REVIEW ARTICLE

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x OPEN

Media use and brain development during

adolescence
Eveline A. Crone1 & Elly A. Konijn2

The current generation of adolescents grows up in a media-saturated world. However, it is

unclear how media influences the maturational trajectories of brain regions involved in social
interactions. Here we review the neural development in adolescence and show how neu-
1234567890():,;

roscience can provide a deeper understanding of developmental sensitivities related to

adolescents’ media use. We argue that adolescents are highly sensitive to acceptance and
rejection through social media, and that their heightened emotional sensitivity and protracted
development of reflective processing and cognitive control may make them specifically
reactive to emotion-arousing media. This review illustrates how neuroscience may help
understand the mutual influence of media and peers on adolescents’ well-being and opinion
formation.

M
edia play a tremendously important role in the lives of today’s youth, who grow up
with tablets and smartphones, and do not remember a time before the internet, and are
hence called ‘digital natives’1,2. The current generation of the adolescents lives in a
media-saturated world, where media is used not only for entertainment purposes, such as
listening to music or watching movies, but is also used increasingly for communicating with
peers via WhatsApp, Instagram, SnapChat, Facebook, etc. Taken together, these media-related
activities comprise roughly 6–9 h of an American youth’s day, excluding home- and schoolwork
(https://www.commonsensemedia.org/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-
teens-infographic)3,4. Social media enable people to share information, ideas or opinions,
messages, images and videos. Today, all kinds of media formats are constantly available through
portable mobile devices such as smartphones and have become an integrated part of adolescents’
social life5.
Adolescence, which is defined as the transition period between childhood and adulthood
(approximately ages 10–22 years, although age bins differ between cultures), is a developmental
stage in which parental influence decreases and peers become more important6. Being accepted
or rejected by peers is highly salient in adolescence, also there is a strong need to fit into the peer
group and they are highly influenced by their peers7. Therefore, it is imperative that we
understand how adolescents process media content and peers’ feedback provided on such
platforms. Adolescents’ social lives in particular seem to occur for a large part through smart-
phones that are filled with friends with whom they are constantly connected (cf. “A day not
wired is a day not lived”5,8). This is where they monitor their peer status, check peers’ feedback,
rejection and acceptance messages, and encounter peers as (idealized) images9 on screens5,8,10.
Likely, this plays an important role in adolescent development, and we therefore focus primarily
on adolescents’ social media use11. Most media research to date is based on correlational and
self-report data, and would be strengthened by integrating experimental paradigms and more

1 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333AK Leiden, Netherlands. 2 Department of

Communication Science, Media Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands. Correspondence and
requests for materials should be addressed to E.A.C. (email: [email protected])

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1

REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x

Fig. 1 Longitudinal changes in brain structure across adolescence (ages 8–30). a Consistent patterns of change across four independent longitudinal
samples (391 participants, 852 scans), with increases in cerebral white matter volume and decreases in cortical grey matter volume (adapted from Mills
et al., 2016, NeuroImage105). b Of the two main components of cortical volume, surface area and thickness, thinning across ages 8 to 25 years is the main
contributor to volume reduction across adolescence, here displayed in the Braintime sample (209 participants, 418 scans). Displayed are regional
differences in annual percentage change (APC) across the whole brain, the more the color changes in the direction of green to blue, the larger the annual
decrease in volume (adapted from Tamnes et al., 2017, J Neuroscience15)

objectively assessed behavioral, emotional, and neural con- Given that brain regions involved in many social aspects of life
sequences of experimentally induced media use. are undergoing such extensive changes during adolescence, it is
Recently, cognitive neuroscience studies have used structural likely that social influences—which also occur through the use of
and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine social media as the internet connects adolescents to many people
how the adolescent brain changes over the course of the adoles- at once—are particularly potent at this age in coalescence with
cent years6. The results of several studies demonstrate that cog- their media use. Also, subcortical brain regions undergo pro-
nitive and socio-affective development in adolescence is nounced changes during adolescence17. There is evidence that the
accompanied by extensive changes in the structure and function density of grey matter volume in the amygdala, a structure
of the adolescent brain6. Structurally, white matter connections associated with emotional processing, is related to larger offline
increase, allowing for more successful communication between social networks18, as well as larger online social networks19,20.
different areas of the brain12. The maturation of these connec- This suggests an important interplay between actual social
tions is related to behavioral control, for example, connections experiences, both offline and online, and brain development.
between the prefrontal cortex and the subcortical striatum med- This review brings together research on media use among
iate age-related improvements in the ability to wait for a adolescents with neural development during adolescence. We will
reward13. In addition to these changes in white matter connec- specifically focus on the following three aspects of media exposure
tions, neurons in the brain grow in number between conception of interest to adolescent development21: (1) social acceptance or
and childhood, with greatest synaptic density in early childhood. rejection, (2) peer influence on self-image and self-perception,
This increase in synaptic density co-occurs with synaptic pruning, and (3) the role of emotions in media use. Finally, we discuss new
and pruning rates increase in adolescence, resulting in a decrease perspectives on how the interplay between media exposure
in synaptic density in late childhood and adolescence14. Structural and sensitive periods in brain development may make some
MRI research revealed that the peak in grey matter volume individuals more susceptible to the consequences of media use
probably occurs before the age of 10 years, but dynamic non- than others.
linear changes in grey matter volume continue over the whole
period of adolescence, and the timing is region-specific15. Inter-
estingly, changes in grey matter volume are observed most Being accepted or rejected online
extensively in brain regions that are important for social under- Experiencing acceptance or rejection when communicating via
standing and communication such as the medial prefrontal cor- digital media is an impactful social experience. Extensive
tex, superior temporal cortex and temporal parietal junction16. research, including large meta-analyses, has demonstrated that
Figure 1 displays the extensive changes in the human cortex social rejection in a computerized environment can be experi-
during adolescence. enced similarly as face-to-face rejection and bullying, although

2 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x REVIEW ARTICLE

the prevalence of cyberbullying is generally lower22,23 (and stu- maltreated30, or insecure attachment, whereas spending more time
dies vary widely: prevalence rates depend on how cyberbullying is with friends reduced ACC response in adolescents to social
defined and measured). In all, cyberbullying peaks during ado- exclusion31. This may possibly protect adolescents against the
lescence24 and large overlap has been found between victims and negative influence of ostracism or cyberbullying, although all these
bullies. In part, this overlap could be explained by victimized studies are correlational. Therefore, it remains to be determined
adolescents seeking exposure to antisocial and risk behavior whether environment influences brain development or vice versa.
media content25. The next subsections will describe recent dis- Moreover, ACC and insula activity have also been explained as
coveries in neuroscience on the neural responses to online signaling a highly significant event because the same regions are
rejection and acceptance. also active when participants experience inclusion32. Furthermore,
studies with adolescents observed specific activity in the ventral
Neural responses to online social rejection. The emotional and striatum33, and in the subgenual ACC when adolescents were
neural effects of being socially excluded have been well captured excluded in the online Cyberball computer game34,35, the latter
by research involving the Cyberball Paradigm26 (https://cyberball. region is often implicated in depression36. Thus, being rejected
wikispaces.com/). Cyberball is a virtual ball-toss game in which was associated with activity in brain regions that are also activated
the study participant tosses a ball with two simulated players (so- when experiencing salient emotions37,38. These studies may
called confederates) via a screen. After a round of fair play, the indicate a specific window of sensitivity to social rejection in
confederates, who only throw the ball to each other, exclude the adolescence, which may be associated with the enhanced activity
participant in the rejection condition. This results in pronounced of striatum and subgenual ACC in adolescence33,36.
negative effects on the participants’ feeling to belong, ostracism, Social rejection has also been studied using task paradigms that
sense of control, and self-esteem26. Even though the paradigm mirror online communication more specifically. In the social
was not designed to study online rejection as it occurs today on judgment paradigm, participants enter a chat room, where others
social media, the findings of prior Cyberball studies may provide can judge their profile pictures based on first impression39. This
an important starting point for understanding the processes can result in being rejected or accepted by others in a way that is
involved in online rejection. In fact, inspired by Cyberball, a directly comparable to social media environments where
Social Media Ostracism paradigm has recently been developed by individuals connect based on first impression (for example,’liking’
applying a Facebook format to study the effects of online social on Instagram). A developmental behavioral study (participants
exclusion27. between 10 and 23 years) showed that young adults expected to
Using functional MRI (fMRI), researchers have observed be accepted more than adolescents. Moreover, these adults,
increased activity in the orbitofrontal cortex and insula after relative to adolescents, adjusted their evaluations of others more
participants experienced exclusion, possibly signaling increased based on whether others accepted or rejected them, possibly
arousal and negative affect28. In addition, stronger activity in the indicating self-protecting biases40 (Fig. 2). Neuroimaging studies
dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is observed in adolescents revealed that, being rejected based only on one’s profile pictures
and young adults with a history of being socially excluded29, resulted in increased activity in the medial frontal cortex, in both

Fig. 2 Adolescents’ expectations and adjustments of being liked and liking others. Social evaluation study in which participants between ages 10 and 23
years rated other peers on whether they liked the other person, whether they believed the other would like them, and a post scan rating of liking the other
person after having received acceptance or rejection feedback from the other person. The faces used in this adaptation of figure are cartoon
approximations of the original stimuli used in ref. 40; to see the original stimuli, please refer to ref. 40. The left graph shows that adolescents expect least to
be liked by the other before receiving feedback (question B). The right graph shows a developmental increase in distinguishing between liking and disliking
based on feedback from the other person (question D). (Adapted with permission from Rodman, 2017, PNAS40)

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 3

REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x

Fig. 3 Longitudinal neural developmental pattern of reward activity in adolescence. Longitudinal two-wave neural developmental pattern of nucleus
accumbens activation during winning vs. losing, based on 249, and 238 participants who were included on the first and second time point, respectively
(leading to 487 included brain scans in total). A quadratic pattern of brain activity was observed in the nucleus accumbens for the contrast winning > losing
money in a gambling task, with highest reward activity in mid-adolescence. (Adapted with permission from Braams et al.55)

adults41 and children42, and studies in adolescents showed Box 1 | Multiple perspectives on adolescent risk-taking
enhanced pupil dilation, a response to greater cognitive load
and emotional intensity, to rejection43.
Adolescence is often defined as a period of increased risk taking and
Taken together, these studies suggest that adolescents show sensation-seeking, this is observed across cultures101 and across
stronger rejection expectation than adults, and subgenual ACC species102. However, the way risk-taking is expressed differs across
and medial frontal cortex are critically involved when processing generations. In middle ages, risk-taking in adolescence took place
online exclusion or rejection. In the next section, we describe how through reckless fights and wars. In contrast, in the late 20th century
the brain of adolescents and adults respond to receiving positive and early 21st century, adolescents were more prone towards risk-taking
feedback and likes from others. in context of alcohol, sex, and drug experimentation103. Recently,
through social media, new forms of risk-taking are expressed, such as
excessive or unlimited self-disclosure or sexting104. These observations
suggest that social media may be the new way in which sensation-
Neural responses to online social acceptance. The positive
seeking behavior is expressed, which is possibly an adolescent-specific
feeling of social acceptance online is endorsed through the receipt tendency to explore and learn to adapt to new social environments.
of likes, one’s cool ratio (i.e., followers > following; Business
Insider, 11 June 2014: http://www.businessinsider.com/
instagram-cool-ratio-2014–6?international=true&r=US&IR=T.)
or popularity, positive comments and hashtags, among other Interestingly, several studies and meta-analyses using gambling
forms of reward44,45. Neuropsychological research showed that and reward paradigms have reported that activity in the ventral
being accepted evokes activation in similar brain regions, as when striatum to monetary rewards peaks in mid-adolescence53–55
receiving other rewards such as money or pleasant tastes38. Most (Fig. 3; see Box 1 for views on adolescent risk taking in various
pronounced activity was found in the ventral striatum, together contexts). These findings may suggest general reward sensitivity
with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and ventral tegmental in adolescence such that reward centers that respond to monetary
area, which is consistently reported as a key region in the brain reward may also show increased sensitivity to social reward in
for the subjective experience of pleasure and reward46, including adolescence. Social reward sensitivity may be a strong reinforcer
social rewards47. Likewise, being socially accepted through likes in in social media use. A prior study in adults showed that activity in
the chat room task resulted in increased activity in the ventral the ventral striatum in response to an increase in one’s
striatum in children42, adolescents48,49 and adults41,50. This reputation, but not wealth, predicted frequency of Facebook
response is blunted in adolescents who experience depression36, use56. In a similar vein, adolescents showed sensitivity to “likes” of
or who have experienced a history of maternal negative affect51. peers on social media44,57. In a controlled experimental study,
Apparently, prior social experiences—such as parental relations adolescents showed more activity in the ventral striatum when
—are an important factor for understanding which adolescents viewing images with many vs. few likes, and this activation was
are more sensitive to the impact of social media51. In this regard, stronger for older adolescents and college students compared to
media research showed that popularity moderates depression10 younger adolescents57. Thus, the same region that is active when
and that attachment styles and loneliness increases the likelihood being liked on the basis of first impression of a profile picture48, is
to seek socio-affective bonding with media figures52. also activated when viewing images that are liked by others,

4 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x REVIEW ARTICLE

b c

Fig. 4 The Body Image Paradigm to study combined media and peer influence. This paradigm is designed for experiments to study the influence of peers on
body image perception. a Participants are presented with a bikini model, and they can make a judgment whether the model is too thin or of normal weight.
Their response appears on the left side of the model. Then, they are presented with ostensible peer feedback (the peer norm). b When this feedback
deviates from their own judgment, this is associated with increased activity in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and bilateral insula, regions often
implicated in processing norm violations. c Responses are larger for participants with lower self-esteem (Adapted from Van der Meulen et al.66)

especially in mid-to-late adolescence, possibly extending into ratings again, and the researchers analyzed whether behavior
adulthood57 (see also ref. 58 for similar findings on music changed in the direction of the peer feedback. Indeed, both adults
preference). These findings suggest that heightened reward and adolescents adjusted their behavior towards the group
sensitivity in mid-adolescence that was previously observed for norm58,64, demonstrating general sensitivity to peer influence.
monetary rewards53 may also be present for social rewards such Furthermore, when receiving peer feedback that did not match
as likes on Instagram. However, further research is needed to their own initial rating, participants showed enhanced activity in
examine whether this is a specific sensitivity in early, mid or late the ACC and insula, two regions involved in detecting norm
adolescence, or perhaps this social reward sensitivity emerges in violations58,65. More specifically, increased ACC activity was
adolescence and remains in adulthood. associated with more adjustment to fit peer feedback norms in
adolescents58.
Online peer influence Peer feedback effects are not only found for how individuals
In addition to adolescents’ sensitivity to the feeling of belonging rate products, but also can strongly influence how they view
to the peer group59, the peer group also has a strong influence on themselves. Girls are especially sensitive to pressure for media’s
opinions and decision-making60. Peers can exert a strong influ- thin-body ideal, and peer feedback supporting this ideal is
ence on adolescents through user-generated content on social associated with more body dissatisfaction62,63. We recently
media5,61. Co-viewing, sharing, and discussing media content showed that norm-deviating feedback on ideal body images
with peers is common practice among adolescents in line with resulted in activity in the ACC-insula network in young females
their developmental stage in which peers become more important (18–19-years), which was stronger for females with lower self-
than others. For example, adolescent girls often share pictures esteem66 (Fig. 4). Interestingly, the girls also adjusted their ratings
and comment on the “ideal” degree of slimness of the models they on what they believed was a normal or too-thin looking body in
see via media when deciding how a ‘normal’ body should actually the direction of the group norm. Together, these findings suggest
look62,63. Several recent neuroimaging studies, summarized that peer feedback through social media can influence the way
below, have examined how the adolescent brain responds to peer adolescents look at themselves and others.
comments about others and self, and subsequent behavioral Neural responses to prosocial peer feedback. Interestingly,
adjustments and opinion changes. Even though not all of these however, we also found that peer feedback can influence social
designs were specific for online environments, the findings pro- behavior in a prosocial direction, for example, by having peers
vide important starting points for understanding how adolescents positively evaluate prosocial behavior that benefits the group.
are influenced by peer feedback in an online environment. Neuroimaging studies of social cognition have demonstrated that
thinking about other peoples’ intentions or feelings is associated
Neural responses to online peer feedback. Neuroimaging studies with activity in a network of regions, including medial prefrontal
in adolescents showed that peer feedback indeed influences cortex, the superior temporal sulcus and the temporal parietal
adolescents’ behavior. Neural correlates may provide more insight junction, also referred to as the social brain network67. In an
in the specific parts of the feedback that drives these behavioral online peer influence study, adolescents could donate money to
sensitivities64. One way this is demonstrated is by having indi- the group, which would benefit not only themselves but also
viduals rate certain products such as music preference or facial others. Prior to the study, the participants met the other parti-
attractiveness. After their initial rating, participants received cipants (confederate peers) that were not part of the group that
feedback from others, which was either congruent or incongruent was dividing the money. These peers, however, gave online
with their initial rating. Afterwards, individuals made their feedback through likes on the participants’ choices. More likes

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 5

REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x

were given when participants donated more to the group. This better at regulating these emotions than others. Adolescents who
feedback was followed by higher donations68, and was associated regulate these emotions better show stronger activity in DLPFC, a
with enhanced activation in the social brain network, such as the region known to be involved in self-control41,75.
medial frontal cortex, temporal parietal junction and superior Applying adaptive emotion regulation strategies (e.g., putting
temporal sulcus69. Notably, the change in social brain activity in into perspective, refocusing, reappraisal) possibly requires
the peer feedback condition was more pronounced for younger enhanced demands on DLPFC78. Possibly, the late maturation
adolescents (ages 12–13-years) compared to mid-adolescents of the DLPFC, together with heightened emotional reactivity, may
(15–16-years)69. Together, these studies suggest that early ado- make adolescents more likely to be influenced by media content.
lescence may be an especially sensitive period for social media For example, research showed that emotional experiences biased
influences in risk-perception60 as well as prosocial directions69. participants’ perception of media footage: despite being told
These findings fit well with Blakemore and Mills’6 suggestion beforehand that the footage contained fiction-based materials,
that, adolescence may be a sensitive period for social reorientation they attributed significantly higher levels of realism to it under
and social brain development, although results vary regarding conditions of emotional arousal than in a neutral state79.
whether sensitive periods are more pronounced in early or mid- Subsequently, participants attributed more information value to
adolescence. Understanding the specific sensitive windows may the fiction-based footage up to similar levels as to the reality-
be important to target future interventions. Therefore, future based clip.
research is needed to examine whether this is a specific sensitivity One possible direction to better understand how adolescents
in early-to-mid-adolescence, or whether and how social reward deal with emotional media content is by examining parallel
sensitivity remains in adulthood. processes. It is likely that engaging in media is associated with
multiple processes79 such as the fast processing of emotions
associated with engagement, sensation-seeking and emotional
Precedence of emotions and impulsivity
responses to media content, as well as more reflective and
A third factor that affects how adolescents process (social) media
relatively slower processes, such as perspective taking and
relates to the intense emotional experiences that usually accom-
emotion regulation80. We interpret such parallel processing as
pany adolescence70. Emotional needs may guide adolescents’
coordinated networks of an inter-related imbalance between
media use and processing; for example, feeling lonely may ease
heightened emotional responsivity and protracted development of
the path to connect to a media figure or to rely on social media
reflective processing and cognitive control75. For example,
for one’s social interaction52,71,72. Furthermore, being engaged
adolescents show a peak in neural responsivity to emotional
in media fare may evoke strong emotional reactions, such as
faces in the ventral striatum and anterior insula, compared to
when playing violent video games or when experiencing online
children and adults81,82. In addition, adolescents show protracted
rejection73,74. Adolescents in particular appear to be guided by
development of social brain regions implicated in perspective
their emotions in how they use and process media5. For example,
taking6,83, and flexible engagement of lateral prefrontal cortex,
the degree of anger and frustration experienced by early-to-mid
possibly depending on personal goals84. When media encounters
adolescent victims of bullying was associated with increased
are emotionally gripping, such parallel processing may explain
exposure to media fare portraying antisocial, norm-crossing and
why people may take (fake) information from media as real—‘it
risk-taking behaviors over time, making these youngsters more
just feels real’79. The emotional response seems to blur the
likely to become bullies themselves25. Another study showed that
borders between fact and fake; the instantaneous response based
anger instigated a more lenient moral tolerance of antisocial
on emotional or accompanying sensory feedback apparently
media content in early adolescents but not in young adults74.
takes (momentary) control precedence over cognitive reflection
Furthermore, adolescent victims of bullying who regulated their
and biases subsequent information processing79. These findings
anger through maladaptive strategies (e.g., other-blame, rumi-
may perhaps also explain how social reality can be perceived in
nation) showed higher levels of cyberbullying themselves25.
accordance to how the world is represented in emotion-arousing,
sensationalist or populist media messages, even when it concerns
Neural responses related to retaliation and emotion regulation. so-called “fake news”. In all, these suggestions call for further
Neuroscience studies can potentially provide more insight in the empirical testing, specifically also comparing adolescents and
moral leniency following adolescents’ anger. Neuroscience adults, in which the pattern of brain changes is combined with
research on adolescent development has shown that the devel- behavioral research and opinion formation.
opment of the prefrontal cortex, an important region for emotion Another intriguing question for future research is whether
regulation, matures until early adulthood15,75. A better under- regulation or control of media-generated emotions can be trained.
standing of the interactions between brain regions that show It was previously found that training of executive functions is
direct responses to emotional content, and brain regions that help associated with increased activity in DLPFC85, but it remains
to regulate these responses can possibly elucidate how adolescents an open question whether activity in DLPFC can be influenced by
regulate their behavior related to media-based interactions. (aggression) regulation training and behavioral control, and
Several studies examined this question by focusing on anger whether this results in changes in the functional and structural
following rejection. Rejected-based anger often leads to retaliatory properties of the brain. If such training were possible,
actions. Several paradigms have also shown that adolescents are video games and immersive virtual environments might
more aggressive after being rejected online. For example, they provide even more useful training environments. In this respect,
gave longer noise blasts and shared less of their resources with promising projects are ongoing, testing the use of biofeedback
people who previously rejected them in an online environ- videogames to help youth cope with stress and anxiety and
ment41,73,76. More activity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex identify physiological markers, and patterns of emotion
(DLPFC) after rejection was associated with less subsequent regulation86. Game interventions are also developed to help
aggression41 and more giving76, possibly indicating that increased children to cope effectively with anxiety-inducing situations87.
activity in the DLPFC helps individuals to control their anger These enrichment and training programs may also be useful to
following rejection. Other research showed changes in neural test specific media sensitivities by controlling the amount of
coupling when young men played violent video games77. Thus, media exposure. Such designs will have important benefits over
social rejection can evoke anger, but some adolescents may be studies examining correlations between naturally occurring

6 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x REVIEW ARTICLE

behaviors and developmental outcomes, which often do not allow online communication is processed. Finally, being constantly
for control of other variables such as temperament or environ- online also affects sleep patterns, which impacts mood as well97.
mental changes. In all, the majority of these studies are based on self-reported new
Taken together, individuals differ in how they respond to media use and outcomes. Integrating both experimental methods
media content, especially when these evoke emotional responses and neuroscientific insights may advance our understanding of
or are evaluated in an emotion-aroused state. There are only who is susceptible under which circumstances to which effects,
preliminary studies available that link these individual differences positive or negative.
to brain development, but possibly the regulating role of DLPFC
is important to control emotional responses to rejection, fake
news, violent video games, or appealing ideals. These are all Conclusion
questions that need to be addressed in future research, but are In this review, we described the emerging body of research
highly relevant given the developmental stage and time focused on how new media use is processed by the still
adolescents engage with these prevalent forms of media. developing adolescent brain. In particular, we highlighted the
neural systems that are associated with behaviors that
are important for social media use, including social reward pro-
Outlook for future studies cessing, emotion-based processing, regulation, and mentalizing
We described research in three directions that we believe are about others98. As these neural systems are still underdeveloped
crucial in understanding how the omnipresent use of (social) and undergoing significant changes during adolescence, they
media among today’s adolescents may influence them, through may contribute to sensitivity to online rejection, acceptance,
the following: (1) social rejection and acceptance, (2) peer influ- peer influence, and emotion-loaded interactions in media-
ence on opinions of self and others, and (3) emotion precedence environments. In future research, it will be important to
in media use and effects. We have provided a first overview of understand these processes better, especially the specific devel-
how neuroscience research may aid in a better understanding of opmental sensitivities, as well as to understand which adolescents
these influences in a mediated context. However, study results are more and less susceptible for beneficial or undesirable media
appear to vary regarding the specific adolescent age ranges; influences.
sometimes effects seem specific for early- or mid-adolescents, The review of the literature suggests that peer sensitivities are
while in other studies adolescents and (young) adults do not possibly larger in adolescents than in older age groups. Peer
differ and the indicated age ranges also vary widely (e.g., for influence effects have been well demonstrated in adolescent
some, ‘late adolescence’ is between 13 and 17 years old, whereas decision-making research, showing that adolescents take more
in other reports, 17–25 years of age is referred to as ‘late’, see also risks in the presence of peers and when peers stimulate risk-
ref. 88). Most adolescent samples are relatively older, whereas taking99. This seems to hold similarly for peer influence online
early adolescents (aged 10–15) are understudied and seem of through online comments, also with less risky behaviors62. These
particular interest in regards of sensitivity in these three areas. findings have been interpreted to suggest that adolescents have a
Therefore, further research is needed to align specific age ranges strong need to follow norms of their peer group and show in-
to developmental stages. group adherence100. There is a strong need for studies that
Current media technology opens possibilities to understand experimentally test whether increased influence of peers, possibly
sensitivities to media and peers in adolescence. For example, through developing social brain regions, combined with strong
YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram provide excellent environ- sensitivity to acceptance and rejection, makes adolescence a tip-
ments to study combined with media content and peers’ feedback ping point in development for how social media can influence
in adolescence27,89. Moreover, such social media platforms their self-concept and expectations of self and others. It is likely
introduced so-called user-generated content90 and options to that these sensitivities are not related to one process specifically,
present and express oneself in media environments have but the combination of developmental brain networks and
increased tremendously, thereby increasing media’s social func- associated behaviors75,84. A critical question for future research is
tions. Taking the ethical aspects of performing social media how neural correlates observed in this review predict future
research into account, as it can impinge on users’ privacy, social behavior or emotional responses in adolescents.
media devices also provide great opportunities to understand how Social media have at least the following two important
media exposure affects day-to-day fluctuations in mood and self- functions: (i) socially connect with others (the need to belong)
esteem. and (ii) manage the impression individuals make on others
A critical question that remains largely unanswered is how (reputation building, impression management, and online self-
adolescents’ abundant media use may impact them devel- presentation)98. The emerging trajectory of acceptance sensitivity,
opmentally in terms of structural brain development, functional peer ‘obedience’, and emotion precedence may make adolescents
brain development, and related behavior. The scientific evidence specifically susceptible to sensationalist and fake news, unrealistic
thus far is still scarce and results are mixed91,92. For example, self-expectations, or regulating emotions through adverse use
digital-screen time and mental well-being appear to be best of media. Important questions for future research relate to
described by quadratic functions with moderate use not intrin- unraveling whether adolescents are more sensitive to these news
sically harmful93. Several recent studies have shown that habitual items than children and adults, who is most sensitive to which
use is associated with a reduced ability to delay gratification94, but kind of media influence, how (one-sided) media use may influ-
can also have positive consequences such as increased ability to ence adolescent development over time, and understand not only
flexibly switch between tasks95 and feeling socially connected96. the risks but also how media provides opportunities for positive
Adolescents who spend more time on their mobile devices may development, such as engaging with friends, forming new peer
engage less in ‘real’ offline social interactions and the con- relations, and experiment with uncertainties or overcoming fears.
sequences of these communication changes are not yet well Studying the interplay between media use and sensitive periods in
understood. Perhaps, consequences differ among those who brain development will provide important directions for under-
experience their online interactions as similar to their offline standing how media may impact youth and who is most vul-
interactions, or as separate worlds. Important moderators and nerable and under which conditions. Key questions for future
mediators should also be taken into account to understand how research are to understand whether recent changes in media

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 7

REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x

usage, delivery, dosage, and levels of engagement (e.g., as more 24. Tokunaga, R. S. Following you home from school: A critical review and
active creators and participants, for example) are leading to dif- synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Comput. Human. Behav.
ferent or amplified neural responses in adolescents relative to 26, 277–287 (2010).
25. den Hamer, A. H. & Konijn, E. A. Adolescents’ media exposure may increase
adults. Using longitudinal research, it will be important to test their cyberbullying behavior: a longitudinal study. J. Adolesc. Health 56,
whether there is evidence that the still developing adolescent 203–208 (2015).
brain is more sensitive to, or more likely to be shaped by these 26. Williams, K. D. & Jarvis, B. Cyberball: a program for use in research on
changing patterns of media usage. interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behav. Res. Methods 38, 174–180
(2006).
27. Wolf, W. et al. Ostracism online: a social media ostracism paradigm. Behav.
Received: 10 October 2017 Accepted: 22 January 2018 Res. Method 47, 361–373 (2014).
28. Cacioppo, S. et al. A quantitative meta-analysis of functional imaging studies
of social rejection. Sci. Rep. 3, 2027 (2013).
29. Will, G. J., van Lier, P. A., Crone, E. A. & Guroglu, B. Chronic childhood peer
rejection is associated with heightened neural responses to social exclusion
during adolescence. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 44, 43–55 (2015).
References 30. van Harmelen, A. L. et al. Childhood emotional maltreatment severity is
1. Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. Horizon 9, 1–6 (2001). associated with dorsal medial prefrontal cortex responsivity to social exclusion
2. Ståhl, T. How ICT savvy are digital natives actually? Nord. J. Digit. Lit. 12, in young adults. PLoS ONE 9, e85107 (2014).
89–108 (2017). 31. Masten, C. L., Telzer, E. H., Fuligni, A. J., Lieberman, M. D. & Eisenberger, N.
3. Rideout, V. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens I. Time spent with friends in adolescence relates to less neural sensitivity to
(Common Sense Media, San Francisco, 2015). later peer rejection. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7, 106–114 (2012).
4. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Ólafsson, K. & Haddon, L. Children’s online 32. Dalgleish, T. et al. Social pain and social gain in the adolescent brain: A
risks and opportunities: Comparative findings from EU Kids Online and Net common neural circuitry underlying both positive and negative social
Children Go Mobile http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60513/. (2014). evaluation. Sci. Rep. 7, 42010 (2017).
5. Konijn, E. A., Veldhuis, J., Plaisier, X. S., Spekman, M. & den Hamer, A. H. in 33. Vijayakumar, N., Cheng, T. W. & Pfeifer, J. H. Neural correlates of social
The Handbook of Psychology of Communication Technology (ed. Sundar. S.) exclusion across ages: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional MRI
(Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2015). studies. Neuroimage 153, 359–368 (2017).
6. Blakemore, S. J. & Mills, K. L. Is adolescence a sensitive period for 34. Masten, C. L. et al. Neural correlates of social exclusion during adolescence:
sociocultural processing? Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 187–207 (2014). understanding the distress of peer rejection. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 4,
7. Sebastian, C. L. et al. Developmental influences on the neural bases of 143–157 (2009).
responses to social rejection: implications of social neuroscience for education. 35. Moor, B. G. et al. Social exclusion and punishment of excluders:
Neuroimage 57, 686–694 (2011). neural correlates and developmental trajectories. Neuroimage 59, 708–717
8. Valkenburg, P. M. & Taylor Piotrowski, J. How Media Attract and Affect (2012).
Youth (Yale University Press., Yale, 2017). 36. Silk, J. S. et al. Increased neural response to peer rejection associated with
9. Ma, J. & Yang, Y. What can we know from selfies - An exploratory study on adolescent depression and pubertal development. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.
selfie and the implication for marketers. In Global Marketing Conference at 9, 1798–1807 (2014).
Hong Kong Proceedings 597–601 (Global Alliance of Marketing & 37. Lieberman, M. D. & Eisenberger, N. I. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is
Management Associations, 2016). selective for pain: Results from large-scale reverse inference. Proc. Natl Acad.
10. Nesi, J. & Prinstein, M. J. Using social media for social comparison and Sci. USA 112, 15250–15255 (2015).
feedback-seeking: gender and popularity moderate associations with 38. Lieberman, M. D. & Eisenberger, N. I. Neuroscience. Pains and pleasures of
depressive symptoms. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 43, 1427–1438 (2015). social life. Science 323, 890–891 (2009).
11. Wartella, E. et al. What kind of adults will our children become? the impact of 39. Guyer, A. E., McClure-Tone, E. B., Shiffrin, N. D., Pine, D. S. & Nelson, E. E.
growing up in a media-saturated world. J. Child. Media 10, 13–20 (2016). Probing the neural correlates of anticipated peer evaluation in adolescence.
12. Ladouceur, C. D., Peper, J. S., Crone, E. A. & Dahl, R. E. White matter Child. Dev. 80, 1000–1015 (2009).
40. Rodman, A. M., Powers, K. E. & Somerville, L. H. Development of self-
development in adolescence: the influence of puberty and implications for
protective biases in response to social evaluative feedback. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
affective disorders. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2, 36–54 (2012).
USA 114, 13158–13163 (2017).
13. Achterberg, M., Peper, J. S., Van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., Mandl, R. C. & Crone,
41. Achterberg, M., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. &
E. A. Fronto-striatal white matter integrity predicts development in delay of
Crone, E. A. Control your anger! the neural basis of aggression regulation in
gratification: a longitudinal study. J. Neurosci. 36, 1954–1961 (2016).
response to negative social feedback. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 11, 712–720
14. Huttenlocher, P. R. Morphometric study of human cerebral cortex
(2016).
development. Neuropsychologia 28, 517–527 (1990).
42. Achterberg, M. et al. The neural and behavioral correlates of social evaluation
15. Tamnes, C. K. et al. Development of the cerebral cortex across adolescence: a
in childhood. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 24, 107–117 (2017).
multisample study of inter-related longitudinal changes in cortical volume,
43. Silk, J. S. et al. Peer acceptance and rejection through the eyes of youth:
surface area, and thickness. J. Neurosci. 37, 3402–3412 (2017). pupillary, eyetracking and ecological data from the Chatroom Interact task.
16. Mills, K. L., Lalonde, F., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N. & Blakemore, S. J.
Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7, 93–105 (2012).
Developmental changes in the structure of the social brain in late childhood 44. Sherman, L. E., Payton, A. A., Hernandez, L. M., Greenfield, P. M. & Dapretto,
and adolescence. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 9, 123–131 (2014). M. The power of the like in adolescence: effects of peer influence on
17. Goddings, A. L. et al. The influence of puberty on subcortical brain neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychol. Sci. 27, 1027–1035
development. Neuroimage 88, 242–251 (2014). (2016).
18. Bickart, K. C., Wright, C. I., Dautoff, R. J., Dickerson, B. C. & Barrett, L. F. 45. Burrow, A. L. & Rainone, N. How many likes did I get? purpose moderates
Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nat. Neurosci. 14, links between positive social medial feedback and self-esteem. J. Exp. Soc.
163–164 (2011). Psychol. 69, 232–236 (2017).
19. Von Der Heide, R., Vyas, G. & Olson, I. R. The social network-network: size is 46. Haber, S. N. & Knutson, B. The reward circuit: linking primate anatomy and
predicted by brain structure and function in the amygdala and paralimbic human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology 35, 4–26 (2010).
regions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 9, 1962–1972 (2014). 47. Guroglu, B. et al. Why are friends special? Implementing a social interaction
20. Kanai, R., Bahrami, B., Roylance, R. & Rees, G. Online social network size is simulation task to probe the neural correlates of friendship. Neuroimage 39,
reflected in human brain structure. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 1327–1334 (2012). 903–910 (2008).
21. Pfeifer, J. H. & Blakemore, S. J. Adolescent social cognitive and affective 48. Gunther Moor, B., van Leijenhorst, L., Rombouts, S. A., Crone, E. A. & Van
neuroscience: past, present, and future. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7, 1–10 der Molen, M. W. Do you like me? Neural correlates of social evaluation and
(2012). developmental trajectories. Soc. Neurosci. 5, 461–482 (2010).
22. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N. & Lattanner, M. R. 49. Guyer, A. E., Choate, V. R., Pine, D. S. & Nelson, E. E. Neural circuitry
Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying underlying affective response to peer feedback in adolescence. Soc. Cogn.
research among youth. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1073–1137 (2014). Affect. Neurosci. 7, 81–92 (2012).
23. Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G. & Runions, K. C. 50. Davey, C. G., Allen, N. B., Harrison, B. J., Dwyer, D. B. & Yucel, M. Being
Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and liked activates primary reward and midline self-related brain regions. Hum.
traditional bullying. J. Adolesc. Health 55, 602–611 (2014). Brain. Mapp. 31, 660–668 (2010).

8 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x REVIEW ARTICLE

51. Tan, P. Z. et al. Associations between maternal negative affect and 78. Olsson, A. & Ochsner, K. N. The role of social cognition in emotion. Trends
adolescent’s neural response to peer evaluation. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 8, 28–39 Cogn. Sci. 12, 65–71 (2008).
(2014). 79. Konijn, E. A., Walma van der Molen, J. H. & Van Nes, S. Emotions bias
52. Konijn, E. A. & Hoorn, J. F. in The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects perceptions of realism in audiovisual media. Why we may take Fict. Real.
(ed. Roessler, P., Hoffner, C. A. & Zoonen, L. v.) 1–15 (Wiley-Blackwell Discourse Process. 46, 309–340 (2009).
Publishers, Hoboken, NJ, 2017). 80. LeDoux, J. The emotional brain: past, present, future. Neurosci. Res. 68, e1–e2
53. Silverman, M. H., Jedd, K. & Luciana, M. Neural networks involved in (2010).
adolescent reward processing: An activation likelihood estimation meta- 81. Pfeifer, J. H. et al. Entering adolescence: resistance to peer influence, risky
analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage 122, 427–439 (2015). behavior, and neural changes in emotion reactivity. Neuron 69, 1029–1036
54. Schreuders, L., Braams, B. R., Peper, J. S., Guroglu, B. & Crone, E. A. (2011).
Contributions of reward sensitivity to ventral striatum activity across 82. Rosen, M. L. et al. Salience network response to changes in emotional
adolescence and adulthood. Child Dev. In press (2018). expressions of others is heightened during early adolescence: relevance for
55. Braams, B. R., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., Peper, J. S. & Crone, E. A. social functioning. Dev. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12571 (2017).
Longitudinal changes in adolescent risk-taking: a comprehensive study of 83. Guroglu, B., van den Bos, W., van Dijk, E., Rombouts, S. A. & Crone, E. A.
neural responses to rewards, pubertal development, and risk-taking behavior. Dissociable brain networks involved in development of fairness
J. Neurosci. 35, 7226–7238 (2015). considerations: understanding intentionality behind unfairness. Neuroimage
56. Meshi, D., Morawetz, C. & Heekeren, H. R. Nucleus accumbens response to 57, 634–641 (2011).
gains in reputation for the self relative to gains for others predicts social media 84. Crone, E. A. & Dahl, R. E. Understanding adolescence as a period of social-
use. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 439 (2013). affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 636–650
57. Sherman, L. E., Greenfield, P. M., Hernandez, L. M. & Dapretto, M. Peer (2012).
Influence via instagram: effects on brain and behavior in adolescence and 85. Constantinidis, C. & Klingberg, T. The neuroscience of working memory
young adulthood. Child. Dev. 89, 37–47 (2017). capacity and training. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 17, 438–449 (2016).
58. Berns, G. S., Capra, C. M., Moore, S. & Noussair, C. Neural mechanisms of the 86. Weerdmeester, J., Cima, M., Granic, I., Hashemian, Y. & Gotsis, M. A
influence of popularity on adolescent ratings of music. Neuroimage 49, feasibility study on the effectiveness of a full-body videogame intervention for
2687–2696 (2010). decreasing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Games Health J.
59. Will, G. J., Crone, E. A., van den Bos, W. & Guroglu, B. Acting on observed 5, 258–269 (2016).
social exclusion: developmental perspectives on punishment of excluders and 87. Schoneveld, E. A. et al. A neurofeedback video game (mindlight) to prevent
compensation of victims. Dev. Psychol. 49, 2236–2244 (2013). anxiety in children: a randomized controlled trial. Comput. Human. Behav.
60. Knoll, L. J., Magis-Weinberg, L., Speekenbrink, M. & Blakemore, S. J. Social 63, 321–333 (2016).
influence on risk perception during adolescence. Psychol. Sci. 26, 583–592 88. van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., Peters, S., Braams, B. R. & Crone, E. A. What
(2015). motivates adolescents? Neural responses to rewards and their influence on
61. Rodgers, R., McLean, S. & Paxton, S. Longitudinal relationships among adolescents’ risk taking, learning, and cognitive control. Neurosci. Biobehav.
internalization of the media ideal, peer social comparison, and body Rev. 70, 135–147 (2016).
dissatisfaction: Implications for the tripartite influence model. Dev. Psychol. 89. Konijn, E. A., Veldhuis, J. & Plaisier, X. S. YouTube as a research tool: three
51, 706–713 (2015). approaches. Cyber. Behav. Soc. Netw. 16, 695–701 (2013).
62. Veldhuis, J., Konijn, E. A. & Seidell, J. C. Negotiated media effects. peer 90. Sundar, S. S. Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology
feedback modifies effects of media’s thin-body ideal on adolescent girls. (Wiley-Blackwell., Hoboken, NJ:, 2015).
Appetite 73, 172–182 (2014). 91. Huang, C. Time Spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: a
63. Veldhuis, J., Konijn, E. A. & Seidell, J. C. Weight information labels on media
meta-analysis. Cyber. Behav. Soc. Netw. 20, 346–354 (2017).
models reduce body dissatisfaction in adolescent girls. J. Adolesc. Health 50, 92. Baker, D. A. & Algorta, G. P. The relationship between online social
600–606 (2012).
networking and depression: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Cyber.
64. Zaki, J., Schirmer, J. & Mitchell, J. P. Social influence modulates the neural
Behav. Soc. Netw. 19, 638–648 (2016).
computation of value. Psychol. Sci. 22, 894–900 (2011).
93. Przybylski, A. K. & Weinstein, N. A large-scale test of the goldilocks
65. Campbell-Meiklejohn, D. K., Bach, D. R., Roepstorff, A., Dolan, R. J. & Frith,
hypothesis. Psychol. Sci. 28, 204–215 (2017).
C. D. How the opinion of others affects our valuation of objects. Curr. Biol. 20,
94. Wilmer, H. H. & Chein, J. M. Mobile technology habits: patterns
1165–1170 (2010).
of association among device usage, intertemporal preference,
66. van der Meulen, M. et al. Brain activation upon ideal-body media exposure
impulse control, and reward sensitivity. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1607–1614
and peer feedback in late adolescent girls. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 17,
(2016).
712–723 (2017).
95. Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E. & Chein, J. M. Smartphones and Cognition: a
67. Blakemore, S. J. The social brain in adolescence. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9,
review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and
267–277 (2008).
68. Van Hoorn, J., Van Dijk, E., Meuwese, R., Rieffe, C. & Crone, E. A. Peer cognitive functioning. Front. Psychol. 8, 605 (2017).
influence on prosocial behavior in adolescence. J. Res. Adolesc. 26, 90–100 96. Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K. & Espinoza, G. Friending, IMing, and
(2016). hanging out face-to-face: overlap in adolescents’ online and offline social
69. Van Hoorn, J., Van Dijk, E., Guroglu, B. & Crone, E. A. Neural correlates of networks. Dev. Psychol. 48, 356–368 (2012).
prosocial peer influence on public goods game donations during adolescence. 97. Lemola, S., Perkinson-Gloor, N., Brand, S., Dewald-Kaufmann, J. F. & Grob,
Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 11, 923–933 (2016). A. Adolescents’ electronic media use at night, sleep disturbance, and
70. Dahl, R. E. & Vanderschuren, L. J. The feeling of motivation in the developing depressive symptoms in the smartphone age. J. Youth Adolesc. 44, 405–418
brain. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 1, 361–363 (2011). (2015).
71. Knowles, M. L. in The Oxford Handbook of Social Exclusion (ed. DeWall, C. 98. Meshi, D., Tamir, D. I. & Heekeren, H. R. The emerging neuroscience of social
N.) (Oxford University Press., Oxford/New York, 2013). media. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 771–782 (2015).
72. Nowland, R., Necka, E. A. & Cacioppo, J. T. Loneliness and social internet use: 99. Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K. & Steinberg, L. Peers increase
pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13, 70–87 adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry.
(2017). 1745691617713052. Dev. Sci. 14, F1–F10 (2011).
73. Konijn, E. A., Bijvank, M. N. & Bushman, B. J. I wish I were a warrior: the role 100. Van Hoorn, J., Crone, E. A. & Van Leijenhorst, L. Hanging out with the right
of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in crowd: peer influence on risk-taking behavior in adolescence. J. Res Adolesc.
adolescent boys. Dev. Psychol. 43, 1038–1044 (2007). 27, 189–200 (2017).
74. Plaisier, X. S. & Konijn, E. A. Rejected by peers-attracted to antisocial media 101. Duell, N. et al. Interaction of reward seeking and self-regulation in the
content: rejection-based anger impairs moral judgment among adolescents. prediction of risk taking: a cross-national test of the dual systems model. Dev.
Dev. Psychol. 49, 1165–1173 (2013). Psychol. 52, 1593–1605 (2016).
75. Casey, B. J. Beyond simple models of self-control to circuit-based accounts of 102. Sisk, C. L. & Foster, D. L. The neural basis of puberty and adolescence. Nat.
adolescent behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 295–319 (2015). Neurosci. 7, 1040–1047 (2004).
76. Will, G. J., Crone, E. A., van Lier, P. A. & Guroglu, B. Neural correlates of 103. Gladwin, T. E., Figner, B., Crone, E. A. & Wiers, R. W. Addiction, adolescence,
retaliatory and prosocial reactions to social exclusion: Associations with and the integration of control and motivation. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 1,
chronic peer rejection. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 288–297 (2016). 364–376 (2011).
77. Zvyagintsev, M. et al. Violence-related content in video game may lead to 104. van Oosten, J. M. & Vandenbosch, L. Sexy online self-presentation on social
functional connectivity changes in brain networks as revealed by fMRI-ICA in network sites and the willingness to engage in sexting: a comparison of gender
young men. Neuroscience 320, 247–258 (2016). and age. J. Adolesc. 54, 42–50 (2017).

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 9

REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x

105. Mills, K. L. et al. Structural brain development between childhood and Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
adulthood: convergence across four longitudinal samples. Neuroimage 141, published maps and institutional affiliations.
273–281 (2016).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Acknowledgements Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
We thank the reviewers for their detailed and insightful comments on the manuscript, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
and Lara Wierenga for providing helpful comments on previous versions of the appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
manuscript. This work was supported by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
Research (NWO-VICI 453-14-001 E.A.C.) and by an innovative ideas grant of the material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
European Research Council (ERC CoG PROSOCIAL 681632 to E.A.C.). Both authors indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
were supported by the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
Social Sciences (NIAS: September 2013–September 2014). regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Additional information
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permission information is available online at http://npg.nature.com/
reprintsandpermissions/

10 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2018)9:588 | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x | www.nature.com/naturecommunications