Age differences in the prosocial influence effect

Foulkes, Lucy; Leung, Jovita Tung; Fuhrmann, Delia; Knoll, Lisa; Blakemore, Sarah‐Jayne

doi:10.1111/desc.12666

Cited by 105 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, parental encouragement of helping behaviours and empathy in children may have a similarly protective effect on related psychosocial difficulties. In general population samples, children are highly succeptible to peer influence with regards to prosocial behaviour (Foulkes et al, 2018) and school based interventions are effective at increasing the levels of prosocial behaviour (Durlak et al, 2011). What is less clear is the extent to which these effects are also observed in children with DLD and thus should be the focus of future research in this area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trajectories of prosociality from early to middle childhood in children at risk of Developmental Language Disorder

Toseeb

Clair

2020

Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Longitudinal research into the development of prosociality during childhood contributes to our understanding of individual differences in social and emotional outcomes. There is a dearth of literature on the development of prosociality in children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). Data from the UK based Millennium Cohort Study was used to investigate prosociality from age 5 to 11 years in 738 children at risk of Developmental Language Disorder (r-DLD) and 12,972 children in a general population (GP) comparison group. Multilevel mixed effects regression models were run to investigate the mean change in prosociality and latent class growth analysis was used to identify heterogeneous groups of children who shared similar patterns of development. Overall, children at risk of DLD were less prosocial at age 5 and, although they did become more prosocial by the age of 11, they did not reach the same levels of prosociality as those in the GP group. Subsequent sub group analysis revealed four distinct developmental trajectories: stable high (19 %), stable slightly low (36 %), decreasing to slightly low (5 %), and increasing to high (40 %). Children at risk of DLD were less likely than those in the GP group to be in the stable high class and more likely to be in the stable slightly low class. For children at risk of DLD, being prosocial was protective against concurrent social and emotional difficulties. But being prosocial in early childhood was not protective against later social and emotional difficulties nor did the absence of prosociality in early childhood make social and emotional difficulties in middle childhood inevitable. Rather, the presence of prosociality in middle childhood was the key protective factor, regardless of prosociality in early childhood. Prosociality is not a key area of concern for children at risk of DLD. Instead, it is an area of relative strength, which can be nurtured to mitigate social and emotional difficulties in children at risk of DLD, particularly in middle childhood. 1. Developmental Language Disorder Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) affects approximately 5-7 % of children (Norbury et al., 2016; Tomblin et al., 1997). It is a neurodevelopmental disorder which is characterised by difficulties in using and/or understanding oral language in the absence of any other neurodevelopment disorder or substantial hearing loss (Bishop et al., 2016). Although DLD is defined by persistent difficulties with oral language, relative to other children the same age, children with DLD often experience difficulties in other areas of

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trajectories of prosociality from early to middle childhood in children at risk of Developmental Language Disorder

Toseeb

Clair

2020

Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While it is clear that peers take on newfound significance during adolescence and that this shift has the potential to increase risk behaviors, an important body of work is beginning to reveal important caveats to this thesis. First, peer influence is also a powerful motivator for prosocial behavior during adolescence (Foulkes et al., ; van Hoorn et al., ). Relatedly, while neural reward circuits are linked to a variety of risk behaviors during adolescence, VS and vmPFC reactivity to social cues also portend positive , prosocial development (Pfeifer et al., ; Telzer et al., ).…”

Section: The Nature Of the Adolescent Brain: Characteristic Features mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A relevant point in this examination is that while a handful of emerging studies are beginning to include prosocial, resilience‐focused models of adolescent behavior (Cousijn et al., ; Ellis et al., ; Feldstein Ewing et al., ; Foulkes et al., ; Yeager et al., ), a careful synthesis of these models has not yet been created. This is a critical avenue for future work and will likely require not only examination of quantitative, but also mixed‐method, and qualitative research, as much of this emerging research is still in its inception, and early stages of implementation.…”

Section: Promising Future Directions For Substance Use Treatment In Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hunting for What Works: Adolescents in Addiction Treatment

Silvers

Squeglia

Thomsen³

et al. 2019

Alcoholism Clin & Exp Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although adolescents are developmentally distinct from adults, they often receive addiction treatment based on adult models. This is problematic because adolescents face significantly different conditions in addiction treatment, including distinct basic biological and neurodevelopmental stages, unique sociodevelopmental concerns, distinctive addiction trajectories, and, in turn, disparate treatment goals and outcomes. In sum, it can be difficult for even savvy clinicians to know how to approach addiction treatment with this important age group. In an effort to help clinicians and researchers consider substance use via a neurodevelopmental lens, we approached this review with 4 goals: (i) characterize the prevalence, and related health and safety implications of substance use within this age group; (ii) identify the nature of the adolescent brain, including characteristic features of this phase of neurodevelopment relevant to adolescent substance use treatment; (iii) provide an overview of current adolescent addiction interventions and avenues to improve clinical treatment and clinical research efforts for adolescents; and (iv) examine the intersection between the nature of the developing brain and adolescent substance use, and utilize that information to inform alternative routes and directions for substance use treatment in this critical age group. This review concludes by offering a novel neurodevelopmental model and framework to examine substance use interventions, along with a series of recommendations to optimize adolescent substance use treatment and clinical research.

show abstract

“…Adolescence is a period during which social interactions, especially with peers, become increasingly important [17,20,23,33]. Pragmatic competence, defined as the appropriate use of language in social situations, is crucial for successful social interactions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatic Language Processing in the Adolescent Brain

Asaridou

Demir-Lira

Uddén

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adolescence is a developmental period in which social interactions become increasingly important. Successful social interactions rely heavily on pragmatic competence, the appropriate use of language in different social contexts, a skill that is still developing in adolescence. In the present study, we used fMRI to characterize the brain networks underlying pragmatic language processing in typically developing adolescents. We used an indirect speech paradigm whereby participants were presented with question/answer dialogues in which the meaning of the answer had to be inferred from the context, in this case the preceding question. Participants were presented with three types of answers:(1) direct replies, i.e., simple answers to open-ended questions, (2) indirect informative replies, i.e., answers in which the speaker's intention was to add more information to a yes/no question, and (3) indirect affective replies, i.e., answers in which the speaker's intention was to express polite refusals, negative opinions or to save face in response to an emotionally charged question. We found that indirect affective replies elicited the strongest response in brain areas associated with language comprehension (superior temporal gyri), theory of mind (medial prefrontal cortex, temporo-parietal junction, and precuneus), and attention/working memory (inferior frontal gyri). The increased activation to indirect affective as opposed to indirect informative and direct replies potentially reflects the high salience of opinions and perspectives of others in adolescence. Our results add to previous findings on socio-cognitive processing in adolescents and extend them to pragmatic language comprehension.

show abstract

Age differences in the prosocial influence effect

Cited by 105 publications

References 42 publications

Trajectories of prosociality from early to middle childhood in children at risk of Developmental Language Disorder

Trajectories of prosociality from early to middle childhood in children at risk of Developmental Language Disorder

Hunting for What Works: Adolescents in Addiction Treatment

Pragmatic Language Processing in the Adolescent Brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About