Sk taking and reward processing in the social rank vs monetary

Sk taking and reward processing in the social rank vs MK-571 (sodium salt) site monetary feedback condition (e.g. Chein et al., 2011), results showed that across participants the type of feedback did not differentially influence risk taking or reward processing (i.e. NAc and mPFC activation). Instead, we found increased AI activation during risk taking in the social rank feedback compared to the monetary feedback condition. Furthermore, we predicted that individual differences in both behavioral and neural responses to feedback type would be related to pubertal hormones (e.g. Crone and Dahl, 2012; Van den Bos et al., 2013). However, results showed that only differences in the neural response to feedback type (i.e. insula activation) correlated with individual differences in estradiol level.Social comparison vs peer presencePrevious studies have shown that among adolescents the presence of peers enhances risk taking and reward processes associated with risky decisions (Gardner and Steinberg, 2005; Chein et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2014a). In this study, we did not find evidence for an enhancing effect of social context on risk taking or reward processing. A possible explanation is that although both the presence of peers and the AZD0156 web presentation of status-relevant social information (i.e. social rank) provide a social context, the psychological processes triggered by these two types of social contexts are expected to differ. For example, the presence of peers is more likely to induce brain processes associated with social evaluation. Previous research has shown that adolescents who believed that peers were watching them through a video camera showed a peak in mPFC activation compared with children and adults, as well as greater functional coupling between mPFC and striatum (including NAc) (Somerville et al., 2013). These findings indicate that the thought or experience of being evaluated (or simply being watched) by peers influences reward processing and suggest that being ranked against peers, or social comparison, may not trigger the same social-evaluative processes that influence reward processing in the (simulated) presence of peers. Future studies are needed to identify which psychological processes triggered by the presence of peers impact risk taking. Another possible explanation for the absence of an enhancing effect of social context on risk taking or reward processing during the Jackpot task is that the current manipulation–in which the girls were depicted alongside `heads’ of coins or silhouettes of anonymous peers–may have been too subtle for|Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2017, Vol. 12, No.social learning (Blakemore and Mills, 2014) and heightened motivation to achieve social status (Crone and Dahl, 2012). Future research that involves the administration of the Jackpot task in an adult sample would provide insight into whether this heightened insula (and fusiform) response in the social rank feedback condition is unique to adolescence.interdisciplinary and longitudinal research to understand adolescent behavior.FundingThis work was supported by the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (grant numbers W81XWH-10-1-0231, W81XWH-11-1-0596); the National Center for Responsible Gaming/NCRG; the Wheeler Center for the Neurobiology of Addiction; and funds from the state of California to (A.S.K.). The sponsors were not involved in the design of the study, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, the writing of the ar.Sk taking and reward processing in the social rank vs monetary feedback condition (e.g. Chein et al., 2011), results showed that across participants the type of feedback did not differentially influence risk taking or reward processing (i.e. NAc and mPFC activation). Instead, we found increased AI activation during risk taking in the social rank feedback compared to the monetary feedback condition. Furthermore, we predicted that individual differences in both behavioral and neural responses to feedback type would be related to pubertal hormones (e.g. Crone and Dahl, 2012; Van den Bos et al., 2013). However, results showed that only differences in the neural response to feedback type (i.e. insula activation) correlated with individual differences in estradiol level.Social comparison vs peer presencePrevious studies have shown that among adolescents the presence of peers enhances risk taking and reward processes associated with risky decisions (Gardner and Steinberg, 2005; Chein et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2014a). In this study, we did not find evidence for an enhancing effect of social context on risk taking or reward processing. A possible explanation is that although both the presence of peers and the presentation of status-relevant social information (i.e. social rank) provide a social context, the psychological processes triggered by these two types of social contexts are expected to differ. For example, the presence of peers is more likely to induce brain processes associated with social evaluation. Previous research has shown that adolescents who believed that peers were watching them through a video camera showed a peak in mPFC activation compared with children and adults, as well as greater functional coupling between mPFC and striatum (including NAc) (Somerville et al., 2013). These findings indicate that the thought or experience of being evaluated (or simply being watched) by peers influences reward processing and suggest that being ranked against peers, or social comparison, may not trigger the same social-evaluative processes that influence reward processing in the (simulated) presence of peers. Future studies are needed to identify which psychological processes triggered by the presence of peers impact risk taking. Another possible explanation for the absence of an enhancing effect of social context on risk taking or reward processing during the Jackpot task is that the current manipulation–in which the girls were depicted alongside `heads’ of coins or silhouettes of anonymous peers–may have been too subtle for|Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2017, Vol. 12, No.social learning (Blakemore and Mills, 2014) and heightened motivation to achieve social status (Crone and Dahl, 2012). Future research that involves the administration of the Jackpot task in an adult sample would provide insight into whether this heightened insula (and fusiform) response in the social rank feedback condition is unique to adolescence.interdisciplinary and longitudinal research to understand adolescent behavior.FundingThis work was supported by the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (grant numbers W81XWH-10-1-0231, W81XWH-11-1-0596); the National Center for Responsible Gaming/NCRG; the Wheeler Center for the Neurobiology of Addiction; and funds from the state of California to (A.S.K.). The sponsors were not involved in the design of the study, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, the writing of the ar.

Leave a Reply