Peer problems, bullying involvement, and affective decision-making in adolescence.

We investigated, using a cross-lagged design, the longitudinal association of bullying involvement and peer problems with affective decision-making in adolescence (ages 11 and 14 years) in 13,888 participants of the Millennium Cohort Study. Affective decision-making (risk-taking, quality of decision-making, risk adjustment, deliberation time, and delay aversion) was measured with the Cambridge Gambling Task, bullying involvement (bully, bully-victim, victim, or 'neutral' status) with self-report measures, and peer problems with the parent-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. In general, peer problems were associated with decision-making in the unadjusted model but not after controlling for confounding. However, bullying involvement was related to decision-making even after adjustment. Compared to 'neutral' males, bullies and bully-victims improved over time in risk adjustment, and bully-victims in deliberation time, too. In both sexes, bullies showed more risk-taking compared to their 'neutral' counterparts. It seems that bullies are more sensitive to reward (or less sensitive to punishment) than those not involved in bullying. The finding that male bullies show improvement in decision-making warrants further research. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? In adults, decision-making deficits and social exclusion or rejection are linked In youth, only two studies have explored this link with gambling tasks measuring real-world difficulties in decision-making. Both studies were cross-sectional and small-scale. What does this study add? We explore this link in adolescence, using a large, general population longitudinal sample and the Cambridge Gambling Task. Bullies were more sensitive to reward (or less sensitive to punishment) than those not involved in bullying. Male bullies improved over time in risk adjustment, a finding that warrants further research.