Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 30:16:790478.
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2022.790478. eCollection 2022.

Brain Responses to Peer Feedback in Social Media Are Modulated by Valence in Late Adolescence

Patrik Wikman  1   2 , Mona Moisala  1   2 , Artturi Ylinen  1 , Jallu Lindblom  3   4 , Sointu Leikas  5 , Katariina Salmela-Aro  6   7 , Kirsti Lonka  6   8 , Berna Güroğlu  9 , Kimmo Alho  1   2
Affiliations

Brain Responses to Peer Feedback in Social Media Are Modulated by Valence in Late Adolescence

Patrik Wikman et al. Front Behav Neurosci. .

Abstract

Previous studies have examined the neural correlates of receiving negative feedback from peers during virtual social interaction in young people. However, there is a lack of studies applying platforms adolescents use in daily life. In the present study, 92 late-adolescent participants performed a task that involved receiving positive and negative feedback to their opinions from peers in a Facebook-like platform, while brain activity was measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Peer feedback was shown to activate clusters in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC), medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), superior temporal gyrus and sulcus (STG/STS), and occipital cortex (OC). Negative feedback was related to greater activity in the VLPFC, MPFC, and anterior insula than positive feedback, replicating previous findings on peer feedback and social rejection. Real-life habits of social media use did not correlate with brain responses to negative feedback.

Keywords: brain; fMRI; feedback; late adolescence; peers; social media.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
An example screenshot (translated from Finnish to English for descriptive purposes) of the mock Facebook environment used in the study. The response of the participants to a controversial statement is presented as a “post” in a generic Facebook group. The post is followed by four comments from perceived peers. In this example, the participant has responded with “agree” to a controversial statement and has received negative peer feedback to their “post” from peers.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
A schematic illustration (translated from Finnish to English) of the procedure of the study. In the sequence of an example trial, where the participants are presented with a controversial statement, they respond with “agree,” and then receive negative peer feedback from peers.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Brain responses to emotionally valenced vs. neutral stimuli. (A) Brain regions showing significantly stronger activity in response to viewing controversial (valenced) statements than to viewing neutral statements. (B) Brain regions showing on average significantly stronger activity in response to positive or negative peer feedback (i.e., valenced feedback) than to neutral feedback. Voxel-level family-wise error corrected p < 0.05, cluster size > 100 voxels for both.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Brain responses to negative vs. positive peer feedback. Brain regions showing significantly higher activity in response to negative than positive peer feedback (yellow areas), and vice versa (red areas). Cluster-level family-wise error corrected p < 0.05, cluster size > 100 voxels.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Achterberg M., van Duijvenvoorde A. C., Bakermans-Kranenburg M. J., Crone E. A. (2016). Control your anger! The neural basis of aggression regulation in response to negative social feedback. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 11 712–720. 10.1093/scan/nsv154 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adolphs R. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4 165–178. 10.1038/nrn1056 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alho K., Vorobyev V. A., Medvedev S. V., Pakhomov S. V., Starchenko M. G., Tervaniemi M., et al. (2016). Selective attention to human voice enhances brain activity bilaterally in the superior temporal sulcus. Brain Res. 1075 142–150. 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.103 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Amodio D. M., Frith C. D. (2006). Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7 268–277. 10.1038/nrn1884 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anderson M., Jingjing J. (2018). Teens, Social Media and Technology 2018 (Pew Research Center). Available online at: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/05/311026... (accessed March 23, 2020).

LinkOut - more resources