Cargando…

Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents are particularly susceptible to social influence and previous studies have shown that this susceptibility decreases with age. The current study used a cross-sectional experimental paradigm to investigate the effect of age and puberty on susceptibility to both prosocial and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahmed, S., Foulkes, L., Leung, J.T., Griffin, C., Sakhardande, A., Bennett, M., Dunning, D.L., Griffiths, K., Parker, J., Kuyken, W., Williams, J.M.G., Dalgleish, T., Blakemore, S.J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7674583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32858504
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.012
_version_ 1783611533770620928
author Ahmed, S.
Foulkes, L.
Leung, J.T.
Griffin, C.
Sakhardande, A.
Bennett, M.
Dunning, D.L.
Griffiths, K.
Parker, J.
Kuyken, W.
Williams, J.M.G.
Dalgleish, T.
Blakemore, S.J.
author_facet Ahmed, S.
Foulkes, L.
Leung, J.T.
Griffin, C.
Sakhardande, A.
Bennett, M.
Dunning, D.L.
Griffiths, K.
Parker, J.
Kuyken, W.
Williams, J.M.G.
Dalgleish, T.
Blakemore, S.J.
author_sort Ahmed, S.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Adolescents are particularly susceptible to social influence and previous studies have shown that this susceptibility decreases with age. The current study used a cross-sectional experimental paradigm to investigate the effect of age and puberty on susceptibility to both prosocial and antisocial influence. METHODS: Participants (N = 520) aged 11–18 from London and Cambridge (United Kingdom) rated how likely they would be to engage in a prosocial (e.g. “help a classmate with their work”) or antisocial (e.g. “make fun of a classmate”) act. They were then shown the average rating (in fact fictitious) that other adolescents had given to the same question, and were then asked to rate the same behaviour again. RESULTS: Both prosocial and antisocial influence decreased linearly with age, with younger adolescents being more socially influenced when other adolescents’ ratings were more prosocial and less antisocial than their own initial rating. Both antisocial and prosocial influence significantly decreased across puberty for boys but not girls (independent of age). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that social influence declines with increasing maturity across adolescence. However, the exact relationship between social influence and maturity is dependent on the nature of the social influence and gender. Understanding when adolescents are most susceptible to different types of social influence, and how this might influence their social behaviour, has important implications for understanding adolescent social development.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7674583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76745832020-11-24 Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence Ahmed, S. Foulkes, L. Leung, J.T. Griffin, C. Sakhardande, A. Bennett, M. Dunning, D.L. Griffiths, K. Parker, J. Kuyken, W. Williams, J.M.G. Dalgleish, T. Blakemore, S.J. J Adolesc Article INTRODUCTION: Adolescents are particularly susceptible to social influence and previous studies have shown that this susceptibility decreases with age. The current study used a cross-sectional experimental paradigm to investigate the effect of age and puberty on susceptibility to both prosocial and antisocial influence. METHODS: Participants (N = 520) aged 11–18 from London and Cambridge (United Kingdom) rated how likely they would be to engage in a prosocial (e.g. “help a classmate with their work”) or antisocial (e.g. “make fun of a classmate”) act. They were then shown the average rating (in fact fictitious) that other adolescents had given to the same question, and were then asked to rate the same behaviour again. RESULTS: Both prosocial and antisocial influence decreased linearly with age, with younger adolescents being more socially influenced when other adolescents’ ratings were more prosocial and less antisocial than their own initial rating. Both antisocial and prosocial influence significantly decreased across puberty for boys but not girls (independent of age). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that social influence declines with increasing maturity across adolescence. However, the exact relationship between social influence and maturity is dependent on the nature of the social influence and gender. Understanding when adolescents are most susceptible to different types of social influence, and how this might influence their social behaviour, has important implications for understanding adolescent social development. Elsevier 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7674583/ /pubmed/32858504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.012 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ahmed, S.
Foulkes, L.
Leung, J.T.
Griffin, C.
Sakhardande, A.
Bennett, M.
Dunning, D.L.
Griffiths, K.
Parker, J.
Kuyken, W.
Williams, J.M.G.
Dalgleish, T.
Blakemore, S.J.
Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence
title Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence
title_full Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence
title_fullStr Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence
title_full_unstemmed Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence
title_short Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence
title_sort susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7674583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32858504
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.012
work_keys_str_mv AT ahmeds susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT foulkesl susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT leungjt susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT griffinc susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT sakhardandea susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT bennettm susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT dunningdl susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT griffithsk susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT parkerj susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT kuykenw susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT williamsjmg susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT dalgleisht susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence
AT blakemoresj susceptibilitytoprosocialandantisocialinfluenceinadolescence