Neural correlates of sibling closeness and association with externalizing behavior in adolescence

Abstract

Sibling relationships have been linked to adolescent externalizing behaviors, but the neurobiological factors that underlie this association have not been identified. This study investigated sibling closeness and birth order as a predictor of adolescent externalizing behavior via differences in neural processes during safe decision-making. A total of 77 adolescents (range = 12–15 years, Mage = 13.45 years, 40 females) completed a computerized driving task during a functional MRI scan. Results showed that adolescents’ perceptions of sibling closeness were associated with greater neural activation in the anterior insula, ventral striatum and left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex when making safe decisions, suggesting that the quality of sibling relationships modulates adolescent neurocognition even without being present. Furthermore, moderated mediation analyses revealed that higher sibling closeness was associated with lower externalizing behavior via left anterior insula activation during safe decision-making, but only for adolescents without older siblings (i.e. eldest children) compared to adolescents who had multiple older siblings. Importantly, these findings persisted above and beyond parental and peer closeness and sibling characteristics (i.e. sex, relatedness, birth order), highlighting the significant influence of sibling relationships on adolescent externalizing behavior through the brain.

Where You Lead, I Will Follow: Exploring Sibling Similarity in Brain and Behavior During Risky Decision Making

“…While many theories have been proposed to describe neurobiological sensitivity to social context (Schriber & Guyer, 2016), no empirical study to date has implemented fMRI to identify changes in the brain as a result of social learning from salient social models during risk taking, despite the evidence suggesting the pivotal role social learning plays in adolescent decision making (see Telzer, van Hoorn, Rogers, & Do, 2018). Nonetheless, emerging research has begun to highlight how peers (Chein et al, 2011; Telzer, Ichien, & Qu, 2015; Telzer, Miernicki, et al, 2018; van Hoorn, McCormick, Rogers, Ivory, & Telzer, 2018; Vorobyev et al, 2015), parents (Guassi Moreira & Telzer, 2018; Qu et al, 2016, 2015; Telzer, Ichien, et al, 2015; Telzer, Fuligni, et al, 2015; van Hoorn et al, 2018), and even siblings (Rogers, McCormick, van Hoorn, Ivory, & Telzer, 2018) influence adolescent neurodevelopment and risk taking (for a meta‐analysis, see van Hoorn, Shablack, Lindquist, & Telzer, 2019). These studies highlight a set of neural candidates to examine as promising indices of adolescent susceptibility to social influence.…”

Challenging stereotypes of teens: Reframing adolescence as window of opportunity.

“…Sibling influence occurs above and beyond the effects of early child aggression, maternal mental health, marital status, family violence, parental criminality, and family income, suggesting that similarity in siblings’ risk-taking cannot be fully explained by shared experiences or genetics but is attributed to the sibling relationship itself (Slomkowski et al, 2005). Indeed, we found that adolescents’ perceptions of sibling closeness are associated with lower externalizing behavior via heightened AI activation when making safe decisions, an effect that persists above and beyond parental and peer closeness, highlighting the significant protective role of sibling relationships on adolescent externalizing behavior through the brain (Rogers et al, 2018). Interestingly, older siblings’ behavior influences adolescents’ decisions to engage in, or abstain from, risk taking, particularly among younger siblings who report they model their older sibling, and this is represented in the brain via shared neural patterns between younger and older siblings during risky decision-making in the VS, AI, and vmPFC (Rogers et al, 2021).…”

Differential effects of parent and peer presence on neural correlates of risk taking in adolescence

“…Participants played the YLG in the MRI scanner while alone, in presence of a peer and in the presence of a parent. In the current paper, we focused on the Peer presence and Parental presence conditions, because comparisons with an alone condition have been described in previous work (peer > alone, Chein et al ., 2011 ; parent > alone, Telzer et al ., 2015 ), and the alone condition is part of a separate manuscript focused on individual differences (Rogers et al ., 2018 ). Participants completed two runs for each social context condition, which were counterbalanced across participants.…”