2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101084
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Growing in generosity? The effects of giving magnitude, target, and audience on the neural signature of giving in adolescence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

3
20
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
3
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Age-related increases in the dlPFC were also demonstrated in the whole-brain analyses. Similar results were also reported in a recent study by ( van de Groep et al, 2022 ) and highlight the increased importance of regions in the lateral PFC for prosocial decision-making through the adolescent years. These regions have been implicated in the planning and inhibition of self-maximizing impulses when engaging in costly prosocial behavior ( Bellucci et al, 2020b , Crone and Fuligni, 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Age-related increases in the dlPFC were also demonstrated in the whole-brain analyses. Similar results were also reported in a recent study by ( van de Groep et al, 2022 ) and highlight the increased importance of regions in the lateral PFC for prosocial decision-making through the adolescent years. These regions have been implicated in the planning and inhibition of self-maximizing impulses when engaging in costly prosocial behavior ( Bellucci et al, 2020b , Crone and Fuligni, 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The lack of target differences in any neural activation suggests that the brain regions analyzed in this study engage similarly across various potential recipients of prosocial giving during adolescence. Comparable findings were obtained in a recent study by van de Groep et al (2022) and together with ours, suggest that the developing adolescent brain will respond similarly to the same prosocial decision regardless of whether the recipients are friends, family members, or strangers. It is possible that there would be more differences in activation if additional information about the length, stability, and quality of the relationships with the target caregivers and friends were assessed or even manipulated, as done by Schreuders et al, 2018 , Schreuders et al, 2019 in their studies of giving to friends and disliked peers.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Padilla-Walker et al (2018) obtained similar patterns in a longitudinal study of adolescents' self-reports of giving support and helping others, and additionally found that prosocial behaviors directed towards family remained stable and then increased in late adolescence. Distinctions in adolescent prosocial behavior by target has been observed in other studies and has been argued to be due to adolescents' increasingly complex social reasoning such as a preference for known others and understanding the role of reciprocity in close relationships (Fehr et al, 2013;Güroglu et al, 2014;van de Groep et al, 2020b).…”
mentioning
confidence: 81%