Susceptibility to peer influence in adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability: Investigating links with inhibition, Theory of Mind and negative interpretation bias

E. Wagemaker*, T.J. Dekkers, A. Bexkens, E. Salemink, J.N. Zadelaar, H.M. Huizenga

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: This preregistered study compares adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability (MBID) and typically developing (TD) adolescents on their susceptibility to peer influence. To understand why adolescents with MBID are susceptible to peer influence, links with inhibition, Theory of Mind (ToM) and negative interpretation bias are investigated.

Method: We assessed 163 adolescents (111 MBID, 52 TD 14–19 years; 63% boys) using experimental tasks and self- and/or teacher-reports.

Results: Adolescents with MBID and TD adolescents did not differ in their susceptibility to peer influence, inhibition, and negative interpretations. On two ToM instruments, adolescents with MBID performed weaker than TD adolescents. In a structural equation model, tested in the MBID group, inhibition, ToM and negative interpretation bias were not related to susceptibility to peer influence.

Conclusions: This study revealed new insights by strong methods such as the multimethod approach, a full theoretical model testing relations between all constructs simultaneously, and the large sample.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)376-390
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability
Volume47
Issue number4
Early online date2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2022

Keywords

  • Adolescence
  • inhibition
  • intellectual disability
  • negative interpretation bias
  • peer influence
  • Theory of Mind

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Susceptibility to peer influence in adolescents with mild-to-borderline intellectual disability: Investigating links with inhibition, Theory of Mind and negative interpretation bias'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this