Neural and psychological predictors of digital status‐seeking in adolescence

Abstract

While social media affords youths the opportunity to enhance their online status via the accumulation of likes, followers, and other quantifiable metrics, not all youths engage in digital status‐seeking. Individual differences in adolescents' neural sensitivity to low popular peers and social motivations may help explain why some youth engage more strongly in digital status‐seeking than others. We examined how adolescents' social motivation such as their need for approval (NFA; approach & avoidance) moderate the links between neural sensitivity to low popular peers in the ventral striatum (VS) and amygdala and digital status‐seeking among 95 adolescents (M _age  = 13.40 years, SD = 0.58, females = 50.5%). Participants were part of a larger 5‐year longitudinal study of 873 adolescents from the Southeastern U.S. At wave 2, we assessed for NFA and had adolescents perform an fMRI task involving images of their real‐life classmates. Notably, we used peer‐nominated sociometric ratings from 873 students across 3 middle‐schools to select images of their most and least popular peers. We then assessed digital status‐seeking 2 years later. Results show that NFA moderated the links between neural sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking, such that sensitivity to low popular peers in the VS predicted greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents with high avoidance NFA. Similarly, sensitivity to low popular peers in the amygdala significantly predicted greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents with high approach NFA, as well as adolescents with high avoidance NFA. These results suggest that neural sensitivity to low popular peers, or NFA in isolation, does not predict digital status‐seeking, but the heightened combination of both may underlie digital status‐seeking in adolescence.

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence is a period of development during which youth become increasingly sensitive to social hierarchies within their peer networks. Increasingly, the ubiquity of social media has transformed the landscape of adolescent peer relations and heightened the visibility of peer status (Nesi et al., ^{2018a, 2018b}). The quantifiable nature of social media offers increased likelihood for both impression management and status‐seeking in online spaces among adolescents (Dumas et al., 2020). In contemporary digital spaces, likes (i.e., endorsement of one's posts) are potent social rewards (Rosenthal‐von der Pütten et al., 2019), sought after by social media users (Dumas et al., 2017), which in turn reinforce continued social media behavior and boost social status by signaling and quantifying approval from others (Hayes et al., 2018). These distinctive features of social media have transformed adolescents' interactions with their peers, creating new behaviors, such as digital status‐seeking—a set of goal‐directed behaviors aimed at increasing one's status in online spaces typically through accumulating likes, followers, reposts, and other digital markers of status (Nesi & Prinstein, 2019). Given the nascency of this construct, it remains largely unknown what neural and psychological mechanisms underlie digital status‐seeking. Thus, the current study uses neuroimaging combined with sociometric nominations from a school‐based adolescent sample to examine predictors of individual differences in digital status‐seeking. Specifically, we examined whether neurobiological sensitivity to low popular peers, in combination with individual differences in belonging needs (Gardner et al., 2005) such as need for approval (NFA) prospectively predict digital status‐seeking in adolescence.

Digital status‐seeking

Concerns about peer status and evaluations remain an important part of adolescence (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010). Peer interactions are increasingly taking place online, as the majority of U.S. youth have a smartphone, and about half report being “constantly online” (Faverio & Sidoti, 2024). As such, research investigating the specific ways in which online contexts influence the attainment of peer status is starting to emerge. Indeed, social status can be enhanced on social media platforms through the purposeful accumulation of quantifiable “social currencies” such as likes, views, comments, followers, and reposts (Nesi & Prinstein, 2019).

Individuals leverage the affordances built within technological spaces to amplify their online self‐presentation (Walther, 2007). This may involve using several features on social media platforms such as tagging to actively seek likes and pursue status (Dhir et al., 2016; Fiers, ²⁰²⁰). Some youth may even engage in strategic like‐seeking behaviors in online platforms, such as posting at certain times of the day to increase their online engagement (Dumas et al., 2017). Such behaviors within social media environments create more opportunities for youth to accrue social currencies such as likes and followers in ways that may enhance their status in the digital context. Online indicators of status (e.g., number of followers, likes, reposts) are thought to be inherently rewarding; indeed, adolescents show increased neural activity in reward‐related circuitry when viewing their own posts with many (vs. few) likes (Sherman et al., 2016, 2018). On the other hand, receiving fewer likes than their peers is linked with greater negative affect and depressive symptoms among victimized adolescents (Lee et al., 2020). Moreover, prior work links adolescents' desire to increase their own status to greater overt and relational aggression in offline contexts (for meta‐analyses, see Hensums et al., ²⁰²³; Casper et al., ²⁰²⁰). Status‐seeking behaviors in online contexts have also been linked with maladaptive behaviors in adolescence, including substance use and risky sexual behaviors (Nesi & Prinstein, 2019). Taken together, these findings suggest that digital status‐seeking is an important behavior in adolescence linked with peer dynamics, reward seeking, and risk behaviors.

Neural sensitivity to peer status

Socio‐emotional systems of the brain, including the ventral striatum (VS) and amygdala, undergo extensive structural and functional reorganization, making adolescence a particularly sensitive period for socio‐emotional processing (Cheng et al., 2024; Crone & Dahl, ²⁰¹²). This reorientation occurs in tandem with increased peer importance (Scholte & Van Aken, 2020), heightened salience of social hierarchies (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Somerville, ²⁰¹³), and the developmental goals of valuing and attaining social status in adolescence (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010; Lansu et al., ²⁰¹⁴). Indeed, evidence suggests that socio‐affective brain regions commonly implicated with salience and valuation, including the VS and the amygdala, spontaneously encode information about peer status within non‐human primate social networks (Noonan et al., 2014; Olson et al., ²⁰⁰⁷) and human adult samples (Cunningham et al., 2008; Van Bavel et al., ²⁰⁰⁸; Zerubavel et al., ²⁰¹⁵; Zink et al., ²⁰⁰⁸).

In adolescence, however, these brain regions tend to be especially sensitive to such social cues (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Somerville, ²⁰¹³). Neurobiological sensitivity to social context theory proposes that individual differences in how the brain responds to social cues moderate the degree to which social contexts shape adolescent outcomes (Schriber & Guyer, 2016). We especially focus on the VS and amygdala given their role in status tracking in adult and adolescent samples (Morelli et al., 2018; Parkinson et al., ²⁰¹⁷; Zerubavel et al., ²⁰¹⁵). Indeed, prior work demonstrates that adolescents value high‐status peers. For example, among older adolescents, brain regions involved in mentalizing and valuation spontaneously tracked high‐status peers (Morelli et al., 2018). Additional literature further shows that adolescents differentially encode high and low‐status peers at the neural level (Dai et al., 2023), suggesting that low‐status peers are also an important part of adolescents' social world. However, little attention is given to how neurobiological sensitivity to low‐status peers (e.g., low popular peers) may relate to adolescents' status‐seeking behaviors. Importantly, unpopularity and popularity may represent conceptually distinct status categories rather than mere opposites (Marks et al., 2022). For example, among early adolescents, whereas popularity was more strongly associated with aggression, unpopularity was more strongly associated with victimization and rejection (Marks et al., 2022). We focus on low popular peers given that prior work across neural and behavioral literatures has shown that such peers are a salient component of adolescents' social environment (Capella et al., 2023; Cohen & Prinstein, ²⁰⁰⁶; Dai et al., ²⁰²³). Moreover, low levels of perceived popularity, social preference, and friendship are linked with chronic victimization among adolescents (Romera et al., 2021). Thus, given that adolescents track high and low status peers at the neural level (Dai et al., 2023) and value peer status (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), the potential cost of affiliating with low popular peers might be especially high, as such peers may signal social threats to adolescents' social standing within their peer hierarchies. Because online indicators of status such as likes and followers may differentiate low from high popular peers in social media environments, adolescents with heightened neurobiological sensitivity to low popular peers may engage in greater digital status‐seeking as a way to signal their distinction from low popular peers. Indeed, advances in developmental social neuroscience may help unpack how neural sensitivity to low popular peers may, in part, predict digital status‐seeking in adolescence.

Beyond neural responses, behavioral research suggests that adolescents do not only conform to high status peers, but also distance themselves from low status peers (Cohen & Prinstein, 2006). Such a pattern aligns with the concept of “oppositional identity” where individuals define themselves in contrast to an out‐group (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Fryer & Torelli, ²⁰¹⁰; Kinney, ¹⁹⁹⁹). In this context, heightened sensitivity to low popular peers within an adolescent's peer group may drive a compensatory motivation to engage in digital status‐seeking, as a way of distancing themselves from such peers. Given that adolescents are highly sensitive to social evaluation (Dahl et al., 2018) and value the attainment of status (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), heightened VS and amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers may also orient adolescents to attend to such status cues. As such, VS and amygdala sensitivity in response to low popular peers during adolescence may, in part, drive status‐seeking behaviors.

Need for approval (NFA) as a social motivational construct

Understanding the underlying social motivations, in addition to neurobiological sensitivities, may confer greater understanding of the mechanisms that drive digital status‐seeking behaviors in adolescence. Developmental theories suggest that self‐worth develops as children internalize appraisals from significant others such as peers. (Harter, 1999; Rudolph, ²⁰²¹). A key aspect of this contingent self‐worth is NFA, which reflects the extent to which self‐worth is enhanced by peer approval (approach NFA) or depleted by peer disapproval (avoidance NFA) (Rudolph et al., 2005). Indeed, social approval from peers is especially important in adolescence, when individuals strive to achieve a sense of connection and affiliation within their peer network (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Given that digital status‐seeking reflects a desire to attain approval and avoid disapproval from peers online, heightened approach and avoidance NFA might underlie digital status‐seeking in adolescence.

Youth with high approach NFA strive to gain social rewards in the form of positive feedback, whereas youth with high avoidance NFA strive to avoid social punishments such as negative feedback and appraisals from peers (Rudolph, 2021). Indeed, young adults with greater NFA are more likely to maintain a public social media profile only if they receive positive feedback in the form of likes and followers, whereas they decrease their willingness to maintain a public profile when they receive negative feedback (such as few likes) (Sciara et al., 2023). Because gaining social approval from peers and avoiding disapproval is a priority to adolescents (Rudolph, 2021; Rudolph et al., ²⁰⁰⁵), youth with high approach and/or avoidance NFA may be motivated to engage in behaviors that enhance their social status in online spaces by engaging in digital status‐seeking to fulfill their belonging needs.

Combined influence of NFA and neural sensitivity to peers

While high approach and avoidance NFA may motivate adolescents to seek out positive feedback and avoid negative feedback, heightened NFA may only lead to greater digital status‐seeking for adolescents who are neurobiologically sensitive to their peer context. Indeed, recent theories posit that neurobiological development moderates the effect of social contexts on outcomes (Schriber & Guyer, 2016). Thus, understanding the underlying social motivations, in addition to neurobiological sensitivities, may confer greater understanding of the mechanisms that drive digital status‐seeking behaviors in adolescence.

Because avoiding peer disapproval is of primary importance to youth with heightened avoidance NFA, such adolescents might be especially motivated to engage in behaviors that typify high popular peers (such as digital status‐seeking) to protect themselves from the negative consequences of peer disapproval. As such, high avoidance NFA may strengthen the links between neural sensitivity to low popular peers in the VS and amygdala and digital status‐seeking. Further, because adolescents with heightened approach NFA have their self‐worth contingent on the approval of peers, and are driven by a desire to obtain positive outcomes, digital social currencies (e.g., likes, comments, views, followers, and reposts) can boost their mood and self‐esteem (da Silva Pinho et al., ²⁰²⁴), which may motivate them to seek out more positive feedback. As such, high approach NFA may strengthen the links between neural sensitivity to low popular peers in the VS and amygdala and digital status‐seeking. In summary, adolescents who show heightened VS and amygdala activation to low relative to high popular peers (i.e., they respond more strongly to low than to high popular peers), coupled with high approach and/or avoidance NFA, might be more attuned to their peer environment and attaining social approval while avoiding social disapproval, thereby engaging in greater digital status‐seeking.

Current study

The current study examines whether heightened neural sensitivity in the VS and amygdala to low popular peers, coupled with heightened approach and avoidance NFA, prospectively predict digital status‐seeking among adolescents. We utilized sociometric nominations from adolescents' entire school to assess peer status (i.e., the least and most popular peers in the school network). From these sociometric nominations, we created an ecologically valid neuroimaging task, the “Classmates Task”, during which adolescents viewed the yearbook photos of their real‐life classmates who were selected based on being the most and least popular from their school. We administered the Classmates Task in 7th‐8th grade, given that sensitivity to affective and social cues is heightened during early adolescence (Blakemore & Mills, 2014). Adolescents also reported on their approach and avoidance NFA at 7th‐8th grade, given that prior work shows NFA becomes relatively stable around this time (Xu et al., 2022). Two years following the neuroimaging, participants self‐reported their digital status‐seeking behaviors. Such a gap reflects a developmentally meaningful window, as older teens (ages 15–17) report substantially greater social media use than younger teens (ages 13–14; Rideout et al., ²⁰²²). Thus, by 9th‐10th grades, adolescents might have had greater exposure to online platforms in which digital status‐seeking behaviors start to unfold.

Based on prior research suggesting that adolescents show neurobiological sensitivity to their peers (Morelli et al., 2018), value peer status (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2010), and distance themselves from low‐status peers (Cohen & Prinstein, 2006), we hypothesized that neural sensitivity to the least popular peers relative to the most popular peers in the VS and amygdala would predict greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents high in approach and/or avoidance NFA. Prior research suggests that adolescents high in avoidance NFA are highly motivated to avoid social punishments (Rudolph, 2021; Rudolph et al., ²⁰⁰⁵) such as associating with, or being considered a low popular peer. Drawing from the concept of “oppositional identity” where individuals establish their identity by contrasting themselves with another group (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Fryer & Torelli, ²⁰¹⁰; Kinney, ¹⁹⁹⁹) we hypothesized that high avoidance NFA would strengthen the links between neural sensitivity to low popular peers in the VS and amygdala and digital status‐seeking 2 years later. Finally, based on existing research suggesting that adolescents with high approach NFA are motivated to obtain social rewards in the form of positive appraisals (Rudolph, 2021; Rudolph et al., ²⁰⁰⁵), we hypothesized that approach NFA would strengthen the links between neural sensitivity to low popular peers in the VS and amygdala and digital status‐seeking 2 years later.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were recruited from three rural middle schools in the Southeastern U.S. as part of a 5‐year longitudinal study. A total of 873 6th and 7th grade adolescents participated in school‐based data collection at wave 1. Letters of consent were mailed to the caregivers, and students who returned a signed parental permission consent form, regardless of whether consent was granted or denied by the caregiver, were compensated $5. Adolescent assent was obtained using a computer by trained research staff in school. School‐based assessments were collected annually. At each wave, adolescents used computer‐assisted self‐interviews to report sociometric peer nominations alongside other self‐report measures and were compensated $5 for their participation.

A subset of participants who met eligibility criteria (i.e., no MRI contraindications, head trauma, history of seizures, or learning disabilities) participated in a longitudinal fMRI study where participants completed an fMRI scan annually. A sample of 148 adolescents were recruited at the first wave of data collection. To account for attrition, an additional 30 participants were recruited at wave 2. Participants were compensated $90, a $20 gift card for performing well in the scanner (e.g., minimum motion), an extra $25 as a bonus for returning to our study for each additional wave, snacks during the visit, and a meal. The participating caregiver was compensated $50 as well as a meal and reimbursed for parking and gas. All study procedures were approved by the University's Institutional Review Board, and adolescents and their parents provided written assent and consent.

Data for the current study are from waves 1, 2, and 4 when participants were in the 6th and 7th grade (wave 1, 2016–2017 academic year), 7th and 8th grade (wave 2, 2017–2018 academic year), and 9th and 10th grade (wave 4, 2019–2020 academic year). Note that data were also collected during wave 3 but are not included in the current study. For the purposes of this study, demographic information and sociometric nominations were obtained during school‐based testing at waves 1 and 2, fMRI data and self‐report measures of NFA were collected at wave 2, and self‐reported digital status‐seeking was completed at wave 4.

Of the total 173 participants who participated in wave 2 of the study, 135 completed the Classmates fMRI task. Of these, 3 participants were excluded from the analysis due to excessive head motion (mean FD >2 mm) and 15 were excluded due to an error in calculating the sociometric ratings of target images in the Classmates task (see “fMRI Task” subsection), leaving a sample of 117 adolescents who had usable Classmates fMRI data. Of these participants, 22 were excluded due to missing data for self‐reported digital status‐seeking at wave 4, resulting in a final sample of 95 adolescents with roughly equal proportion of females (50.5%) and males (49.5%). Participants' age at the scan ranged from 12 to 14 (M _age  = 13.04 years, SD = 0.58) and from 14 to 16 (M _age  = 15.20 years, SD = 0.60) at wave 4. The sample was racially and ethnically diverse; 30.5% white, 22.1% Black, 32.6% Hispanic/Latin/x, 12.6% multi‐racial, 2.1% Other. Additionally, the sample mainly comprised low‐ and middle‐income status in terms of parent‐reported household income; 33% < $30,000, 43% $30,000–$60,000, 24% > $60,000, and parental education; 24% less than high school, 9% high school diploma, 38% some college, 27% associate degree or higher.

Procedures

During wave 1 and 2, adolescents completed sociometric nominations during school‐based data collection. Following the school‐based data collection in wave 2, adolescents completed a 1.5‐h fMRI session, which included the Classmates task as well as four other tasks that were not the focus of this paper. Following the scan, adolescents completed several self‐report measures using computer‐assisted software in a private room, including NFA, as well as other measures which are not the focus of this manuscript. In wave 4, adolescents completed self‐report measures of digital status‐seeking during school‐based data collection.

Measures

Sociometric nominations of peer status

We measured peer status using sociometric procedures which participants completed during a school‐based assessment annually in wave 1–4. Participants were provided with a full list of their peers from their school and grade for which they could provide unlimited nominations of who they believed to be (1) “the most popular”, and (2) “the least popular”. For each participant, we utilized the peer nominations obtained to calculate their popularity score (z‐score of “most popular” minus z‐score of “least popular”). The z‐scores for popularity were determined by comparing each participant's rating to that of other kids within their grade and school. For the current study, we used the peer nominations that were collected during wave 1 to create the stimuli in the novel fMRI task, which was administered at wave 2 during the fMRI scan. In addition, we used the sociometric nominations from wave 2 to control for participants' own popularity in our analyses.

Need for approval

At wave 2, following the completion of the scan, participants completed an eight‐item NFA questionnaire (Rudolph et al., 2005) containing two subscales, each with 4 items; avoidance NFA, which measures the extent to which peer disapproval depletes self‐worth (e.g., “I feel ashamed of myself when other kids don't like me”) and approach NFA, which assesses the extent to which peer approval enhances self‐worth (e.g., “I feel proud of myself when other kids like me”). Each item is measured on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (Very Much). Both subscales, avoidance NFA (α = 0.93) and approach NFA (α = 0.90), had good internal reliability. The mean for each subscale was computed, with higher scores reflecting greater NFA.

Digital status‐seeking

At wave 4 during school‐based data collection, we measured adolescents' digital status‐seeking using a five‐item subscale adapted from prior instruments that assess adolescents' motivations to use social media (Whiting & Williams, 2013). In particular, participants used a 7‐point scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = a few times, 4 = sometimes, 5 = often, 6 = very often, 7 = always for this reason) to respond to the following questions: “In general, how often do you use social media…(1) to get new followers; (2) to try and become something “trending”, get clout; (3) to promote my profile to my friends and other followers; (4) to get likes and positive feedback; (5) to keep up my social reputation.” The mean of all items is computed, with higher scores reflecting higher digital status‐seeking (α = 0.89).

Classmates fMRI task

During wave 2, participants completed the Classmates task, adapted from the social network position task (Parkinson et al., 2017), during an MRI scan. Participants viewed yearbook photos of peers from their school. Yearbook photos (i.e., targets) used in the task were selected based on the sociometric data from the previous year (wave 1). Peers selected as target images for the task had to have a sociometric z‐score between 1 and 5 (representing 1–5 SD above the mean on popularity/likeability in their school and grade) or between −1 and −5 (representing 1–5 SD below the mean on popularity/likeability in their school and grade). When selecting targets, we prioritized peers with average levels of the construct not of interest i.e., targets in the high and low popularity conditions were selected to have average likeability scores where possible, and vice versa. Further, we made sure to limit the number of targets who were positive in one construct and negative in the other, also known as “controversial” peers (de Bruyn & Cillessen, ²⁰⁰⁶), to keep the conditions as distinct as possible. Given the school‐ and grade‐specific target images, one version of the task was created for each grade level within each school for a total of six versions. The task had four conditions: High popularity (i.e., z‐score between 1 and 5 on popularity), low popularity (i.e., z‐score between −1 and − 5 on popularity), high likeability (i.e., z‐score between 1 and 5 on likeability), and low likeability (i.e., z‐score between −1 and − 5 on likeability). Due to an error in data management, z‐scores for the target images in two of the six task versions were miscalculated. We recalculated popularity and likeability scores for the target images for both task versions. For one group of participants (n = 20), there were enough target images that still fit the criteria for each condition (high popularity = 9, low popularity = 8, high likability = 8, low likability = 10), so we included them in the analyses. The other group of participants (n = 15) did not have enough number of target images in each condition (e.g., as few as 5) so these participants were excluded in the analyses. The absolute value of the average z‐score within each condition was approximately 2 across all versions of the task. In each condition, participants saw 10 target images, with roughly an equal number of boys and girls. There was no overlap in the targets across conditions, such that each target belonged in only one sociometric category and appeared in only one condition. No participants were included as targets, so participants did not see their own image. Target photos were obtained from school yearbooks from the previous school year, the same year the sociometric ratings were collected. Yearbook photos were digitized into JPEG images.

The task was programmed in E‐Prime and presented across two runs. Each run consisted of eight blocks, two blocks per condition, each with 10 faces. Within each run, participants were presented with the eight blocks in a randomized order. The order in which their faces were shown was fixed within the block, with the order pre‐selected based on a randomization algorithm. We used an n‐back task design (Parkinson et al., 2017) to ensure that the participants were paying attention, such that each block contained one target that appeared twice in a row.

Participants were instructed to press with their right pointer finger when a target repeated. The repeated targets were fixed in the task and balanced so that no target was shown more than another (i.e., when a target was shown twice in one block, that target was absent from the next block). Thus, participants saw each face 4 times in total (2 in each run), with each condition having 40 total trials each. Each target face was presented for 1750 ms, separated by a jittered inter‐trial interval (M = 2300 ms).

fMRI data acquisition and preprocessing

Imaging data were collected using a 3 Tesla Siemens Prisma MRI scanner. The Classmates Task was presented on a computer screen and projected through a mirror. A high‐resolution structural T2*‐weighted echo‐planar imaging (EPI) volume (TR = 2000 ms; TE = 25 ms; matrix = 92 × 92; FOV = 230 mm; 37 slices; slice thickness = 3 mm; voxel size 2.5 × 2.5 × 3 mm3) was acquired coplanar with a T2*‐weighted structural matched‐bandwidth (MBW), high‐resolution, anatomical scan (TR = 5700 ms; TE = 65 ms; matrix = 192 × 192; FOV = 230 mm; 38 slices; slice thickness = 3 mm). In addition, a T1* magnetization‐prepared rapid‐acquisition gradient echo (MPRAGE; TR = 2400 ms; TE = 2.22 ms; matrix = 256 × 256; FOV = 256 mm; sagittal plane; slice thickness = 0.8 mm; 208 slices) was acquired. The orientation for the EPI and MBW scans was oblique axial to maximize brain coverage and to reduce noise. Preprocessing was conducted using FSL (FMRIB's Software Library, version 6.0; www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/fsl) and included the following steps: Skull stripping using BET (Smith, 2002); motion correction with MCFLIRT (Jenkinson et al., 2002); spatial smoothing with a Gaussian kernel of full width at half maximum (FWHM) 6 mm; high‐pass temporal filtering with a filter width of 128 s (Gaussian‐weighted least‐squares straight line fitting, with sigma = 64.0 s); grand‐mean intensity normalization of the entire 4D dataset by a single multiplicative factor; and individual level ICA denoising for motion and physiological noise using MELODIC (version 3.15; Beckmann & Smith, 2004), combined with an automated signal classifier (Tohka et al., 2008; Neyman‐Pearson threshold =0.3). For the spatial normalization, the EPI data were registered to the T1 image with a linear transformation, followed by a white‐matter boundary‐based transformation (BBR; Greve & Fischl, ²⁰⁰⁹) using FLIRT, linear and non‐linear transformations to the standard Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) 2‐mm brain were performed using Advanced Neuroimaging Tools (ANTs; Avants et al., ²⁰¹¹), and then spatial normalization of the EPI image to the MNI. Quality checks during preprocessing and analyses ensured adequate signal coverage.

fMRI data analyses

At the individual level, we estimated fixed‐effects analyses using the general linear model convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function in SPM12. We modeled the task as an event‐related design with four separate conditions: High Popularity, Low Popularity, High Likeability, Low Likeability. The inter‐trial jitters were not explicitly modeled and therefore served as an implicit baseline. The absolute value of the sociometric rating for the target (i.e., popularity score for the low and high popular conditions) was included as a parametric modulator (PM) at the trial level. Within each block, one target was repeated as an attention check and modeled as a condition of no interest. TRs with motion greater than .5 framewise displacement were modeled as a nuisance regressor.

fMRI regions of interest

We extracted parameter estimates for the VS and the amygdala. We selected these regions given their association with status tracking in adults (Morelli et al., 2018; Parkinson et al., ²⁰¹⁷; Zerubavel et al., ²⁰¹⁵) and salience in adolescents (Blakemore & Mills, 2014). We used bilateral ROIs that were defined using the Harvard‐Oxford Atlas. We focused on the popularity condition given its significant association with digital status‐seeking in prior literature (Trekels et al., 2024). Thus, we extracted parameter estimates from these ROIs for the Low Popularity condition and the High Popularity condition separately for each participant and created our contrast of interest, Low Popularity‐ High Popularity, to examine adolescents' sensitivity to low (relative to high) popular peers. We were particularly interested in this contrast given that low status peers have been shown—from neural and behavioral perspectives—to be a salient part of adolescents' social world (Capella et al., 2023; Cohen & Prinstein, ²⁰⁰⁶; Dai et al., ²⁰²³). Herein, we refer to this contrast throughout as amygdala/VS sensitivity to low popular peers.

Data analysis plan

All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.3.1). First, descriptive statistics were conducted to examine levels of digital status‐seeking, NFA, and amygdala/VS sensitivity to low popular peers, and the intercorrelation between all study variables. We then conducted two sets of hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine the independent and interactive contributions of amygdala/VS sensitivity to low popular peers and approach and avoidance NFA on digital status‐seeking. All predictors and moderators were mean‐centered prior to conducting the analyses. Both models controlled for biological sex and participants' peer‐nominated popularity.

For both models, biological sex and the individual's own peer‐nominated popularity were added as covariates and entered as step one. Consequently, for model 1, we entered the main effects of VS sensitivity to low popular peers, alongside approach and avoidance NFA as step two to examine their unique relations to digital status‐seeking. Given that preliminary analyses indicate that approach and avoidance NFA are moderately correlated, examining them in the same model helped us control for their shared variance and isolate their unique effects on digital status‐seeking above and beyond the other. We then entered the interaction terms of VS sensitivity to low popular peers × avoidance NFA, and VS sensitivity to low popular peers × approach NFA, to examine how approach and avoidance NFA moderate the links between VS sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking.

Similarly, amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers and approach and avoidance NFA were entered as step 2 in our second model to examine their unique main effects on digital status‐seeking. We then entered the interaction terms of amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers × avoidance NFA, and amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers × approach NFA, as step 3 in our second model to examine the moderating role of approach and avoidance NFA in the links between amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking. All significant interactions were probed with the Johnson–Neyman technique (Bauer & Curran, 2005; Hayes & Matthes, ²⁰⁰⁹), which mathematically derives the “regions of significance,” where the conditional effect of the predictor variable transitions between not statistically significant to statistically significant. For descriptive purposes, we also plot the simple slopes at ±1 SD from the mean.

RESULTS

Descriptive analyses

Pearson correlations showing bivariate correlations among all study variables are shown in Table 1. Consistent with prior literature (Rudolph et al., 2005), we found a significant positive correlation between approach and avoidance NFA. Additionally, we observed significant positive correlations between VS and amygdala sensitivity to low (relative to high) popular peers, and a positive association between age and amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers. Independent samples t‐tests by biological sex revealed significant differences in digital status‐seeking, t(89) = −2.49, p = .01, with girls (M = 2.63, SD = 1.54) reporting significantly higher levels of digital status‐seeking than boys (M = 1.92, SD = 1.13). Similarly, girls (M = 2.30, SD = 1.01) were significantly higher in avoidance NFA, t(89) = −2.36, p = .02, than boys (M = 1.84, SD = 0.82). No significant sex differences were found in approach NFA as well as VS and amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers (all ps > .05).

TABLE 1.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among study variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. DSS_W4	2.28	1.39
2. NFAavoid _W2	2.06	0.94	.12
			[−.09, .31]
3. NFAapproach _W2	3.26	0.97	.17	.49**
			[−.03, .36]	[.32, .63]
4. Amyg‐low‐pop_W2	−0.10	0.75	.01	.06	.02
			[−.19, .21]	[−.14, .26]	[−.18, .22]
5. VS‐low‐pop_W2	−0.09	0.60	−.03	−.17	−.15	.61**
			[−.23, .18]	[−.36, .04]	[−.34, .05]	[.47, .72]
6. Age_W2	13.04	0.58	.14	.08	−.06	.27**	.13
			[−.06, .33]	[−.12, .28]	[−.26, .15]	[.07, .45]	[−.08, .32]
7. Popularity_W2	−0.25	1.31	.17	−.08	−.01	.15	−.00	.09
			[−.04, .36]	[−.28, .13]	[−.21, .20]	[−.06, .35]	[−.21, .20]	[−.12, .29]

Note: Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation.

Abbreviations: Amyg‐low‐pop, amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers; DSS, digital status‐seeking; M, mean; NFA_approach, approach need for approval; NFA_avoid, avoidance need for approval; SD, standard deviation; VS‐low‐pop, ventral striatum sensitivity to low popular peers; W2, wave 2; W4, wave 4.

^** p < .01.

Moderation of link between amygdala/VS sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking

We next conducted our primary models in which we tested whether approach and avoidance NFA moderate the links between amygdala/VS sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking 2 years later. We tested moderation analyses separately in the VS and amygdala.

Ventral striatum sensitivity to low popular peers

Controlling for biological sex and adolescents' own peer‐nominated popularity, we found a significant interaction effect of VS sensitivity to low popular peers × avoidance NFA on digital status‐seeking (Table 2). This significant interaction was probed using the Johnson–Neyman plot (Bauer & Curran, 2005) to mathematically derive the specific regions where the conditional effects of VS sensitivity to low popular peers transition between being statistically significant and not statistically significant. The analysis revealed that when avoidance NFA exceeds 0.96SD above the mean (range of observed data [−1.06, 2.94]), the relationship between VS sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking becomes significant (Figure 1a). Simple slope analyses (Figure 1b) further show that as neural sensitivity to low relative to high popular peers in the VS increases, adolescents report greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for those with high (1SD above the mean) avoidance NFA (b = 0.74, p = .05). No significant associations were found at mean (b = 0.20, p = .41) and low (−1SD below the mean) levels of avoidance NFA (b = −0.33, p = .32). No other main or interaction effects were statistically significant (ps > .05; see Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Regression results predicting digital status‐seeking from NFA and VS sensitivity to low popular peers.

Variable	R 2 ∆	b	SE	t
VS Sensitivity
Step 1: Covariates
Sex		0.69	0.28	2.44*
Popularity_W2		0.17	0.11	1.54
Step 2: Main effects
NFAapproach	.53	0.22	0.17	1.33
NFAavoid		−0.03	0.18	−0.19
VS‐low‐ status W2		0.16	0.24	0.65
Step 3: Interactions
VS‐low‐pop_W2 × NFAapproach	.11	−0.12	0.30	−0.40
VS‐low‐pop_W2 × NFAavoid		0.57	0.27	2.11*

Abbreviations: NFA_approach, approach need for approval; NFA_avoid, avoidance need for approval; Popularity, peer‐nominated popularity; VS‐low‐pop, ventral striatum sensitivity to low popular peers; W2, wave 2.

^* p < .05.

FIGURE 1.

VS sensitivity to low popular peers predicting digital status‐seeking across avoidance NFA. (a) Johnson–Neyman plot showing regions of significance for VS sensitivity to low popular peers on digital status‐seeking at varying levels of avoidance NFA. (b) Simple slopes showing the effect of VS sensitivity to low popular peers on digital status‐seeking at low (−1 SD), average (mean), and high (+1 SD) levels of avoidance NFA.

Amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers

Next, we ran the same moderation models with amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers. The regression examining the moderating role of NFA in the links between amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking showed that approach, as well as avoidance NFA, both moderated the links between amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking among adolescents (see Table 3).

TABLE 3.

Regression results predicting digital status‐seeking from NFA and amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers.

Variable	R 2 ∆	b	SE	t
Amygdala sensitivity
Step 1: Covariates
Sex		0.68	0.29	2.32*
Popularity_W2		0.16	0.11	1.43
Step 2: Main effects
NFAapproach	.59	0.21	0.17	1.28
NFAavoid		−0.05	0.18	−0.26
Amyg‐low‐pop_W2		0.07	0.19	0.34
Step 3: Interactions
Amyg‐low‐pop_W2 × NFAapproach	.001	0.39	0.18	2.23*
Amyg‐low‐pop_W2 × NFAavoid		0.46	0.21	2.17*

Abbreviations: Amyg‐low‐pop, amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers; NFA_approach, approach need for approval; NFA_avoid, avoidance need for approval; Popularity, peer‐nominated popularity; W2, wave 2.

^* p < .05.

Approach

We probed the significant interaction using the Johnson–Neyman technique, which shows that the association between amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking is significant when approach NFA exceeds 0.49SD above the mean (range of observed data [−2.26, 1.74], Figure 2a). Simple slope analyses (Figure 2b) further show that as neural sensitivity to low relative to high popular peers in the amygdala increases, adolescents report greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents with high (1SD above the mean) approach NFA (b = 0.60, p = .02). No significant associations were observed for adolescents at mean (b = 0.22, p = .27) or low (−1SD below the mean) levels of approach NFA (b = −0.16, p = .56).

FIGURE 2.

Amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers predicting digital status‐seeking across approach NFA. (a) Johnson–Neyman plot showing regions of significance for amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers on digital status‐seeking at varying levels of approach NFA. (b) Simple slopes showing the effect of amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers on digital status‐seeking at low (−1 SD), average (mean), and high (+1 SD) levels of approach NFA.

Avoidance

We probed the significant interaction for avoidance NFA using the Johnson–Neyman technique, which shows that the association between amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking is significant when avoidance NFA exceeds 1.04SD above the mean (range of observed values [−1.06, 2.94], Figure 3a). Further analyses with simple slopes (Figure 3b) show that as amygdala sensitivity to low relative to high popular peers increases, adolescents report greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents with high (1SD above the mean) avoidance NFA (b = 0.66, p = .05). No significant associations were observed for adolescents at mean (b = 0.22, p = .27) or low (−1SD below the mean) levels of avoidance NFA (b = −0.22, p = .33).

FIGURE 3.

Amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers predicting digital status‐seeking across avoidance NFA. (a) Johnson–Neyman plot showing regions of significance for amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers on digital status‐seeking at varying levels of avoidance NFA. (b) Simple slopes showing the effect of amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers on digital status‐seeking at low (−1 SD), average (mean), and high (+1 SD) levels of avoidance NFA.

Additional sensitivity analyses examined VS and amygdala responses to low‐ and to high‐popular peers (each relative to baseline) as separate predictors (see Supplementary Materials for full results). For the VS, neither model yielded significant interactions with NFA (all ps > .11). For the amygdala, greater sensitivity to low popular peers predicted greater digital status‐seeking at high approach NFA (b = 0.76, p = .05; see Figure S1), and greater sensitivity to high popular peers predicted less digital status‐seeking at high avoidance NFA (b = −1.05, p = .02; see Figure S2). Both patterns are consistent with the main contrast.

DISCUSSION

Peer status is a critical aspect of adolescent development. While the pursuit of status in offline contexts has been extensively studied in adolescence (for reviews, see Anderson et al., ²⁰¹⁵; Prinstein & Giletta, ²⁰²⁰; Hensums et al., ²⁰²³; Casper et al., ²⁰²⁰), the investigation of how adolescents enhance their status in online contexts is still in its nascency. Here, we investigated the neural mechanisms that potentially underlie digital status‐seeking in adolescence and how that may differ depending on adolescents' social motivations. We found that greater neural sensitivity to low (relative to high) popular peers in the VS was linked with greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents with heightened avoidance NFA. Additionally, we found that greater sensitivity to low (relative to high) popular peers in the amygdala was linked with greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents with a heightened approach, as well as adolescents with a heightened avoidance NFA. Our study builds upon prior studies and offers unique contributions on the neural and psychological mechanisms that may underlie digital status‐seeking in adolescence.

NFA moderates the links between neural sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking

As hypothesized, we found that VS sensitivity to low popular peers predicted greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents with heightened avoidance NFA. Notably, this sensitivity reflects the relative difference in neural activations to low compared to high popular peers, wherein adolescents differentiate between low and high popular peers, rather than neural responses to low or high popular peers alone. Such heightened neural activity to low, greater than high popular peers, may signal heightened threat detection from low popular peers. Indeed, low‐status peers have been linked with chronic victimization (Romera et al., 2021), such that affiliation with these peers may pose a threat to an adolescent's own social standing, which may, in part, motivate adolescents to engage in more digital status‐seeking. Our findings are consistent with previous literature by highlighting the VS as an important region that detects salient social cues, such as peer status (Ly et al., 2011; Morelli et al., ²⁰¹⁸; Zink et al., ²⁰⁰⁸), and extend this work by showing that such heightened VS sensitivity to low popular peers relates to digital status‐seeking in adolescence. Importantly, this neurobiological sensitivity may lead to digital status‐seeking when combined with a heightened motivation to avoid aversive social stimuli. Indeed, previous studies have shown that adolescents with greater avoidance NFA have heightened attention toward peer judgment and strive to avoid social punishments such as peer disapproval (Rudolph, 2021). Perhaps for adolescents with a heightened neurobiological sensitivity to low popular peers, having greater motivation to avoid social punishments may trigger compensatory behaviors to acquire more status in digital contexts. Our work aligns with prior behavioral work showing that adolescents demonstrate anti‐conformity to behaviors associated with low status peers and conform to the same behaviors when they are associated with high status peers (Cohen & Prinstein, 2006). In the digital context, such high status may mirror quantifiable feedback metrics in the form of a higher number of likes, followers, and comments associated with social media profiles. Alternatively, digital status‐seeking may function as a proactive defensive strategy, wherein adolescents with heightened neurobiological sensitivity to low popular peers and heightened avoidance of NFA may seek online indicators of status to buffer against the reputational threat that affiliation with such peers may pose to their own social standing. This aligns with prior work showing that adolescents who feel insecure about their social standing set goals to pursue higher status and engage in behaviors aimed at securing status within their peer group (Li & Wright, 2014).

Similarly, the current study found that amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers predicted greater digital status‐seeking 2 years later, but only for adolescents with a heightened approach NFA, as well as adolescents with heightened avoidance NFA. These results build on prior research showing amygdala processing of salient social cues such as social hierarchies (Achterberg et al., 2017; Adolphs, ²⁰¹⁰). We extend this body of literature and show that such neurobiological sensitivity to low popular peers may relate to adolescents' digital status‐seeking behaviors depending on their social motivations. Given that adolescents have been found to track low status peers at the neural level (Dai et al., 2023), heightened neural sensitivity to such peers may suggest concerns about being associated with low status peers. Such concerns, coupled with a heightened motivation to obtain peer approval, may in part motivate adolescents to enhance their status via the accumulation of quantifiable markers of status such as likes and followers. Notably, adolescents with heightened amygdala sensitivity to their low popular peers were more likely to engage in digital status‐seeking when they had a strong desire to be liked or look good in the presence of their peers. Recent theoretical (Nesi et al., ^{2018a, 2018b}) and empirical work (Throuvala et al., 2019) suggests that adolescents have various motivations for using social media. Thus, for adolescents with a heightened neurobiological sensitivity to low popular peers, having a strong motivation to enhance their self‐worth by eliciting social rewards may lead adolescents to seek out quantifiable feedback metrics on social media such as likes, comments, and followers, thereby leading to more digital status‐seeking.

Similarly, when adolescents showed heightened amygdala sensitivity to their low popular peers, they exhibited greater digital status‐seeking when they had a heightened avoidance NFA. Given that avoidance NFA involves a strong motivation to avoid negative judgments such as being disliked by peers (Rudolph, 2021), such motivational striving may likely amplify their already existing neurobiological sensitivity to such peers, which may in turn fuel their efforts to enhance their online status through accumulating such quantifiable feedback metrics.

Interestingly, while heightened neural sensitivity to low popular peers may confer neurobiological risks for engaging in digital status‐seeking in adolescence, our findings suggest that such likelihood is largely contingent on adolescents' social motivations. Notably, we found that when adolescents have low approach and/or avoidance NFA, they were impervious to heightened neurobiological sensitivity, whereby they showed no effect of digital status‐seeking even in the context of heightened VS and amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers. Our findings may indicate that adolescents whose self‐worth does not depend on peer approval or disapproval may be less inclined to seek out quantifiable markers of status in digital contexts and, as a result, are buffered from the effects of elevated neurobiological sensitivity. Similarly, neither the brain nor NFA in isolation influenced digital status‐seeking, suggesting a dynamic interplay between neural sensitivity to low popular peers and social motivations in shaping adolescents' digital status‐seeking behaviors. Our findings align with theory (Ellis et al., 2011; Schriber & Guyer, ²⁰¹⁶; Rudolph, ²⁰²¹; Telzer et al., ²⁰²⁵) and build upon prior empirical work showing that the effects of neurobiological sensitivity on developmental outcomes may depend on individual differences in psychosocial contexts (Liu et al., 2021; Pollak et al., ²⁰²³; Rudolph et al., ²⁰²⁰; Sequeira et al., ²⁰²⁴). Thus, in the context of heightened neurobiological sensitivity, both approach and avoidance NFA may serve as a ‘double‐edged sword’ in the development of digital status‐seeking: on the one hand, heightened social motivations may increase the risk of engaging in digital status‐seeking, whereas diminished social motivations may serve as a protective mechanism against it, thereby serving as a form of susceptibility to the social context. While NFA reflects a more conscious, self‐relevant process wherein adolescents strive to obtain positive (or avoid negative) peer feedback to enhance self‐worth, neural sensitivity to low‐popular peers reflects a more automatic encoding of status‐relevant cues in the peer environment. Thus, adolescents' motivational striving may only map onto status‐oriented behaviors like digital status‐seeking when paired with heightened neurobiological sensitivity to peer cues. Given that NFA may sit at the intersection between sensitivity to the social context and motivational striving, future work that assesses both NFA and more explicit goal‐oriented social motivations (e.g., peer status motivation, agentic and communal goals) would provide more conceptual clarity on whether NFA is better understood as a sensitivity indicator, a motivational indicator, or both.

Contributions, limitations, and future directions

The current study provides novel contributions to the growing body of literature, as it highlights how individual differences in social motivations may strengthen the links between neural sensitivity to low popular peers and digital status‐seeking in adolescence. Indeed, prior work on digital status‐seeking has only examined its correlates, particularly in terms of social and dispositional (Trekels et al., 2024), or health‐risk behaviors (Nesi & Prinstein, 2019). Given that adolescence is a sensitive period for enhanced neural development (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Cheng et al., ²⁰²⁴; Telzer et al., ²⁰²⁵), our results show that heightened amygdala/VS sensitivity to low popular peers in addition to heightened social motivations in the form of NFA may underlie digital status‐seeking in adolescence. Evidence from this study underscores the importance of considering both neurobiological susceptibility and social motivations for a richer understanding of the neural and psychological markers of digital status‐seeking in adolescence.

Notably, a key strength of this study is its use of a multi‐method design, combining neuroimaging, sociometric nominations and self‐reported surveys. Indeed, such an approach allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of the neural and psychological markers that may underlie digital status‐seeking. Moreover, the inclusion of sociometric nominations, which are widely considered the most robust metrics of peer status (Coie et al., 1983), further enhances the study's external validity. Our sociometric data allowed us to create an ecologically valid fMRI task during which we examined how adolescents processed salient social cues from their real‐world social environments.

Despite these strengths, the current study has some limitations. First, although the study adopts a longitudinal design, the study does not contain longitudinal measures. While the current design may be supported by the neurobiological susceptibility to social context theory (Schriber & Guyer, 2016), which suggests that neural sensitivities in the developing brain may inform how individuals react in later sociocultural contexts, it is also important to understand how these systems interact over time to inform developmental outcomes. Based on transactional models (Sameroff & Chandler, 1975), bidirectional transactions between adolescents' neurobiological and social sensitivities may mutually unfold over time. Thus, future studies should examine how neural and social sensitivities to peer status co‐evolve over time to inform the development of digital status‐seeking in adolescence. Moreover, we only assessed digital status‐seeking at a single time point (Wave 4), which limits our ability to examine trajectories of this behavior or to control for earlier levels. Additionally, although prior work suggests NFA becomes increasingly stable by early adolescence (Xu et al., 2022), our single‐wave assessment of NFA at Wave 2 may only capture a part of a more nuanced developmental picture, particularly given that some within‐person fluctuation in NFA remains possible even at this age (Xu et al., 2022). Future work should incorporate multiple and more proximal timepoints to examine how neural sensitivity, social motivation, and digital status‐seeking co‐develop across adolescence. Further, while our analyses show some interesting gender differences, with girls engaging in more digital status‐seeking, as well as avoidance NFA than boys, the current study is not sufficiently powered to examine a 3‐way interaction. Given that adolescent girls spend more time on social media (Marsh et al., 2022; Rideout et al., ²⁰²²) and engage in more digital status‐seeking than boys (Nesi & Prinstein, 2019), future studies should investigate the potential 3‐way interaction between biological sex, neural sensitivity, and social motivation on adolescent digital status‐seeking.

Next, although our contrast examined the degree to which adolescents are sensitive to low (relative to high) popular peers, it does not provide the full picture of what might drive these effects. For example, sensitivity analyses showed that greater amygdala sensitivity to high popular peers predicted less digital status‐seeking in the context of heightened avoidance NFA (see Supplementary Materials). While these results are consistent with our overall findings, they suggest that this effect may be driven by a sensitivity to high popular peers. Importantly, these results should be interpreted with caution, given that the intertrial interval does not constitute a neutral baseline. Future work should contrast sensitivity to low/high popular peers against peers of average popularity to further disentangle these effects. Relatedly, although we interpret heightened neural sensitivity to low popular peers as reflecting threat detection, our current design does not allow us to directly test this intermediate step. Future work could specifically probe whether, and what kind of threat is activated when adolescents are exposed to low popular peers, for example, by examining whether such exposure is followed by heightened attentional vigilance toward negative social cues. Testing these more proximal processes would help clarify the mechanism through which neural sensitivity to low popular peers translates into behavior, such as digital status‐seeking. Lastly, although our sample was drawn from a rural population that was both racially and ethnically diverse, we did not examine potential socioeconomic status (SES) variability in the context of neural sensitivity, NFA, and digital status‐seeking in the current study. Indeed, SES might uniquely intersect with these variables in important ways. For instance, prior work indicates that youth with higher SES are more likely to be nominated as digital status‐seekers (Nesi & Prinstein, 2019), and that neighborhood disadvantage is associated with differential neural activation in reward, salience, and mentalizing regions across diverse youth (Jorgensen et al., 2023). Thus, future studies should examine how SES may impact these effects across diverse adolescents.

CONCLUSION

This study examined whether heightened amygdala/VS sensitivity to low popular peers, coupled with heightened social motivations in the form of approach and avoidance NFA, prospectively predict digital status‐seeking in adolescence. Findings suggest that heightened social motivations in the form of NFA, in combination with neurobiological sensitivity to low popular peers, may offer insights into digital status‐seeking behaviors in adolescence. This study advances important research that elucidates the neural and psychological mechanisms that may potentially underlie digital status‐seeking in adolescence. Overall, our findings show the complex nature of digital status‐seeking, suggesting that it is the combination of neurobiological sensitivities to low popular peers, coupled with a heightened approach and/or avoidance NFA that may underlie digital status‐seeking in adolescence.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Jolien Trekels: Writing – review and editing. David B. Jack: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; formal analysis; writing – review and editing. Kristen A. Lindquist: Writing – review and editing; funding acquisition. Jimmy Capella: Data curation; writing – review and editing. Maria T. Maza: Data curation; writing – review and editing. Eva H. Telzer: Conceptualization; supervision; writing – review and editing; funding acquisition. Mitchell J. Prinstein: Funding acquisition; writing – review and editing. David Jack and Dr. Eva Telzer had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This research was supported by an National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant awarded to the final author (1R01DA051127‐01A1). The supporters of this study had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Eva H. Telzer has been retained as an expert witness in U.S. Social Media litigation. The authors declare no additional conflict of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This study was approved by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Institutional Review Board.

PATIENT CONSENT STATEMENT

Adolescents and parents gave written assent/consent in accordance with the university's Institutional Review Board.

Supporting information

Figure S1. Amygdala sensitivity to low popular peers predicting digital status‐seeking across approach NFA.

Figure S2. Amygdala sensitivity to high popular peers predicting digital status‐seeking across avoidance NFA.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.