Lay choices; response time (RT) was measured as the time between

Lay choices; response time (RT) was measured as the time VER-52296 supplier between stimulus onset and the button press to indicate the participant’s choice (in milliseconds). At the group level, there was no main effect of feedback type on risk taking, F(1, 57) ?0.05, P ?0.82 (Figure 2A) nor on RT, F(1, 57) ?0.01, P ?0.91. However, there were individual differences–in both risk taking and RT–across the two feedback contexts. While some girls chose to play more often in the social rank feedback context, other girls chose to play more often in the monetary feedback context (Figure 2B). To index these individual differences, we calculated the relative AG-221 supplier difference (in percentages) between a) risk taking in the social rank feedback context and b) risk taking in the monetary feedback context (i.e. [a ?b]/b * 100); the same was done to calculate the relative difference for RTs. Thus, positive percentages represented more risk taking (or longer RTs) in the social rank feedback context, whereas negative percentages represented more risk taking (or longer RTs) in the monetary feedback context. None of the developmental measures were associated with the relative measures of risk taking or RT (Table 1), indicating that differences in testosterone level, estradiol level, age, pubertal stage or BMI did not explain the task-related behavioral differences between the feedback contexts. Furthermore, weFig. 2. Effects of feedback type on risk taking. (A) Group averages for risk taking in the four task conditions, plotted separately for the social rank (Rank) and monetary (Money) feedback contexts. Error bars represent the standard errors. (B) Individual differences in risk taking in the monetary feedback context plotted against risk taking in the social rank feedback context. Participants with greater perpendicular distance to the dotted line were more biased toward risk taking in a particular feedback context. Note that the dotted line represents the identity line (y ?x), not the regression line.Z. A. Op de Macks et al.|Fig. 3. Scatterplots of the relations between self-reported resistance to peer influence (i.e. RPI scores, which can range from 1 to 4) and the relative difference in RTs between the social vs monetary feedback context, plotted separately for decisions in the low-risk (A) and high-risk (B) conditions.explored the relation between self-reported resistance to peer influence and task behavior. Although there were no associations between RPI score and the relative difference in RT (r ??.20, P ?0.14), or risk taking (r ??.06, P ?0.67), there was a negative association between RPI score and the relative differences in RT in the HR condition (r ??.35, P ?0.008), but not the LR condition (r ??.02, P ?0.86) (see Figure 3). These correlations were significantly different from one another (Steiger’s Z ?2.3, P ?0.020; Steiger, 1980). These findings indicate that girls who reported being less resistant to peer influence were relatively slower decision-makers in the social rank feedback context, but only when the chance to win was relatively small. In other words, girls who were more concerned with their social environment took longer to decide–for riskier decisions only– whether they wanted to play or pass when they were going to be ranked against peers relative to receiving monetary feedback. No association was found between RPI score and the relative differences in risk taking for each of the conditions (LR: r ?0.001, P ?0.99; HR: r ??.09, P ?0.50, n ?57).Imaging.Lay choices; response time (RT) was measured as the time between stimulus onset and the button press to indicate the participant’s choice (in milliseconds). At the group level, there was no main effect of feedback type on risk taking, F(1, 57) ?0.05, P ?0.82 (Figure 2A) nor on RT, F(1, 57) ?0.01, P ?0.91. However, there were individual differences–in both risk taking and RT–across the two feedback contexts. While some girls chose to play more often in the social rank feedback context, other girls chose to play more often in the monetary feedback context (Figure 2B). To index these individual differences, we calculated the relative difference (in percentages) between a) risk taking in the social rank feedback context and b) risk taking in the monetary feedback context (i.e. [a ?b]/b * 100); the same was done to calculate the relative difference for RTs. Thus, positive percentages represented more risk taking (or longer RTs) in the social rank feedback context, whereas negative percentages represented more risk taking (or longer RTs) in the monetary feedback context. None of the developmental measures were associated with the relative measures of risk taking or RT (Table 1), indicating that differences in testosterone level, estradiol level, age, pubertal stage or BMI did not explain the task-related behavioral differences between the feedback contexts. Furthermore, weFig. 2. Effects of feedback type on risk taking. (A) Group averages for risk taking in the four task conditions, plotted separately for the social rank (Rank) and monetary (Money) feedback contexts. Error bars represent the standard errors. (B) Individual differences in risk taking in the monetary feedback context plotted against risk taking in the social rank feedback context. Participants with greater perpendicular distance to the dotted line were more biased toward risk taking in a particular feedback context. Note that the dotted line represents the identity line (y ?x), not the regression line.Z. A. Op de Macks et al.|Fig. 3. Scatterplots of the relations between self-reported resistance to peer influence (i.e. RPI scores, which can range from 1 to 4) and the relative difference in RTs between the social vs monetary feedback context, plotted separately for decisions in the low-risk (A) and high-risk (B) conditions.explored the relation between self-reported resistance to peer influence and task behavior. Although there were no associations between RPI score and the relative difference in RT (r ??.20, P ?0.14), or risk taking (r ??.06, P ?0.67), there was a negative association between RPI score and the relative differences in RT in the HR condition (r ??.35, P ?0.008), but not the LR condition (r ??.02, P ?0.86) (see Figure 3). These correlations were significantly different from one another (Steiger’s Z ?2.3, P ?0.020; Steiger, 1980). These findings indicate that girls who reported being less resistant to peer influence were relatively slower decision-makers in the social rank feedback context, but only when the chance to win was relatively small. In other words, girls who were more concerned with their social environment took longer to decide–for riskier decisions only– whether they wanted to play or pass when they were going to be ranked against peers relative to receiving monetary feedback. No association was found between RPI score and the relative differences in risk taking for each of the conditions (LR: r ?0.001, P ?0.99; HR: r ??.09, P ?0.50, n ?57).Imaging.

Leave a Reply