Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2019 Nov 21;14(11):e0225498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225498

Social information use in adolescents: The impact of adults, peers and household composition

Lucas Molleman 1,2,3,*, Patricia Kanngiesser 4,5, Wouter van den Bos 1,2,3
Editor: Mark Nielsen6
PMCID: PMC6874082  PMID: 31751413

Abstract

Social learning strategies are key for making adaptive decisions, but their ontogeny remains poorly understood. We investigate how social information use depends on its source (adults vs. peer), and how it is shaped by household composition (extended vs. nuclear), a factor known to modulate social development. Using a simple estimation task, we show that social information strongly impacts the behaviour of adolescents aged 11 to 15 years (N = 256), especially when its source is an adult. However, social information use does not depend on household composition: the relative impact of adults and peers was similar in adolescents from both household types. Furthermore, adolescents were found to directly copy others’ estimates surprisingly frequently. This study provides novel insights into adolescents’ social information use and contributes to understanding the ontogeny of social learning strategies.

Introduction

Observing others may provide useful information that allows individuals to make better and more accurate decisions, while avoiding the potential costs of trial and error [1–3]. Social learning is considered fundamental for the evolution of cumulative culture, as it allows for the gradual improvement of skills and knowledge as well as their spread through populations [4–8]. Individuals tend to use social information strategically, being selective as to when to learn from others, and whom to learn from [9–11]. Choosing social sources as a ‘model’ to acquire information from is a key element of many social learning strategies, and is often based on the model’s prestige, success, familiarity, or age [3,12–14].

Although there is a wealth of research on social information use in childhood [14–20], systematic studies in adolescence are rare. This paucity of experimental studies is surprising given that adolescents undergo a process of major social re-orientation in which their behaviour becomes increasingly influenced by peers [21–24]. In this paper, we experimentally investigate how social information use in early to middle adolescence is influenced by (i) the source of information (adults vs. peer), and (ii) the environment of development (household composition; nuclear vs. extended).

Children rely heavily on social information to acquire knowledge and skills [17,19,25,26], and typically prefer to learn from adults over peers [14,27] ‒ especially when they consider adults to be more knowledgeable [28–30] (but see [31]). During adolescence, however, this focus on adults tends to shift as conformity to parental advice and the perceived epistemic authority of parents decreases [32,33]. At the same time, adolescents show an increased sensitivity to peer influence [24,34,35], suggesting that peers may become the most important source of social influence during this developmental period. However, evidence from experiments and the field suggests that the relative influence of peers and adults on adolescents’ behaviour depends on the domain of decision making. For example, peers can have a stronger effect on adolescents’ willingness to adopt social norms [36], while adults may have more impact in matters of objective knowledge about the environment [37].

Recent experiments have documented substantial variation in social information use between individuals and societies [38–43]. Evidence from studies with adults suggests that, like many aspects of social cognition, individuals’ social information use is shaped by socio-economic and cultural conditions [18,41,43–46]. Studies with adolescents indicate that their socio-cultural environment can modulate the relative influence of peers and adults on their behaviour [36,47,48]. In this study, we use a controlled behavioural experiment to shed light on ontogenetic dynamics that might underly these differences. Rather than comparing samples across cultural settings (e.g., between different countries)–where participants may systematically differ in a range of aspects–we investigated social information use in adolescents from come from the same socio-cultural environment, but who differ in one aspect known to shape social and emotional development: the composition of the household they are growing up in.

Household composition has been shown to influence child and adolescent development across a range of domains, including educational outcomes, health outcomes, relationship formation, and emotional development [49–54]. Across the globe, two common types of households are ‘nuclear’ (comprising parents and their offspring) and ‘extended’ households (also including grandparents). There are reasons to suspect that household composition may influence the relative importance of adults and peers as sources of social information. Compared to nuclear households, extended households consist of more adults, and individuals growing up in these households tend to associate seniority more strongly with authority and power [55]. Recent field evidence suggests that the extent to which people use social information increases with its availability and value in day-to-day interactions [45]. It is therefore conceivable that adolescents from extended households would value information from adults more due to the benefits of heeding adults’ advice in their everyday family life.

We experimentally compared social information use in two groups of 11- to 15-year-old adolescents, from either nuclear or extended households. We recruited adolescents from middle-class families in an urban area in India, where about half of the households consist of extended families. Importantly, the two groups were very similar in terms of socio-economic status, parental education, and religious affiliation; they were recruited from the same schools and they attended the same school classes (see Methods for details). In many parts of India, extended families are patrilocal, that is, women join their husband’s family after marriage, and authority traditionally resides with the oldest male in the family [55]. Following international trends [56–58], India has seen a decline of the fraction of extended families over the past few years, and nuclear families have become increasingly common, especially in urban areas [49,59,60].

We used a validated incentivised perceptual decision-making task [61] to measure adolescents’ basic propensity to use social information (Fig 1). In this task, participants had to estimate how many animals were shown in an image, and could adjust their estimate after observing social information. They were shown the estimate of another person who was not known to the participant and who had completed the task before. We used the average degree of participants’ estimate adjustment as a measure of their social information use (see Methods for details). In two experimental conditions (within-subject), we varied whether the person who provided the estimate was an unfamiliar peer or an adult.

Fig 1. Experimental task.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

a, Participants observed an image showing a group of animals for 6 seconds and had to estimate the number of animals. b, Once the image had disappeared, participants entered their first estimate (E1). c, Then, they observed social information (X; the estimate of another participant who completed the task before without social information) and entered their second estimate (E2). This procedure was repeated for five rounds, in each of two experimental conditions, in which social information was provided by either a peer student (yellow) or an adult (blue). In each round, social information use was calculated as s = (E2 –E1) / (X–E1), and for each experimental condition, each participant’s social information use was characterized as the average value of s across the five rounds. Participants did not receive any feedback about their accuracy (nor the accuracy of the social information) between trials.

We had two predictions about the outcome of our experiment. First, we predicted that adolescents would be more influenced by adults than by peers, as the task contained objectively correct solutions [37]. That is, adolescents would adjust their estimates more after observing the estimates of an adult model than after observing the estimates of a peer model. Second, we predicted that the difference between adult and peer models would be particularly pronounced for adolescents from extended households. In other words, we hypothesized that for adolescents from nuclear households the difference between peers and adults would be relatively small, and for adolescents from extended households, this difference would be relatively large.

Material and methods

Participants

Across two schools in Pune, India, a total of 264 adolescents (154 from 1 school and 110 from another; age range 11–15 years, mean 13.38, s.d. 0.88; 129 male, 135 female) participated in our tablet-based experiment. In our sample, 148 of the adolescents were from extended households (defined as including a cohabiting grandparental generation), and 108 were from nuclear households. Eight additional adolescents completed the experimental task, but were dropped from the analyses because information on their household composition was not provided.

Pune is a large city with about 4 million inhabitants; and its metropolitan area has a population of more than 5 million. Main industries are IT and manufacturing; the city has a per capita income ranking the sixth highest in India. In Pune, about half of households consist of extended families. The comparison groups in our sample (adolescents from nuclear versus extended households) did not differ with respect to their age and gender distributions, the number of children in their household, or their composition in terms of religious affiliation (Table A in S1 File). In addition to these demographic similarities, we also observe that their parents’ educational and occupational backgrounds are similar across the two comparison groups (Table B in S1 File). The adolescents from the two groups in our sample were recruited from the same schools and attended the same classes. In sum, the context of our study offers an ideal test case to study the effect of household composition on social information use.

Procedure

Before data collection, the procedures and protocol of this study were approved by the IRB of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin (approval included data collection in India; IRB approval number ARC 2018/15). The study was conducted by a local researcher in Pune in August and September 2018. Heads of schools gave their approval to conduct the study and handed out consent forms to parents of adolescents in the appropriate age range. Participation was by assent from the adolescents and informed consent from their parents. The consent form was also used to collected the data about household composition (i.e., a list of persons currently living in the same household, including family relationships) as well as parents’ educational and professional background. Before starting the task, participants were informed of all procedures, including how their choices affected their earnings. The task was administered on tablet computers and all instructions were in English. Participants attended English middle schools and were proficient in English. The on-screen instructions also included extensive illustrations, test trials and compulsory control questions to ensure that participants fully understood their task (see Supporting Information in S1 File for experimental materials). The local experimenter who, in addition to English, spoke the main local languages (Hindi, Marathi) was always present to answer any questions.

Participants completed an adapted version of the BEAST, a perceptual judgment task that has been shown to reliably measure individuals’ use of social information in a limited amount of time [61]. The task consisted of two blocks of 5 rounds each, the order of which was counterbalanced between participants. In one block, participants were informed that they could observe social information from a peer (a student of roughly the same age) model; in the other block, they could observe an adult model. To avoid confounding effects, we did not provide any further information about these models (e.g., regarding their gender, exact age, skill at this task, or other indicators of prestige or success; see Supporting Information for screenshots of the decision screens).

In each round of the task, participants viewed an image containing 50–60 animals (Fig 1A). In each round, we used a different animal species [61]. After 6 seconds, the image disappeared, and participants were asked to estimate how many animals were displayed (Fig 1B). Piloting with local students showed that this range of numbers of animals and the viewing time gave participants a rough impression of the total number of animals but prevented them from actually counting them. The value participants entered after viewing the image was their first estimate in a round (denoted E1). After entering their first estimate, participants were provided with social information (denoted X): the estimate of another person who had already completed the task without social information (Fig 1C).

Because the impact of social information on behaviour can vary with its distance from an individual’s prior beliefs [42,62–67], we experimentally controlled this distance by selecting social information 15–25% away from an participant’s first estimate in a round, using the true value as a reference point. In each round, after a participant had submitted their first estimate, we calculated a ‘target’ value of social information. We set this target value at X’ = E1 ∙ (1 + Δ) if the first estimate was lower than correct value, and at X’ = E1 ∙ (1 – Δ) if the first estimate was higher than the correct value. The value of X displayed to the participant was the value in the pre-recorded sample that was closest to that ‘target’ value X’. When the first estimate was exactly correct, a coin flip determined whether the displayed social information was lower or higher than the first estimate. This procedure ensures that social information was sometimes lower and sometimes higher than a participant’s first estimate. Furthermore, most of the time (but not always), social information was closer to the true value than a participant’s first estimate. For rounds 1–5 of the task, we set Δ to 0.25, 0.15, 0.20, 0.15, and 0.25, respectively.

The pre-recorded sample consisted of 24 adults and 14 students, who completed the task without social information. To obtain a ‘saturated’ sample of estimates for each round of the actual experiment, the participants in the pre-recorded sample went through 6 iterations of the 5 rounds of the task. As a result, the pre-recorded sample consisted of 144 adult estimates and 84 student estimates for each round to be displayed as social information.

After observing the social information, participants made a second estimate (E2; Fig 1C). For each round, we calculate the relative distance a participant moved towards the social information as s = (E2 –E1) / (X–E1). We define an individual’s use of social information as the mean value of s across 5 rounds (denoted S). Here, we characterise an individual with two measures: Speer and Sadult (to reflect responses to social information provided by a peer student or an adult, respectively). The value of Si can be viewed as the relative weight an individual tends to assign to social information, relative to their own individual estimate. Correspondingly, the predicted second estimate for an individual can be written as E2 = (1 –Si) ∙ E1 + Si ∙ X. When calculating the values of S, we omitted the rarely observed, cases in which participants moved away from social information (s < 0; 2.2% of cases) or moved beyond the social information (s > 1; 5.6% of cases). These represent qualitatively different cases in that the second estimate is not a weighted average of one’s own individual estimate and social information [61]. The main results reported in this paper did not change when these cases were included in the analyses, or when these cases were treated as the nearest value in the range [0,1].

Participants did not receive feedback about their performance during the task. This prevented participants from learning about their own accuracy or the accuracy (or reliability) of the social information. After completing both blocks of 5 rounds, one of their estimates was randomly selected to count towards their earnings. When this estimate was exactly correct, a participant received 100 points. For each animal a participant was off the true value, 5 points were subtracted. Earnings could not fall below 0 points. So, participants were incentivised to only adjust their first estimate if they thought it would improve their accuracy. This procedure ensured a high level of experimental control without deception. Debriefing after pilot sessions confirmed that students did not doubt that the displayed estimates stemmed from actual people, and that they deemed social information potentially useful to improve the accuracy of their estimates.

At the end of the session, participants were compensated according to performance with stationary items, such as pencils and note books. Participants received two items for participation; for every 20 points they earned during the task, they could earn one additional (bonus) item. On average, participants earned 50 points (s.d. 34), which converted into an average of 2.21 (s.d. 1.64) bonus items. The experiment was programmed in LIONESS Lab [68]; experimental code is available upon request from the first author (L.M.).

Analyses

Our main analyses focus on how model age (peer or adult) and household composition impacted participants’ adjustments of estimates after observing social information. Our regression models included ‘age’ and ‘gender’ as control variables, and used ‘participant nested in school’ as random effects (exact specification of these models are detailed where they are presented). Analyses were conducted in R v. 3.5.1 [69]; for regressions we used the package ‘lme4’ [70]. For assumption checks for reported tests, see Supporting Text in S1 File. Our primary analyses use ‘extended households’ defined as grandparents being in the household or not, irrespective of cohabiting aunts or uncles (see Table C in S1 File for sample composition with respect to cohabiting grandparents and aunts or uncles). The main results reported below are robust to defining extended households as in- or excluding aunts and uncles.

Results

Basic behavioural results

Participants’ first estimates tended to be slightly lower than the true value (Panel A of Fig A in S1 File). Underestimation is a typical result in estimation tasks [42,62] and the magnitude of underestimation in this task (about 10% on average) was very similar to previous observations from adult participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk [61], Colombian fishermen and farmers, Dutch university students, as well as British and German teenagers (manuscripts on these datasets are in preparation). In line with these other samples, second estimates were, on average, closer to the correct value (Panel B of Fig A in S1 File; linear mixed model comparing deviations from the true value between first and second estimates, with period nested in participant nested in school as random effect: β = -1.884 (0.103), t = -18.32, P<0.001), which is perhaps unsurprising because by design, social information pointed in the direction of the correct value in most of the cases (Methods). These aggregate results indicate that, overall, participants used social information to update their estimates and to improve the accuracy of their decisions.

The impact of model age and household composition on social information use

In line with our predictions, estimates provided by adults had a stronger impact on adolescents’ own estimates than those provided by peers (Fig 2). After observing an adult, average adjustments were 47.5% from the own first estimate towards the social information. After observing a peer, average adjustments were 43.7%, which is significantly less (paired t-test comparing distributions of Speer and Sadult: t = -2.192, d.f. = 262, P = 0.029; Cohen’s d = 0.135). This result is corroborated by a (more principled) analysis based on a regression model indicating that average adjustments were significantly influenced by model type (main effect: P = 0.021) but not by participants’ age or gender (Table 1, Model 1).

Fig 2. Social information use depends on model age, not household composition.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Bars show mean adjustments in both experimental conditions (+/- 1 SEM), broken down by household composition of the participant and by model type. We observed that participants tended to adjust more when the source of social information was an adult. Household composition did not matter for this increase. For statistical analyses, see Table 1.

Table 1. Determinants of social information use.

The predictor ‘model type’ was coded as 0 when the source of social information was a peer and as 1 when the source was an adult. The predictor ‘household type’ was coded as 0 if a participant lived in a ‘nuclear’ household, and as 1 when they lived in an ‘extended’ household including grandparent(s). Gender was coded as 0 for males and 1 for females. Model 1 is a linear mixed model fitted to participants’ mean adjustment (S) across the five rounds in an experimental condition. As dependent variable, this model included two data points for each participant: (i) mean adjustment when observing a peer (Speer) and (ii) mean adjustment when observing an adult (Sadult). Model 2 was a logistic generalized mixed model (GLMM) fitted to decisions to stay with one’s own first estimate (coded as 1) or move towards the social information (coded as 0). Model 3 was a logistic GLMM fitted to decisions to copy the social information (coded as 1 if social information was copied, 0 if it was not). In all models, we used ‘participant nested in school’ as random effect.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
mean adjustment probability of ‘stay’ probability of ‘copy’
estimate (SE) P estimate (SE) P estimate (SE) P
intercept 0.693 (0.236) 0.004 -2.023 (1.801) 0.261 2.260 (2.445) 0.355
model type 0.062 (0.027) 0.021 -0.480 (0.180) 0.008 0.790 (0.211) <0.001
household type -0.001 (0.035) 0.971 -0.139 (0.264) 0.599 -0.003 (0.359) 0.993
model type x household type -0.040 (0.034) 0.238 0.359 (0.228) 0.115 -0.477 (0.266) 0.074
gender 0.018 (0.029) 0.537 0.160 (0.235) 0.497 -0.126 (0.312) 0.685
age -0.021 (0.017) 0.204 0.050 (0.134) 0.709 -0.388 (0.180) 0.031
n 511 2,358 2,358
N 256 256 256
Open in a new tab

In contrast to our predictions, we did not observe a systematic effect of household composition on the relative impact of peers versus adults on adolescents’ social information use (Fig 2; compare the differences between the yellow and blue bars for nuclear versus extended households). This result is confirmed by the regression model (Table 1, Model 1), which does not detect a significant interaction between ‘model type’ and ‘household type’.

Adjustments in individual rounds

To get more insight into how participants used social information to adjust their estimates, we turn to behaviour in individual rounds. Fig 3 shows that the most common adjustments can be classified into three qualitatively different categories (or ‘adjustment heuristics’; [64,67,71]. Pooling adjustments in both experimental conditions, we observe that participants frequently chose to not adjust at all (s = 0, ‘stay’; 27% of the rounds), copy the model’s estimate (s = 1, ‘copy’; 18%), or compromise between their own first estimate and the model’s estimate (taking some weighted average between the two estimates; 0 < s < 1, ‘compromise’; 51%). Tendencies to ‘stay’ or ‘copy’ did not differ across household compositions (Table 1, Models 2 and 3).

Fig 3. Distribution of adjustments in individual rounds of the task, broken down by model age.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

For each round, we calculate a participant’s relative adjustment, that is, the fraction they moved toward the social information (see main text for details).

Fig 3 further suggests that participants were more likely to stay with their first estimate when social information was provided by a peer, whereas participants were more likely to copy social information when it was provided by an adult. These observations are supported by logistic generalized linear models fitted to decisions to stay with one’s own first estimate and decisions to copy the social information (main effect of ‘model type’ in models 2 and 3 of Table 1; P = 0.008 and P < 0.001, respectively). Note that these effects did not vary with household composition, but the significantly negative effect of ‘age’ in model 3 suggests that older adolescents were less likely to simply copy the estimates of other people.

Discussion

Our results indicate that model age but not household composition affected social information use in adolescents aged 11 to 15 years in urban India. On average, social information tended to have more impact on adolescents’ behaviour when its source was an adult rather than a peer. However, this effect did not depend on household composition; the relative impact of adults was not more pronounced in adolescents from extended households than in those from nuclear households.

With average adjustments of 43% (when observing a peer) and 47% (when observing an adult), the level of social information use in our experiment was substantially higher than reported in studies of advice taking and social influence in adults [42,61,62,71–73]. These studies were largely conducted with adult participants from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) societies [74] and found average adjustment levels of around 30–35%, indicating that people weight their own estimate about twice as much as the estimate of another individual. Although social information use in those studies was measured with different tasks, our data suggests that adolescents in our sample had lower levels of so-called ‘egocentric discounting’ [62]. Note that we cannot conclusively say whether these results are due to adolescents’ increased sensitivity to social influence [34,35] or to the socio-cultural context of our study [75], or both. Due to its simplicity, minimal social context and easy implementation, the paradigm used in our study might form a sound basis for systematic comparisons of the development of social learning across societies (in the spirit of, e.g., [46]), disentangling the effects of age and socio-cultural environment. For useful discussions of some of the challenges of using cognitive tasks across cultures, see [76–78].

In contrast with the popular idea that adolescents only focus on their peers, we found that their behaviour was more influenced by adults than by peers. Our decision-making task measured sensitivity for social influence in a setting in which there was an objectively correct response (that is, the number of animals in an image). In that respect our results are in line with findings that adolescents were more influenced by adults than by peers when judging the probability of an event [37]. By contrast, peers have been found to have a greater impact on decisions when they involve social values or norms such as how to share resources with others [36]. Already from a young age, people are able to flexibly use social information depending on the source’s past reliability or familiarity with the subject matter [79,80]. It is likely that adolescents in our study expected adults to be more skilled and to provide more accurate estimates than peer models. Thus, even in a period that peers are often considered the most important reference group, information of adults may still be valued. These findings underline the importance of studying the development of social information use in different domains (e.g., risk taking, inclinations for rule-following and compliance to social norms).

Our results provide a deeper insight into social information use in early to middle adolescence and how this may depend on characteristics of the model (i.e., the source of social information). We found that adolescents in our Indian sample copied social information rather frequently (Fig 3), and did so more often when the model was an adult. Conversely, adolescents were more likely to ignore social information (i.e., staying with their own first estimates) when the model was a peer. Previous studies with adults (mostly university students from Western countries) have reported occasional one-to-one copying of others’ estimates, attitudes or opinions, but at much lower frequencies [42,62,71–73]. It is possible that the high levels of copying are specific to socio-cultural context of our study. Our observation that copying tends to become less frequent with age (Table 1, model 3) further suggests that the relative frequencies of simple adjustment heuristics decreases across development, in favour of an–arguably more complex–integrative compromising strategy. Future research could examine the extent to which our results generalize to different decision problems (see, for example [81–83]) and other (WEIRD and non-WEIRD) populations. Furthermore, the relative frequencies of adjustment heuristics (cf. ‘stay’, ‘compromise’ or ‘copy’ [71]) can have marked consequences for social dynamics at the collective level. For example, when people in a social network are repeatedly influenced by each other, these heuristics can give rise to distinct patterns of group decision-making such as the formation of consensus or polarization [64,67,84–87]. The relatively high frequencies of the ‘extreme’ heuristics of copying or staying (rather than compromising) suggest that, relative to adults, groups of adolescents may take longer to form a consensus and may be more likely to become internally polarized. Future theoretical and experimental studies could explore the possible implications of adolescents’ social information use for longer-term dynamics of group decision-making.

Our study aimed to compare groups that differed in the variable of interest (household composition), but were otherwise very similar. Our analysis of adolescents’ socio-demographic background confirms that the two groups (nuclear vs. extended family) were similar with respect to an–admittedly limited–set of measured control variables (Tables A and B in S1 File). Factors such as gender, age, socio-economic and societal background can have an impact on aspects of social cognition, including social learning [41,43,45,88,89] but it is often difficult to disentangle the effects of these factors in broader cross-cultural comparisons. Our approach allows for a more focused analysis of a single factor that might shape adolescents’ social information use, thereby complementing studies that make broader comparisons across cultures and across development [36,46]. The lack of differences in social information use between nuclear and extended households observed in our study may be explained by the fact that the transition from extended to nuclear households occurred relatively recently [49,59,60]. Although our data does not include measurements of family values or the history of their household composition, it is conceivable that people living in nuclear households may still uphold “extended” family values and receive social support from members of their extended family (e.g., grandparents, uncles, aunts), who tend to live nearby.

Our study provides important new insights into the social information use of adolescents. We observed that adolescents showed high levels of social information use, especially when social information was provided by (presumably more knowledgeable) adults. These results highlight that there are situations in which adolescents put more weight on input from adults, instead of mostly focusing on peers. In addition, our data suggest that adolescents–or at least, Indian adolescents–frequently rely on simple adjustment heuristics (‘stay’ or ‘copy’) instead of using an integrative compromising strategy. Such developmental, or possibly cultural, differences in social learning strategies may have a significant impact on group behaviour. Finally, the current study provides a robust template to further investigate the developmental dynamics of social information use. Theoretically important aspects to study include the characteristics that may be important for selecting a model to learn from (e.g., their expertise or popularity), how to integrate information from multiple sources (e.g., when the influence of parents and peers operates in opposing directions: ‘parents say no, peers say yes’), how to decide which social learning strategy fits best to the current situation, and how social information use is modulated by individuals’ confidence in their own judgment [90,91]. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies systematically tracking these aspects—mapping out their onset and development—could provide critical advances for understanding social learning and its determinants.

Supporting information

S1 File. This document contains Supporting Fig A, Supporting Tables A-C, Supporting Text, as well as the full experimental materials as shown to participants.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (1.6MB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Jahnavi Sunderarajan for providing us with useful comments and discussions, as well as for her help collecting the data. We further thank Damien Fleur, Andrea Gradassi, Casper Hesp, Joshua Niebaum, Ana Pinho, Scarlett Slagter and Sjanne van der Stappen for useful comments and discussions.

Data Availability

The data for this article is openly available on GitHub: https://github.com/LucasMolleman/Molleman_Kanngiesser_vandenBos.

Funding Statement

L.M. and W.v.d.B. were supported by Open Research Area (ID 176); L.M. is further supported by an Amsterdam Brain and Cognition Project grant 2018. W.v.d.B. is further supported by the Jacobs Foundation, European Research Council grant (ERC-2018-StG-803338) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research grant (NWO-VIDI 016.Vidi.185.068). P.K. is supported by a Freigeist Fellowship from Volkswagen Foundation [no. 89611]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Tomasello M. 2009. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hoppitt W, Laland KN. 2013. Social Learning: An Introduction to Mechanisms, Methods, and Models. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kendal RL, Boogert NJ, Rendell L, Laland KN, Webster M, Jones PL. 2018. Social learning strategies: Bridge-building between fields. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22, 651–665. 10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Boyd R, Richerson PJ, Henrich J. 2011. The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 10918–10925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dean LG, Kendal RL, Schapiro SJ, Thierry B, Laland KN. 2012. Identification of the social and cognitive processes underlying human cumulative culture. Science 335, 1114–1118. 10.1126/science.1213969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tennie C, Call J, Tomasello M. 2009. Ratcheting up the ratchet: on the evolution of cumulative culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 2405–2415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Henrich J. 2015. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making us Smarter Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Heyes C. 2017. When does social learning become cultural learning? Developmental Science 20, e12350 10.1111/desc.12350 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Laland KN. 2004. Social learning strategies. Animal Learning & Behavior 32, 4–14. 10.3758/BF03196002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rendell L et al. 2010. Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science 328, 208–213. 10.1126/science.1184719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Heyes C. 2016. Who knows? Metacognitive social learning strategies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20, 204–213. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Henrich J, McElreath R. 2003. The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 12, 123–135. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rendell L, Fogarty L, Hoppitt WJE, Morgan TJH, Webster MM, Laland KN. 2011. Cognitive culture: theoretical and empirical insights into social learning strategies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15, 68–76. 10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wood LA, Kendal RL, Flynn EG. 2013. Whom do children copy? Model-based biases in social learning. Developmental Review 33, 341–356. 10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Buritica JMR, Eppinger B, Schuck NW, Heekeren HR, Li S-C. 2016. Electrophysiological correlates of observational learning in children. Developmental Science 19, 699–709. 10.1111/desc.12317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Crivello C, Phillips S, Poulin‐Dubois D. 2018. Selective social learning in infancy: looking for mechanisms. Developmental Science 21, e12592 10.1111/desc.12592 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Harris PL, Koenig MA, Corriveau KH, Jaswal VK. 2018. Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology 69, 251–273. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Legare CH. 2017. Cumulative cultural learning: Development and diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 7877–7883. 10.1073/pnas.1620743114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Legare CH, Nielsen M. 2015. Imitation and innovation: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19, 688–699. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Morgan TJH, Laland KN, Harris PL. 2015. The development of adaptive conformity in young children: effects of uncertainty and consensus. Developmental Science 18, 511–524. 10.1111/desc.12231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Choudhury S, Blakemore S-J, Charman T. 2006. Social cognitive development during adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 1, 165–174. 10.1093/scan/nsl024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Blakemore S-J. 2008. The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9, 267 10.1038/nrn2353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Crone EA, Dahl RE. 2012. Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13, 636 10.1038/nrn3313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Albert D, Chein J, Steinberg L. 2013. The teenage brain: Peer influences on adolescent decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22, 114–120. 10.1177/0963721412471347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Carpenter M, Nagell K, Tomasello M, Butterworth G, Moore C. 1998. Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63, i. 10.2307/1166214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gergely G, Bekkering H, Király I. 2002. Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature 415, 755–. 10.1038/415755a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Price EE, Wood LA, Whiten A. 2017. Adaptive cultural transmission biases in children and nonhuman primates. Infant Behavior and Development 48, 45–53. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2016.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Taylor M, Cartwright BS, Bowden T. 1991. Perspective taking and theory of mind: Do children predict interpretive diversity as a function of differences in observers’ knowledge? Child Development 62, 1334–1351. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01609.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hannes Rakoczy, Katharina Hamann, Felix Warneken, Michael Tomasello. 2010. Bigger knows better: Young children selectively learn rule games from adults rather than from peers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 28, 785–798. 10.1348/026151009x479178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zmyj N, Daum MM, Prinz W, Nielsen M, Aschersleben G. 2012. Fourteen-month-olds’ imitation of differently aged models. Infant and Child Development 21, 250–266. 10.1002/icd.750 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wood LA, Harrison RA, Lucas AJ, McGuigan N, Burdett ERR, Whiten A. 2016. Model age-based and copy when uncertain biases in children’s social learning of a novel task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 150, 272–284. 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Berndt TJ. 1979. Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology 15, 608–616. 10.1037/0012-1649.15.6.608 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bar-Tal D, Raviv A, Raviv A, Brosh ME. 1991. Perception of epistemic authority and attribution for its choice as a function of knowledge area and age. European Journal of Social Psychology 21, 477–492. 10.1002/ejsp.2420210603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Blakemore S-J, Mills KL. 2014. Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychology 65, 187–207. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rodriguez Buritica JM, Heekeren HR, van den Bos W. 2019. The computational basis of following advice in adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 180, 39–54. 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.11.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ruggeri A, Luan S, Keller M, Gummerum M. 2018. The influence of adult and peer role models on children’ and adolescents’ sharing decisions. Child Development 89, 1589–1598. 10.1111/cdev.12916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lourenco FS, Decker JH, Pedersen GA, Dellarco DV, Casey BJ, Hartley CA. 2015. Consider the source: adolescents and adults similarly follow older adult advice more than peer advice. PLoS ONE 10, e0128047 10.1371/journal.pone.0128047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Efferson C, Lalive R, Richerson PJ, McElreath R, Lubell M. 2008. Conformists and mavericks: the empirics of frequency-dependent cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 29, 56–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Molleman L, van den Berg P, Weissing FJ. 2014. Consistent individual differences in human social learning strategies. Nature Communications 5, 3570 10.1038/ncomms4570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Toelch U, Bruce MJ, Newson L, Richerson PJ, Reader SM. 2014. Individual consistency and flexibility in human social information use. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281, 20132864 10.1098/rspb.2013.2864 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mesoudi A, Chang L, Murray K, Lu HJ. 2015. Higher frequency of social learning in China than in the West shows cultural variation in the dynamics of cultural evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282, 20142209 10.1098/rspb.2014.2209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Jayles B, Kim H, Escobedo R, Cezera S, Blanchet A, Kameda T, Sire C, Theraulaz G. 2017. How social information can improve estimation accuracy in human groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201703695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Molleman L, Gächter S. 2018. Societal background influences social learning in cooperative decision making. Evolution and Human Behavior 39, 547–555. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.05.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mesoudi A, Chang L, Dall SR, Thornton A. 2016. The evolution of individual and cultural variation in social learning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 215–225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Glowacki L, Molleman L. 2017. Subsistence styles shape human social learning strategies. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 0098 10.1038/s41562-017-0098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Van Leeuwen EJC, Cohen E, Collier-Baker E, Rapold CJ, Schäfer M, Schütte S, Haun DBM. 2018. The development of human social learning across seven societies. Nature Communications 9, 2076 10.1038/s41467-018-04468-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Greenfield PM, Keller H, Fuligni AJ, Maynard A. 2003. Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology 54, 461–490. 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hewlett BS, Fouts HN, Boyette AH, Hewlett BL. 2011. Social learning among Congo Basin hunter-gatherers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366, 1168–1178. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Singh JP. 2003. Nuclearisation of household and family in urban India. Sociological Bulletin 52, 53–72. 10.1177/0038022920030103 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Georgas J et al. 2001. Functional relationships in the nuclear and extended family: A 16-culture study. International Journal of Psychology 36, 289–300. 10.1080/00207590143000045 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hamilton HA. 2005. Extended families and adolescent well-being. The Journal of Adolescent Health 36, 260–266. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.02.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Krueger PM, Jutte DP, Franzini L, Elo I, Hayward MD. 2015. Family structure and multiple domains of child well-being in the United States: a cross-sectional study. Population Health Metrics 13, 6 10.1186/s12963-015-0038-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kumar A, Ram F. 2013. Influence of family structure on child health: evidence from India. Journal of Biosocial Science 45, 577–599. 10.1017/S0021932012000764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Seymour S. 1983. Household Structure and Status and Expressions of Affect in India. Ethos 11, 263–277. 10.1525/eth.1983.11.4.02a00050 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.D’Cruz P, Bharat S. 2001. Beyond joint and nuclear: The Indian family revisited. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 32, 167–194. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.OECD. 2011. Doing Better for Families. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ruggles S. 2012. The future of historical family demography. Annual Review of Sociology 38, 423–441. 10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017 Household size and composition around the world. See http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/popfacts/PopFacts_2017-2.pdf.
  • 59.Allendorf K. 2013. Going nuclear? Family structure and young women’s health in India, 1992–2006. Demography 50, 853–880. 10.1007/s13524-012-0173-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chadda RK, Deb KS. 2013. Indian family systems, collectivistic society and psychotherapy. Indian Journal of Psychiatry 55, S299–309. 10.4103/0019-5545.105555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Molleman L, Kurvers RHJM, van den Bos W. 2019. Unleashing the BEAST: a brief measure of human social information use. Evolution and Human Behavior 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.06.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Yaniv I. 2004. Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 93, 1–13. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Yaniv I, Milyavsky M. 2007. Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, 104–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Moussaïd M, Kämmer JE, Analytis PP, Neth H. 2013. Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation. PloS one 8, e78433 10.1371/journal.pone.0078433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Schultze T, Rakotoarisoa A-F, Schulz-Hard S. 2015. Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization. Judgment and Decision making 10, 144–172. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hütter M, Ache F. 2016. Seeking advice: A sampling approach to advice taking. Judgment & Decision Making 11, 401. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Moussaïd M, Herzog SM, Kämmer JE, Hertwig R. 2017. Reach and speed of judgment propagation in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 201611998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Giamattei M, Molleman L, Seyed Yahosseini K, Gaechter S. 2019. LIONESS Lab–a free web-based platform for conducting interactive experiments online. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3329384 or 10.2139/ssrn.3329384. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.R Core Team. 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; See http://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B. 2012. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Soll JB, Larrick RP. 2009. Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35, 780–805. 10.1037/a0015145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Minson JA, Liberman V, Ross L. 2011. Two to tango: Effects of collaboration and disagreement on dyadic judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37, 1325–1338. 10.1177/0146167211410436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Soll JB, Mannes AE. 2011. Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved. International Journal of Forecasting 27, 81–102. 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. 2010. Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 111–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Blake PR, Corbit J, Callaghan TC, Warneken F. 2016. Give as I give: Adult influence on children’s giving in two cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 152, 149–160. 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zuilkowski SS, McCoy DC, Serpell R, Matafwali B, Fink G. 2016. Dimensionality and the development of cognitive assessments for children in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 47, 341–354. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Hruschka DJ, Munira S, Jesmin K, Hackman J, Tiokhin L. 2018. Learning from failures of protocol in cross-cultural research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 11428–11434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Holding P et al. 2018. Can we measure cognitive constructs consistently within and across cultures? Evidence from a test battery in Bangladesh, Ghana, and Tanzania. Applied Neuropsychology: Child 7, 1–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Jaswal VK, Neely LA. 2006. Adults don’t always know best: preschoolers use past reliability over age when learning new words. Psychological Science 17, 757–758. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01778.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Vanderborght M, Jaswal VK. 2009. Who knows best? Preschoolers sometimes prefer child informants over adult informants. Infant and Child Development 18, 61–71. 10.1002/icd.591 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.McGuigan N, Makinson J, Whiten A. 2011. From over-imitation to super-copying: Adults imitate causally irrelevant aspects of tool use with higher fidelity than young children. British Journal of Psychology 102, 1–18. 10.1348/000712610X493115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Whiten A, Allan G, Devlin S, Kseib N, Raw N, McGuigan N. 2016. Social learning in the real-world:‘Over-imitation’occurs in both children and adults unaware of participation in an experiment and independently of social interaction. PLoS One 11, e0159920 10.1371/journal.pone.0159920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Carr K, Kendal RL, Flynn EG. 2015. Imitate or innovate? Children’s innovation is influenced by the efficacy of observed behaviour. Cognition 142, 322–332. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Dyer JR, Johansson A, Helbing D, Couzin ID, Krause J. 2008. Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 781–789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Mäs M, Flache A, Helbing D. 2010. Individualization as driving force of clustering phenomena in humans. PLoS Computational Biology 6, e1000959 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Lorenz J, Rauhut H, Schweitzer F, Helbing D. 2011. How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. PNAS 108, 9020–9025. 10.1073/pnas.1008636108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Tump AN, Wolf M, Krause J, Kurvers RHJM. 2018. Individuals fail to reap the collective benefits of diversity because of over-reliance on personal information. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 15, 20180155 10.1098/rsif.2018.0155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Talhelm T, Zhang X, Oishi S, Shimin C, Duan D, Lan X, Kitayama S. 2014. Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science 344, 603–608. 10.1126/science.1246850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Uskul AK, Over H. 2014. Responses to social exclusion in cultural context: evidence from farming and herding communities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106, 752–771. 10.1037/a0035810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Morgan TJH, Rendell LE, Ehn M, Hoppitt W, Laland KN. 2012. The evolutionary basis of human social learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279, 653–662. 10.1098/rspb.2011.1172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Cross CP, Brown GR, Morgan TJ, Laland KN. 2017. Sex differences in confidence influence patterns of conformity. British Journal of Psychology 108, 655–667. 10.1111/bjop.12232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mark Nielsen

15 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-24671

Social information use in adolescents: the impact of adults, peers and household composition

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Molleman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I sent it to a leading expert in this area of research and the feedback I received appears below. A number of positive aspects to your paper are outlined, but there are also multiple areas identified that demand attention. Of the latter, there is a need to clarify if the task you use captures social information use in the same way across cultures, detail about the language used in task administration, and if there was any piloting conducted to assess contextual validity. The review is clear and detailed so I will not elaborate further, but needless to say each point made deserves attention. After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 29 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer. This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mark Nielsen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. During our internal checks, the in-house editorial staff noted that you conducted research or obtained samples in another country. Please check the relevant national regulations and laws applying to foreign researchers and state whether you obtained the required permits and approvals. Please address this in your ethics statement in both the manuscript and submission information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study examined adolescences’ whether social information use is influenced by the age of the model (peer vs adult) and/or participants’ household demographics (nuclear vs extended family). Using a number estimation task, results indicated that adolescents showed high levels of social information use, particularly when the source was an adult, while household composition had no effect on social information rates. There was also evidence of heuristics whereby adolescents demonstrated high rates of directly copying others estimates.

Overall, I really liked this study. In general, I had very few criticisms of the manuscript – I thought it was well written and I was very pleased to see that the participant sample was from India (and I really appreciated the use of sample-specific references). This is an important step for the cultural evolution literature to expand the range of populations tested beyond Western ones, and not just for comparisons. I was also extremely pleased that the manuscript specifically addressed adolescents. I personally advocate the need for our field to move beyond the young children/adult dichotomy that we seem to be stuck upon. As such, the question and findings are interesting and are clearly presented.

One thing I was interested in was whether the authors validated the task. A recent, growing body of cross-cultural studies have shown that tasks designed for use on Western populations often capture something different when taken to non-western populations. I acknowledge and understand that the BEAST was successfully implemented on a diverse population (from MTURK) – which is excellent and a good indication is translates well. But have the authors shown that the task is capturing social information use in the same way across cultures? What language was the task administered in (the screenshots suggest English, but I wasn’t sure if this was the version administered in this study)? If not English, what was the translation process (i.e. back translations)? Was there any piloting conducted to assess contextual validity (I note that there was some to capture appropriate timings, so perhaps a little more information here would be good)? This task strikes me as one that will translate well across cultures (especially urban populations in India and especially since accuracy results are similar to the MTurk findings), and so I’m not overly concerned about these questions, but they are ones that came to mind as I read the manuscript. If the authors intend to use this task to more non-Western populations (especially non-urban ones), I recommend Holding et al. (2018), Hruschka et al. (2018) and Zuilkowski et al. (2016) as extremely useful sources discussing applying simple cognitive tasks across cultures.

Minor comments:

Line 38: The authors might want to consider including Wood et al. (2013) here.

Line 47: I’m not sure the references 27-29 are appropriate here, since I don’t think these studies gave children the choice of who they preferred to copy from. More appropriate references would be Price et al. (2017) and Wood et al. (2013) and references therein. However, the authors should also see Wood et al. (2016) for evidence directly contrary to their statement.

Lines 86-88: I understand the sentient here, but as I’m certain the authors know India is an extremely diverse country (I have lived there!) and so I would rephrase this to be along the lines of ‘in some/most parts of India…’

The authors found that older adolescents were less likely to simply copy the estimates of others than younger adolescents. This is interesting, and somewhat counter to some overimitation work (e.g., McGuigan et al. 2011; Whiten et al. 2016), although it does fit with developmental work showing that older children are less likely to copy others than younger children (Carr et al, 2015). Do the authors have any ideas of why this might be?

Lines 303-308: Interesting – but most of these studies also used different tasks, which is likely to impact social information use (as the authors note in the introduction).

Methods: The age range is 11-15. This strikes me as early/middle adolescence rather than adolescence in general.

Method/results: I wondered (and couldn’t find the answer anywhere) whether extended households were comprised of just children, parents and grandparents, or whether extended households included other members (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.). If the former, then I wondered whether the authors had any thoughts on whether including ‘more extended’ households including other family members than grandparents would influence social information use? If the latter, did the authors examine whether number of extended household members had any effect on social information use?

Results: Although not significant, the results suggest that participants from nuclear households were actually more likely to information from an adult (compared to a peer) than those from extended households. Do the authors have any thoughts on that?

Results: Were there any diagnostics/assumption meeting conducted on the data?

Discussion: As noted above, I really applaud the assessment of non-traditional experimental psychology populations (i.e. not WEIRD). However, as should be done in in those studies, the authors should consider mentioning/discussing that these findings should be considered within the context of the population studied. For instance, the authors state that “Our results provide a deeper understanding into adolescents’ social information use and how.…” (lines 330-333). The authors might want to highlight that these findings need to be verified across other populations (unless this specific study is replicated across populations). They do this very briefly in the final paragraph (which is great, but I would like to see it a little more in the main discussion).

Lines 338-340: Additionally, adolescence brings the maturation of cognitive mechanisms including executive functions. It’s possible that the decrease in copying with age is in part a result of better equipped cognitive profiles, and thus a lower need to rely on others for information for this sort of task.

Lines 341-350: I wonder whether the high frequency of extreme heuristics is a result of the quick nature of the task. That is, perhaps in a task with more time to develop strategies you might see more complex and more decision-making approaches.

Lines 363-365: Do the authors have any information of participant family values? If participants from nuclear families show similar such values to those in extended families (potentially indicating a recent shift), this argument would be presumably be supported.

An interesting addition to this study would be to see if individual confidence predicted the adjustment to social information (and in relation to adult/peer nuclear extended). Other studies with relatively similar paradigms have shown that task confidence is a predictor of social information use (Morgan et al. 2012; Cross et al. 2017).

References (in no particular order)

Wood, L. A., Kendal, R. L. and Flynn, E. (2013) ‘Whom do children copy? Model-based biases in social learning’, Developmental Review, 33(4), pp. 341–356. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.002.

Price, E., Wood, L. A. and Whiten, A. (2017) ‘Adaptive cultural transmission biases in children and nonhuman primates’, Infant Behavior and Development. Elsevier Inc., 48, pp. 45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2016.11.003.

Wood, L. A. et al. (2016) ‘“Model age-based” and “copy when uncertain” biases in children’s social learning of a novel task’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, pp. 272–284. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.005.

Holding, P. et al. (2018) ‘Can we measure cognitive constructs consistently within and across cultures? Evidence from a test battery in Bangladesh, Ghana, and Tanzania’, Applied Neuropsychology: Child. Psychology Press, 7(1), pp. 1–13. doi: 10.1080/21622965.2016.1206823.

Zuilkowski, S. S. et al. (2016) ‘Dimensionality and the Development of Cognitive Assessments for Children in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 47(3), pp. 341–354. doi: 10.1177/0022022115624155.

Hruschka, D. J. et al. (2018) ‘Learning from failures of protocol in cross-cultural research.’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), pp. 11428–11434. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1721166115.

Morgan, T. J. H. et al. (2012) ‘The evolutionary basis of human social learning’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1729), pp. 653–662. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1172.

Cross, C. P. et al. (2017) ‘Sex differences in confidence influence patterns of conformity’, British Journal of Psychology, 108(4), pp. 655–667. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12232.

Whiten, A. et al. (2016) ‘Social learning in the real-world: “over-imitation” occurs in both children and adults unaware of participation in an experiment and independently of social interaction’, PLOS ONE. Edited by R. L. Kendal. Public Library of Science, 11(7), p. e0159920. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159920.

McGuigan, N., Makinson, J. and Whiten, A. (2011) ‘From over-imitation to super-copying: Adults imitate causally irrelevant aspects of tool use with higher fidelity than young children’, British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1348/000712610X493115.

Carr, K., Kendal, R. L. and Flynn, E. (2015) ‘Imitate or innovate? Children’s innovation is influenced by the efficacy of observed behaviour’, Cognition, 142, pp. 322–332. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.005.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Bruce Rawlings

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Mark Nielsen

7 Nov 2019

Social information use in adolescents: the impact of adults, peers and household composition

PONE-D-19-24671R1

Dear Dr. Molleman,

Thank you for your careful and considered revision. I am satisfied with your responses and associated changes in the manuscript. I am thus pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Mark Nielsen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Mark Nielsen

15 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-24671R1

Social information use in adolescents: the impact of adults, peers and household composition

Dear Dr. Molleman:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mark Nielsen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. This document contains Supporting Fig A, Supporting Tables A-C, Supporting Text, as well as the full experimental materials as shown to participants.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.6MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: MKB - Rebuttal.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (59.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data for this article is openly available on GitHub: https://github.com/LucasMolleman/Molleman_Kanngiesser_vandenBos.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES