Responses during feedback presentation. More importantly, we were interested in theinfluence of social `context’ on decisions and reward processes during risk taking, not the influence of feedback per se.Resistance to peer influenceParticipants also completed the resistance to peer influence (RPI) scale (Steinberg and Monahan, 2007). This questionnaire consists of ten pairs of opposing statements; e.g. `Some people go along with their friends just to keep their friends happy BUT other people refuse to go along with what their friends want to do, even though they know it will make their friends unhappy’. Participants were instructed to choose one statement and to report whether the chosen statement was `really true’ or `sort of true’ for them. Item scores ranged from 1 to 4 and the average across all ten items provides an index of RPI score, with higher scores indicating more self-reported resistance to peer influence. RPI scores for the 11-year olds (n ?23) ranged from 2.3 to 3.6 (M ?3.0 6 0.32), for the LT-253MedChemExpress LT-253 12-year olds (n ?19) scores ranged from 1.8 to 3.8 (M ?3.1 6 0.45), and for the 13-year olds (n ?16) scores ranged from 2.2 to 3.8 (M ?2.9 6 0.45). There were no differences between age groups, F(2, 55) ?0.38, P ?0.69. Furthermore, RPI score did not correlate with any of the other developmental measures (Table 1), indicating that individual differences in resistance to peer influence did not correspond with differences in pubertal maturation.fMRI analysesSee Supplementary Materials for a detailed description of the image acquisition and preprocessing steps. Statistical analyses were performed on individual subjects’ data using the general linear model (GLM) in SPM8 (http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk). Trials were modeled as separate zero-duration events starting at the onset of stimulus presentation. Note that while each trial consisted of a stimulus, anticipation, and outcome phase, these phases were not modeled separately due to the absence of jittered periods in between the different phases within each trial. Feedback phases were also modeled as zero-duration events starting at the onset of feedback presentation. Transition phases were modeled as 12-s events starting at the onset of the transition Oroxylin AMedChemExpress Oroxylin A screen presentation. Here, we report the results of analyses collapsed across the different trial types (LR-1pt, LR3pts, HR-1pt, HR-3pts). We created two separate subject-specific design matrices to look at risk taking (choice model) and reward processing (outcome model), separately for the social rank and monetary feedback conditions. The choice model included four regressors ofTable 1. Correlations between the developmental measures, self-reported resistance to peer influence, and the relative measures of risk taking and RT (in percentages) Developmental measures Age RPI score (n ?58) r ??.03 P ?0.85 (n ?58) R ?0.01 P ?0.92 r ??.19 P ?0.15 PDS (n ?58) r ??.02 p ?0.87 (n ?58) r ?0.07 P ?0.62 r ?.03 P ?0.85 Testosterone (n ?57) r ??.02 P ?0.88 (n ?57) r ??.03 P ?0.84 r ?.14 P ?0.29 Estradiol (n ?56) r ?0.15 P ?0.29 (n ?56) r ?0.11 P ?0.43 r ??.01 P ?0.94 BMI (n ?56) r ??.11 P ?0.43 (n ?56) r ?0.12 P ?0.38 r ?0.12 P ?0.Risk taking (relative )RT (relative )RPI, resistance to peer influence; RT, response time; PDS, pubertal development stage; BMI, body-mass index.|Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2017, Vol. 12, No.interest that modeled the trials based on the choices participants made, separately for each feedback type: Social Play, M.Responses during feedback presentation. More importantly, we were interested in theinfluence of social `context’ on decisions and reward processes during risk taking, not the influence of feedback per se.Resistance to peer influenceParticipants also completed the resistance to peer influence (RPI) scale (Steinberg and Monahan, 2007). This questionnaire consists of ten pairs of opposing statements; e.g. `Some people go along with their friends just to keep their friends happy BUT other people refuse to go along with what their friends want to do, even though they know it will make their friends unhappy’. Participants were instructed to choose one statement and to report whether the chosen statement was `really true’ or `sort of true’ for them. Item scores ranged from 1 to 4 and the average across all ten items provides an index of RPI score, with higher scores indicating more self-reported resistance to peer influence. RPI scores for the 11-year olds (n ?23) ranged from 2.3 to 3.6 (M ?3.0 6 0.32), for the 12-year olds (n ?19) scores ranged from 1.8 to 3.8 (M ?3.1 6 0.45), and for the 13-year olds (n ?16) scores ranged from 2.2 to 3.8 (M ?2.9 6 0.45). There were no differences between age groups, F(2, 55) ?0.38, P ?0.69. Furthermore, RPI score did not correlate with any of the other developmental measures (Table 1), indicating that individual differences in resistance to peer influence did not correspond with differences in pubertal maturation.fMRI analysesSee Supplementary Materials for a detailed description of the image acquisition and preprocessing steps. Statistical analyses were performed on individual subjects’ data using the general linear model (GLM) in SPM8 (http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk). Trials were modeled as separate zero-duration events starting at the onset of stimulus presentation. Note that while each trial consisted of a stimulus, anticipation, and outcome phase, these phases were not modeled separately due to the absence of jittered periods in between the different phases within each trial. Feedback phases were also modeled as zero-duration events starting at the onset of feedback presentation. Transition phases were modeled as 12-s events starting at the onset of the transition screen presentation. Here, we report the results of analyses collapsed across the different trial types (LR-1pt, LR3pts, HR-1pt, HR-3pts). We created two separate subject-specific design matrices to look at risk taking (choice model) and reward processing (outcome model), separately for the social rank and monetary feedback conditions. The choice model included four regressors ofTable 1. Correlations between the developmental measures, self-reported resistance to peer influence, and the relative measures of risk taking and RT (in percentages) Developmental measures Age RPI score (n ?58) r ??.03 P ?0.85 (n ?58) R ?0.01 P ?0.92 r ??.19 P ?0.15 PDS (n ?58) r ??.02 p ?0.87 (n ?58) r ?0.07 P ?0.62 r ?.03 P ?0.85 Testosterone (n ?57) r ??.02 P ?0.88 (n ?57) r ??.03 P ?0.84 r ?.14 P ?0.29 Estradiol (n ?56) r ?0.15 P ?0.29 (n ?56) r ?0.11 P ?0.43 r ??.01 P ?0.94 BMI (n ?56) r ??.11 P ?0.43 (n ?56) r ?0.12 P ?0.38 r ?0.12 P ?0.Risk taking (relative )RT (relative )RPI, resistance to peer influence; RT, response time; PDS, pubertal development stage; BMI, body-mass index.|Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2017, Vol. 12, No.interest that modeled the trials based on the choices participants made, separately for each feedback type: Social Play, M.
