↓ Skip to main content

Peers influence adolescent reward processing, but not response inhibition

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
Title
Peers influence adolescent reward processing, but not response inhibition
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13415-018-0569-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley R. Smith, Gail M. Rosenbaum, Morgan A. Botdorf, Laurence Steinberg, Jason M. Chein

Abstract

Most adolescent risk taking occurs in the presence of peers. Prior research suggests that peers alter adolescents' decision making by increasing reward sensitivity and the engagement of regions involved in the processing of rewards, primarily the striatum. However, the potential influence of peers on the capacity for impulse control, and the associated recruitment of the brain's control circuitry, has not yet been adequately examined. In the current study, adolescents underwent functional neuroimaging while they completed interleaved rounds of risk-taking and response-inhibition tasks. Social context was manipulated such that the participants believed they were either playing alone and unobserved, or watched by an anonymous peer. Compared to those who completed the tasks alone, adolescents in the peer condition took more risks during the risk-taking task and exhibited relatively heightened activation of the striatum. Activity within this striatal region also predicted individual differences in overall risk taking. In contrast, the presence of peers had no effect on behavioral response inhibition and had minimal impact on the engagement of typical cognitive control regions. In a subregion of the anterior insula engaged mutually by both tasks, activity was again found to be sensitive to social context during the risk-taking task, but not during the response-inhibition task. These findings extend the evidence that the presence of peers biases adolescents towards risk taking by increasing reward sensitivity rather than disrupting cognitive control.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 24%
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 29 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 53 44%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 36 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,820,201
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#526
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,864
of 334,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.