Peer feedback decreases impulsive choice in adolescents with and without attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Impulsivity is a core feature of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Previous work using the delay discounting task to assess impulsivity reveals that adolescents with ADHD tend to prefer a smaller-immediate reward over a larger-delayed reward, and this relates to problematic choices in daily life. To gain a better understanding of daily decision-making in adolescence, it is important to examine the social context, as peers have a major influence on decisions. Peer influence often has a negative connotation, but also provides an opportunity to promote positive outcomes. To date, it is unclear if peers affect impulsive decision-making in adolescents with ADHD, for better or for worse. Methods: = 113). We utilized an adapted delay discounting task that was administered alone, in a social condition, and alone again. In the social condition, adolescents received either (between-subjects) manipulated impulsive or non-impulsive peer feedback. Impulsive peer feedback consisted of likes for choosing the smaller immediate reward, whereas non-impulsive peers endorsed choosing the larger delayed reward. Results: Preregistered analyses showed that non-impulsive peer feedback resulted in decreased impulsive choice, whereas impulsive peer feedback did not alter decision-making in adolescents with and without ADHD. Explorative analyses of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms in the total sample, irrespective of diagnosis, showed that lower hyperactivity-impulsivity and more inattention symptoms were associated with increased susceptibility to non-impulsive peer feedback. Conclusions: Together, these findings indicate that peers may provide an opportunity to decrease impulsivity and emphasize individual differences in susceptibility to non-impulsive peer feedback related to inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity. Therefore, peer feedback may be a promising component in behavioral peer-supported interventions in adolescents with ADHD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".