Dissecting “Peer Presence” and “Decisions” to Deepen Understanding of Peer Influence on Adolescent Risky Choice

Somerville, Leah H.; Haddara, Nadia; Sasse, Stephanie F.; Skwara, Alea C.; Moran, Joseph; Figner, Bernd

doi:10.1111/cdev.13081

Cited by 75 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also note that there were no peer effects for the CP group, and peer effects in the typically developing group were in the direction of safer behavior. While risk-reducing peer effects seem surprising, this is in line with other recent work which shows that peer presence does not always lead to greater risky choices, but can also work to promote safer decisions (Somerville et al, 2019; for a recent meta-analysis see Defoe, Semon Dubas, & Romer, 2019). The absence of peer effects in the CP group is in line with previous work in adolescents with conduct disorders, which revealed less differentiation between emotional signals of peers, suggesting that they may be less influenced during decision-making (Klapwijk et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Chein et al, 2011), or when they are actively "egged-on" (Segalowitz et al, 2011). It will be important to examine the conditions under which peer effects occur (Somerville et al, 2019), in order to further inform our application of adolescent models of neurocognition to high-risk youth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, we expected that both groups would make more risky decisions in the presence of a peer relative to alone, given prior evidence for greater risk taking in the presence of peers (e.g., Chein et al, 2011; but see e.g., Somerville et al, 2019 for alternative results). While teens with behavioral problems tend to engage more with other deviant peers, and deviant talk between friends can reinforce risky behaviors (Dishion & Tipsord, 2011;Richmond, Laursen, & Stattin, 2019), it is unclear if youth with conduct problems are more or less influenced by peers than typically developing youth.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Differential Behavioral and Neural Profiles in Youth With Conduct Problems During Risky Decision‐Making

Hoorn

McCormick

Perino

et al. 2020

J of Research on Adolesc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroimaging work has examined neural processes underlying risk taking in adolescence, yet predominantly in low‐risk youth. To determine whether we can extrapolate from current neurobiological models, this functional magnetic resonance imaging study investigated risk taking and peer effects in youth with conduct problems (CP; N = 19) and typically developing youth (TD; N = 25). Results revealed higher real‐life risk taking, lower risky decisions, and no peer effects on a risk‐taking task in CP youth. CP youth showed greater ventral striatum (VS) activity during safe than risky decisions, whereas TD youth showed greater VS activation during risky decisions. Differential VS activity explained higher real‐life risk taking in CP youth. Findings provide preliminary evidence that risk‐taking behavior in youth with CD problems is characterized by differential neural patterns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differential Behavioral and Neural Profiles in Youth With Conduct Problems During Risky Decision‐Making

Hoorn

McCormick

Perino

et al. 2020

J of Research on Adolesc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goal-oriented behaviour enables survival and can be viewed as the product of value-based decisions that relate the returns (i.e., the gains minus the losses) to the risks (e.g., uncertainty of returns or probability of a loss) of different courses of action in an individual-specific fashion [1][2][3][4]. Value-based decision processes can be affected by several factors, for instance, the degrees of uncertainty associated with the decision [5], development stages [5], social contexts [6], and several psychiatric disorders [7]. Concerning the to the last one, decision-making impairments often represent one of the main behavioural characteristics of substance-related disorders, contributing both to the impulsive initiation of substance use and to the compulsive maintenance of the addictive behaviour [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity to gains during risky decision-making differentiates chronic cocaine users from stimulant-naïve controls

Kluwe-Schiavon

Kexel

Manenti

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although chronic cocaine use has been frequently associated with decision-making impairments that are supposed to contribute to the development and maintenance of cocaine addiction, it has remained unclear how risk-seeking behaviours observed in chronic cocaine users (CU) come about. Here we therefore test whether risky decision-making observed in CU is driven by alterations in individual sensitivity to the available information (gain, loss, and risk). Method:A sample of 96 participants (56 CU and 40 controls) performed the no-feedback ("cold") version of the Columbia Card Task. Structured psychiatric interviews and a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery were additionally conducted. Current and recent substance use was objectively assessed by toxicological urine and hair analysis.Results: Compared to controls, CU showed increased risk-seeking in unfavourable decision scenarios in which the risk was high and the returns were low, and a tendency for increased risk aversion in favourable decision scenarios. These differences arose from the fact that CU were less sensitive to gain, but similarly sensitive to loss and risk information in comparison to controls.Further analysis revealed that individual differences in sensitivity to loss and risk were related to cognitive performance and impulsivity. Conclusion:The reduced sensitivity to gain information in people with CU may contribute to their propensity for making risky decisions. While these alterations in the sensitivity to gain might be directly related to cocaine use per se, the individual psychopathological profile of CU might moderate their sensitivity to risk and loss impulsivity.

show abstract

“…Buffering of risk-taking behaviors is specific to mothers, as unfamiliar adults relative to mothers do not seem to have this protective effect (Guassi Moreira and Telzer, 2018 ; but see Silva et al ., 2016 for a decrease in risk taking in a group of one young adult and peers relative to a group of solely peers). Collectively, this work suggests that parental presence may serve as a buffer to dissuade adolescents from engaging in risky behaviors (Telzer et al ., 2015 ), such that social-affective sensitivities may also constitute an opportunity for positive influences on development (Scriber and Guyer, 2017 ; Dahl et al ., 2018 ; Telzer et al ., 2018 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential effects of parent and peer presence on neural correlates of risk taking in adolescence

Hoorn¹,

McCormick²,

Rogers³

et al. 2018

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adolescence is a developmental period associated with increased health-risk behaviors and unique sensitivity to the input from the social context, paralleled by major changes in the developing brain. Peer presence increases adolescent risk taking, associated with greater reward-related activity, while parental presence decreases risk taking, associated with decreased reward-related activity and increased cognitive control. Yet the effects specific to peers and parents are still unknown. The current functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study compared within-person peer and parent influences on risky decision-making during adolescence (ages 12–15 years; N = 56). Participants completed the Yellow Light Game (YLG), a computerized driving task, during which they could make safe or risky decisions, in the presence of a peer and their parent. Behavioral findings revealed no effects of social context on risk taking. At the neural level, a collection of affective, social and cognitive regions [ventral striatum (VS), temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC)] was more active during decision-making with peers than parents. Additionally, functional connectivity analyses showed greater coupling between affective, social and cognitive control regions (VS-insula, VS-TPJ) during decision-making with parents than peers. These findings highlight the complex nature of social influence processes in peer and parent contexts, and contribute to our understanding of the opportunities and vulnerabilities associated with adolescent social sensitivity.

show abstract

Dissecting “Peer Presence” and “Decisions” to Deepen Understanding of Peer Influence on Adolescent Risky Choice

Cited by 75 publications

References 62 publications

Differential Behavioral and Neural Profiles in Youth With Conduct Problems During Risky Decision‐Making

Differential Behavioral and Neural Profiles in Youth With Conduct Problems During Risky Decision‐Making

Sensitivity to gains during risky decision-making differentiates chronic cocaine users from stimulant-naïve controls

Differential effects of parent and peer presence on neural correlates of risk taking in adolescence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About