measure the propensity to break traffic rules, whereas time spent in an intersection while the traffic light is red measures actual risk taken.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Driving simulator behavior is a valid proxy for real-world driving risk.

    “driving risk in the presence of a peer”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Neural activity during the go/no-go task indexes baseline response inhibition capacity relevant to later driving.

    “neural activity during a laboratory response inhibition task”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The dorsal medial pFC control region is not involved in response inhibition.

    “a brain region not hypothesized to be involved in response inhibition”
4 of 4

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?

  • In Cascio et al. (2015), participants who exhibited higher cognitive control showed no increase in risky driving when a peer encouraged risk taking.

    “Participants who exhibited higher cognitive control also showed no increase in risky driving in the condition in which the peer encouraged risk taking”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Cascio et al., 2015

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) says risk-taking increased with peers regardless of their norms, with the greatest increases when norms favored risk. It also says baseline cognitive-control activity predicted less risk with a cautious peer, but not with a risky peer; the Results likewise found no significant protective association in the risky-peer condition. The paper therefore does not support the claimed absence of an increase among participants with higher cognitive control. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Individuals who evince greater engagement of cognitive control circuitry may be more resistant to socioemotional arousal.

    “suggesting that individuals who evince greater engagement of cognitive control circuitry may be more resistant socioemotional arousal.”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Cascio et al., 2015

    The Conclusion (page not provided) reports that adolescents with stronger baseline activation in response-inhibition regions drove more safely with a cautious peer, but not with a risky peer. The Discussion suggests cognitive-control resources may buffer emotionally driven risk-taking; it does not establish that greater engagement makes individuals generally more resistant to socioemotional arousal, which was not directly measured. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Cascio et al. (2015), greater engagement of cognitive control circuitry during a response inhibition task predicted safer driving behavior in a simulated driving task when a peer encouraged safe driving.

    “greater engagement of cognitive control circuitry (i.e., IFG and BG) during the response inhibition task (indicative of better cognitive control) predicted safer driving behavior in the simulated driving task.”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Cascio et al., 2015

  • Because Cascio et al. (2015) did not compare age groups, it cannot address whether maturation of cognitive control helps account for developmental patterns in risk taking.

    “because the study did not compare age groups, it cannot address whether maturation of cognitive control helps to account for developmental patterns in risk taking.”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Cascio et al., 2015

  • Adolescents who displayed relatively greater activation in the ventral striatum when engaging in cognitive control were more influenced by their cautious peers, such that greater ventral striatum activation was associated with engaging in fewer risks in the presence of cautious peers.

    “At the neural level, adolescents who displayed relatively greater activation in the ventral striatum when engaging in cognitive control were more influenced by their cautious peers, such that greater ventral striatum activation was associated with engaging in fewer risks in the presence of cautious peers.”

    From Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: a new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation (2016) · cites this paper as Cascio et al., 2014

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(33) = 11.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(33) = 11.90, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(36) = 4.33reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(36) = 4.33, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(35) = -2.27reported p = .029 · recomputed p = .029

    “t(35) = −2.27, p = .029”

  • Consistentt(29) = -0.93reported p = .358 · recomputed p = .360

    “t(29) = −.93, p = .358”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.55reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .016

    “t(29) = 2.55, p = .016”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.14reported p = .041 · recomputed p = .041

    “t(29) = 2.14, p = .041”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.39reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .024

    “t(29) = 2.39, p = .024”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.74reported p = .011 · recomputed p = .010

    “t(29) = 2.74, p = .011”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.29reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .029

    “t(29) = 2.29, p = .030”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.18reported p = .037 · recomputed p = .038

    “t(29) = 2.18, p = .037”

  • Consistentt(29) = 1.99reported p = .057 · recomputed p = .056

    “t(29) = 1.99, p = .057”

  • Consistentt(29) = 1.72reported p = .096 · recomputed p = .096

    “t(29) = 1.72, p = .096”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.15reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .040

    “t(29) = 2.15, p = .040”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.72reported p = .011 · recomputed p = .011

    “t(29) = −2.72, p = .011”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.44reported p = .021 · recomputed p = .021

    “t(29) = −2.44, p = .021”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.77reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “t(29) = −2.77, p = .010”

  • Consistentt(29) = -3.02reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “t(29) = −3.02, p = .005”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.61reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .014

    “t(29) = −2.61, p = .014”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.84reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .008

    “t(29) = −2.84, p = .008”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.67reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .012

    “t(29) = −2.67, p = .012”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.49reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .019

    “t(29) = −2.49, p = .019”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.63reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .014

    “t(29) = −2.63, p = .013”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.82reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .009

    “t(29) = −2.82, p = .009”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.47reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .020

    “t(29) = −2.47, p = .020”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.95reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “t(29) = −2.95, p = .006”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.02reported p = .053 · recomputed p = .053

    “t(29) = −2.02, p = .053”

  • Consistentt(29) = -1.94reported p = .063 · recomputed p = .062

    “t(29) = −1.94, p = .063”

  • Consistentt(29) = -2.28reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .030

    “t(29) = −2.28, p = .030”

  • Consistentt(29) = 1.06reported p = .297 · recomputed p = .298

    “t(29) = 1.06, p = .297”

  • Consistentt(29) = 0.76reported p = .452 · recomputed p = .453

    “t(29) = .76, p = .452”

  • Consistentt(29) = 0.8reported p = .431 · recomputed p = .430

    “t(29) = .80, p = .431”

  • Consistentt(35) = 0.22reported p = .825 · recomputed p = .827

    “t(35) = .22, p = .825”

  • Consistentt(35) = 0.19reported p = .849 · recomputed p = .850

    “t(35) = .19, p = .849”

  • Consistentt(35) = 0.2reported p = .842 · recomputed p = .843

    “t(35) = .20, p = .842”

34 of 34

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.

  • "Percent red" is defined as two different measures

    Minor

    The methods define percent red as the proportion of time spent in an intersection while the light was red. The results instead define it as the proportion of intersections driven through on a red light; these have different denominators.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. IIHS, 2010, Licensing ages and graduated licensing systems, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cascio, C. N., Carp, J., O'Donnell, M. B., Tinney, F. J., Bingham, C. R., Shope, J. T., Ouimet, M. C., Pradhan, A. K., Simons-Morton, B. G., & Falk, E. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • 1University of Pennsylvania
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • 4National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2015-01-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
83-95
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
DOI
10.1162/jocn_a_00693
PMC
PMC4719161
OpenAlex
W2019242245
Semantic Scholar
50794a0dab2ee245242af8783678d4bc8409111d
Cited by
85
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (7dp2da035156-02)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (NIH/NICHDIR21HD073549-01A1)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DP2 DA035156)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21HD073549, Z01HD001707, HHSN275201000007C)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
response inhibition, cognitive control, adolescent driving, peer influence, peer pressure, driving safety, risk-taking, social norms, inferior frontal gyrus, basal ganglia, individual differences, adolescent development, risky driving behavior
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Automobile Driving, Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Humans, Individuality, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Peer Group, Psychomotor Performance, Risk-Taking, Social Behavior, Executive Function, Self Report

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 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

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