Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Neural Correlates of Social Influence on Risk Taking and Substance Use in Adolescents

  • Adolescent / Young Adult Addiction (T Chung, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Addiction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Adolescents often engage in elevated levels of risk taking that give rise to substance use. Family and peers constitute the primary contextual risk factors for adolescent substance use. This report reviews how families and peers influence adolescent neurocognitive development to inform their risk taking and subsequent substance use.

Recent Findings

Developmental neuroscience using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has identified regions of the brain involved in social cognition, cognitive control, and reward processing that are integrally linked to social influence on adolescent risk taking. These neural mechanisms play a role in how peer and family influence (e.g., physical presence, relationship quality, rejection) translate into adolescent substance use.

Summary

Peers and families can independently, and in tandem, contribute to adolescent substance use, for better or for worse. We propose that future work utilize fMRI to investigate the neural mechanisms involved in different aspects of peer and family influence and how these contexts uniquely and interactively influence adolescent substance use initiation and escalation across development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Chambers RA, Taylor JR, Potenza MN. Developmental neurocircuitry of motivation in adolescence: a critical period of addiction vulnerability. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:1041–52. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.6.1041.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. National Center for Health Statistics, United States. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013: Hyattsville, MD.

  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). 2013: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  4. Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2008: Volume II, college students and adults ages 19–50. 2009: NIH Publication No. 09–7403.

  5. Kandel D. The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: an algebra of interpersonal influences. J Drug Issues. 1996;26:289–315. doi:10.1177/002204269602600202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Scalici F, Schulz PJ. Influence of perceived parent and peer endorsement on adolescent smoking intentions: parents have more say, but their influence wanes as kids get older. PLoS One. 2014;9:e101275. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101275.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. • Knoll LJ, Magis-Weinberg L, Speekenbrink M, Blakemore S-J. Social influence on risk perception during adolescence. Psychol Sci. 2015;26:583–92. doi:10.1177/0956797615569578. This empirical paper shows that from middle childhood into midlife, individuals are influenced by adults, with the exception that early adolescents are most susceptible to influence from teenagers.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berndt TJ. Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Dev Psychol. 1979;15:608–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Ryzin MJ, Fosco GM, Dishion TJ. Family and peer predictors of substance use from early adolescence to early adulthood: an 11-year prospective analysis. Addict Behav. 2012;37:1314–24. doi:10.1038/jid.2014.371.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kandel DB, Andrews K. Processes of adolescent socialization by parents and peers. Int J Add. 1987;22:319–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Windle M. Parental, sibling, and peer influences on adolescent substance use and alcohol problems. App Dev Sci. 2000;2:98–110. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0402_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deković M, Wissink IB, Meijer AM. The role of family and peer relations in adolescent antisocial behaviour: comparison of four ethnic groups. J Adolesc. 2004;27:497–514. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Windle M, Spear LP, Fuligni AJ, Angold A, Brown JD, Pine D, et al. Transitions into underage and problem drinking: summary of developmental processes and mechanisms: ages 10–15. Pediatrics. 2008;121:S273–89. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2243C.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bahr SJ, Hoffmann JP, Yang X. Parental and peer influences on the risk of adolescent drug use. J Prim Prev. 2005;26:529–51. doi:10.1007/s10935-005-0014-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. • Lam CB, McHale SM, Crouter AC. Time with peers from middle childhood to late adolescence: developmental course and adjustment correlates. Child Dev. 2014;85:1677–93. doi:10.1038/jid.2014.371. This empirical paper highlights the complexity of peer relations, as adolescent adjustment is dependent on both sex constellation of peer groups and adult monitoring of these interactions.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Sutherland EH, Cressey DR, Luckenbill DF. Principles of criminology. The Reynolds Series in Sociology. Six Hill, NY: NCJRS; 1992.

  17. Steinberg L. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Dev Rev. 2008;28:78–106. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson EE, Leibenluft E, McClure EB, Pine DS. The social re-orientation of adolescence: a neuroscience perspective on the process and its relation to psychopathology. Psychol Med. 2005;35:163–74. doi:10.1017/s0033291704003915.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. •• Nelson EE, Jarcho JM, Guyer AE. Social re-orientation and brain development: an expanded and updated view. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016;17:118–27. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.008. This review provides an overview of neurobiological sensitivity to social contexts in children, adolescents, and adults.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Crone EA, Dahl RE. Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13:636–50. doi:10.1038/nrn3313.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Somerville LH, Jones RM, Casey BJ. A time of change: behavioral and neural correlates of appetitive and aversive environmental cues. Brain Cogn. 2010;72:124–33. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2009.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Casey BJ, Getz S, Galvan A. The adolescent brain. Dev Rev. 2008;28:62–77. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Pfeifer JH, Blakemore SJ. Adolescent social cognitive and affective neuroscience: past, present, and future. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012;7:1–10. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr099.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Blakemore SJ. The social brain in adolescence. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9:267–77. doi:10.1038/nrn2353.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Frith CD, Frith U. Social cognition in humans. Curr Biol. 2007;17:724–32. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.05.068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. •• Blakemore SJ, Mills KL. Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:187–207. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202. This review highlights adolescence as a time in which the social brain reorganizes, which in turn helps adolescents to adapt to and navigate their complex social environments.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. •• Schriber RA, Guyer AE. Adolescent neurobiological susceptibility to social context. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016;19:1–18. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.009. This review provides support that neural-based individual differences engender adolescent susceptibility to social contexts.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. • Shulman EP, Smith AR, Silva K, Icenogle G, Duell N, Chein J, et al. The dual systems model: review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016;17:103–17. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.010. This theoretical paper provides explanation of the Dual Systems Model—that adolescent risk-taking is explained by multiple levels of influence, including neurobiological, psychological, and behavioral, which are each informed by adolescent decision-making and the proximal context.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gardner M, Steinberg L. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Dev Psychol. 2005;41:625–35. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chassin L, Hussong A, Beltran I. Adolescent substance use. In: Richard MLLS, Steinberg L, editors. Handbook of adolescent psychology: Vol. 1. Individual bases of adolescent development. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. p. 723–63.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Simons-Morton BG, Farhat T. Recent findings on peer group influences on adolescent smoking. J Prim Prev. 2010;31:191–208. doi:10.1007/s10935-010-0220-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Willoughby T, Good M, Adachi PJC, Hamza C, Tavernier R. Examining the link between adolescent brain development and risk taking from a social-developmental perspective. Brain Cogn. 2014;89:70–8. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2014.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dishion TJ, Owen LD. A longitudinal analysis of friendships and substance use: bidirectional influence from adolescence to adulthood. Dev Psychol. 2002;38:480–91. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dishion TJ, Tipsord JM. Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:189–214. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. • Van Ryzin MJ, Dishion TJ. Adolescent deviant peer clustering as an amplifying mechanism underlying the progression from early substance use to late adolescent dependence. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2014;55:1153–61. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12211. This empirical paper found that both parents and peers affect substance use across adolescence. Specifically, affiliation with deviant peers was a constant and proximal influence whereas parental influence indirectly influenced decisions to engage in substance use through adolescent selection of peers.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chein J, Albert D, O’Brien L, Uckert K, Steinberg L. Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Dev Sci. 2011;14:F1–10. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. O’Brien L, Albert D, Chein J, Steinberg L. Adolescents prefer more immediate rewards when in the presence of their peers. J Res Adolesc. 2011;21:747–53. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00738.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. • Van Hoorn J, Crone EA, Van Leijenhorst L. Hanging out with the right crowd: peer influence on risk-taking behavior in adolescence. J Res Adolesc. 2016;27:189–200. doi:10.1111/jora.12265. This empirical paper provides evidence that adolescents take more risks in the presence of peers than alone, particularly in situations for which the outcome is unknown.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Segalowitz SJ, Santesso DL, Willoughby T, Reker DL, Campbell K, Chalmers H, et al. Adolescent peer interaction and trait surgency weaken medial prefrontal cortex responses to failure. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012;7:115–24. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq090.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang J, Iannotti RJ, Nansel TR. School bullying amoung US adolescents: physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:368–75. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.School.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Peake SJ, Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA, Moore WE, Pfeifer JH. Risk-taking and social exclusion in adolescence: neural mechanisms underlying peer influences on decision-making. NeuroImage. 2013;82:23–34. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. • Falk EB, Cascio CN, O’Donnell MB, Carp J, Tinney FJ, Bingham CR, et al. Neural responses to exclusion predict susceptibility to social influence. J Adolesc Heal. 2014(54):S22–31. doi:10.1021/nl061786n.Core-Shell. This empirical paper indicates that adolescent risk-taking may occur due to neurobiological susceptibility to social exclusion.

  43. • Telzer EH, Miernicki ME, Rudolph KD. Chronic peer victimization heightens neural sensitivity to risk taking. Dev Psychopathol 2017:1–14. Doi: 10.1017/S0954579417000438. This empirical paper identifies neural mechanisms through which chronic peer victimization predicts anti-social behavior during adolescence, including regions associated with affective processing, executive control, and social cognition.

  44. • Telzer EH, Fuligni AJ, Lieberman MD, Miernicki ME, Galván A. The quality of adolescents’ peer relationships modulates neural sensitivity to risk taking. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015;10:389–98. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu064. This empirical paper indicates that hostile peer relationships are associated high risk-taking, both behaviorally and neurobiologically. However, perceptions of peer support can buffer the link between hostile peer relationships and risk-taking.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. • Cascio CN, Carp J, O’Donnell MB, Tinney FJ, Bingham CR, Shope JT, et al. Buffering social influence: neural correlates of response inhibition predict driving safety in the presence of a peer. J Cogn Neurosci. 2015;26:194–8. doi:10.1162/jocn. This empirical paper found that neural correlates of cognitive control predict safer decisions during a driving task in the presence of a “safe” peer.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Guyer AE, Choate VR, Pine DS, Nelson EE. Neural circuitry underlying affective response to peer feedback in adolescence. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012;7:81–92. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. • Braams BR, Crone EA. Peers and parents: a comparison between neural activation when winning for friends and mothers in adolescence. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016;12:417–26. doi:10.1093/scan/nsw035. This empirical paper identifies age and sex differences in neural reward processing when winning money for others. Developmental patterns of activation during reward processing differed when winning for peers versus parents.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Lam CB, McHale SM, Crouter AC. Parent-child shared time from middle childhood to late adolescence: developmental course and adjustment correlates. Child Dev. 2012;83:2089–103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01826.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Telzer EH, Gonzales N, Fuligni AJ. Family obligation values and family assistance behaviors: protective and risk factors for Mexican-American adolescents’ substance use. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;43:270–83. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9941-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. • Qu Y, Fuligni AJ, Galvan A, Telzer EH. Buffering effect of positive parent–child relationships on adolescent risk taking: a longitudinal neuroimaging investigation. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015;15:26–34. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.08.005. This empirical paper provides evidence that increases in positive parent-child relationship quality during adolescence predicts less risk-taking via decreases in neural reward processing during risk-taking.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. • Samek DR, Rueter MA, Keyes MA, Mcgue M, Iacono WG. Parent involvement, sibling companionship, and adolescent substance use: a longitudinal, genetically informed design. J Fam Psychol. 2015;29:614–23. doi:10.1037/fam0000097. This empirical paper identifies parental involvement and sibling companionship as salient predictors of substance use across adolescence.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Fuligni AJ, Telzer EH. Another way family can get in the head and under the skin: the neurobiology of helping the family. Child Dev Perspect. 2013;7:138–42. doi:10.1111/cdep.12029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Telzer EH, Fuligni AJ, Lieberman MD, Galvan A. Meaningful family relationships: neurocognitive buffers of adolescent risk taking. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013;25:374–87. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. • Telzer EH, Ichien NT, Qu Y. Mothers know best: redirecting adolescent reward sensitivity toward safe behavior during risk taking. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015;10:1383–91. doi:10.1093/scan/nsv026. This empirical paper provides evidence that parental presence has the potential to reorient adolescent neural circuitry toward more controlled and safe decision-making. This contributes to the growing notion that parental influence continues to contribute toward decisions to take risks during adolescence.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. • Guassi Moreira JF, Telzer EH. Mother still knows best: Maternal influence uniquely modulates adolescent reward sensitivity during risk taking. Dev Sci 2016:1–11. Doi: 10.1111/desc.12484. This empirical paper identifies mothers as a unique influence on adolescent risk-taking compared to other adults. Specifically, mother presence elicits reward-processing in the brain when adolescents make safe decisions.

  56. Repetti RL, Taylor SE, Seeman TE. Risky families: family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychol Bull. 2002;128:330–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Steinberg L, Lamborn SD, Darling N, Mounts NS, Dornbusch M, Dornbusch SM. Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Dev. 1994;65:754–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. • McCormick EM, Qu Y, Telzer EH. Adolescent neurodevelopment of cognitive control and risk-taking in negative family contexts. NeuroImage. 2016;124:989–96. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.063. This empirical paper indicates that negative family experiences can contribute to greater levels of risk-taking during adolescence via cognitive control processing in the brain.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. • Qu Y, Fuligni AJ, Galvan A, Lieberman MD, Telzer EH. Links between parental depression and longitudinal changes in youths’ neural sensitivity to rewards. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016;11:1262–71. doi:10.1093/scan/nsw035. This empirical paper shows that parental depression contributes to elevated reward processing in the brain, which, in turn is associated with greater risk taking during adolescence.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. • Casement MD, Shaw DS, Sitnick SL, Musselman SC, Forbes EE. Life stress in adolescence predicts early adult reward-related brain function and alcohol dependence. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015;10:416–23. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu061. This empirical paper identifies compounded family life stress as a salient predictor of adolescent alcohol dependence through reward-processing in the brain.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. • Welborn BL, Lieberman MD, Goldenberg D, Fuligni AJ, Galván A, Telser EH. Neural mechanisms of social influence in adolescence. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015;11:100–9. doi:10.1093/scan/nsv095. This empirical study is the only neuroimaging study to date that examines peer and family influence simultaneously. Adolescents aligned their attitudes with both parents and peers, with parent influence being greater than that of peers. Further, both peer and parental influence elicited activation in brain regions associated with reward processing, executive control, and social cognition.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Chassin L, Presson CC, Sherman SJ, Corty E, Olshavsky RW. Predicting the onset of cigarette smoking in adolescents: a longitudinal study. Journal of App Soc Psychol. 1984;1984(14):224–43. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1984.tb02233.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kim MJ, Fleming CB, Catalano RF. Individual and social influences on progression to daily smoking during adolescence. Pediatrics. 2009;124:895–902. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Flannery DJ, Williams LL, Vazsonyi AT. Who are they with and what are they doing? Delinquent behavior, substance use, and early adolescents’ after-school time. American J Orthopsychiatry. 1999;69:247–53. doi:10.1037/h0080426.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Nash SG, McQueen A, Bray JH. Pathways to adolescent alcohol use: family environment, peer influence, and parental expectations. J Adolesc Health. 2005;37:19–28. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.06.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Coombs RH, Paulson MJ, Richardson MA. Peer vs. parental influence in substance use among Hispanic and Anglo children and adolescents. J Youth Adolescence. 1991;20:73–88. doi:10.1007/BF01537352.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hirschi T, Stark R. Hellfire and delinquency. Soc Probl. 1969;17:202–13. doi:10.2307/799866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Glynn TJ. Psychological sense of community: measurement and application. Human Rel. 1981;34:789–818. doi:10.1177/001872678103400904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01DA039923) and the National Science Foundation (SES 1459719).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 235 East Cameron Ave, Chapel Hill, NC, 27510, USA

    Eva H. Telzer, Christina R. Rogers & Jorien Van Hoorn

Authors
  1. Eva H. Telzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina R. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jorien Van Hoorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva H. Telzer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Eva H. Telzer, Christina R. Rogers, and Jorien Van Hoorn declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Adolescent/Young Adult Addiction

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Telzer, E.H., Rogers, C.R. & Van Hoorn, J. Neural Correlates of Social Influence on Risk Taking and Substance Use in Adolescents. Curr Addict Rep 4, 333–341 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-017-0164-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-017-0164-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation