Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period When Friends Share the Stressor Experience?
Phase: NA
Conditions: Adolescent Behavior, Social Stress
Sponsor: University of Minnesota

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 1 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
 
Protocol Title 
The Role of Social Partners in Buffering Physiological 
Indicators of Stress in Adolescents: Dyadic Social 
Buffering 
Principal 
Investigator/Faculty 
Advisor 
Megan Gunnar 
Institute of Child Development 
612-624-2713 
gunnar@umn.edu 
Student 
Investigator 
NA 
 
 
 
 
Scientific 
Assessment 
Nationally-based, federal funding organizations 
IND/IDE # (if 
applicable) 
N/A. 
IND/IDE Holder 
N/A. 
Investigational Drug 
Services # (if 
applicable) 
N/A. 
Version 
Number/Date: 
V.3.3    3.31.23 
 
PROTOCOL COVER PAGE 
 
 
 
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 2 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
 
REVISION HISTORY 
 
Revision # 
Version Date 
Summary of Changes 
Consent Change? 
V2 
08.02.19 
Added Youth self report measures: 
3 RSQ scales and 1 PALS scale 
no 
V3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.29.21 
Study is Redesigned for ONLINE 
collection (no face-to-face 
sessions). Consent process will be 
online (REDCap), sessions will be 
conducted over HIPAA-Compliant 
Zoom, recorded to Box, parent & 
youth report will be collected via 
REDCap.  There will be no cardiac 
measures taken, or nurse Tanner 
exams.  Instead, we will measure 
salivary alpha amylase from saliva 
already obtained, and gather 
self/parent report of physical 
development. Payments were 
updated to suit current visits, and 
self-reports from parent & youth 
were modified for greater 
consistency. Specifically, all youth 
complete the same youth packets, 
and the parents in the 3 active 
conditions each complete the 
parent packet; the contents of the 
packets don't change.  For clarity, 
we now have assent/consent 
versions for each of the 4 
conditions. 
YES 
V3.1 
9.23.21 
Prior to enrollment, noticed and 
repaired inconsistency between 
assent and protocol. Assent forms 
now include text declaring 
ourselves to be mandated 
reporters, as the protocol states.  
Added personnel, as we are ready 
to launch collection. 
 
V3.2 
11.12.21 
Add Zach Miller, Kalina Chang to 
personnel, and replace 
recruitment flyer with version that 
matches the V3.1 protocol and has 
accurate contact information. 
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 3 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
In addition, in an effort to expand 
the pool of potential participants, 
so that we have a full and inclusive 
sample, we would like to reach out 
to local private schools and 
request to include our flyers either 
in their newsletters, parent 
groups, social media pages, etc. 
The PI, Dr. Gunnar, would call 
and/or send the attached letter 
making this request. Essentially, 
the letter requests permission to 
post the approved flyer/info. 
 
Note that the letter, attached as a 
supporting document, references 
two studies from the same grant. 
We will need one common letter, 
but each study will seek approval 
of that letter within it's IRB 
protocol. The mod requesting that 
for the other study is:  
MOD0
00281
64 
Modification #27 for 
Study MISTiC Social 
Buffering 
 
We also want to offer each 
participant a fruit snack at the 
start of the session. Prev research 
indicates that people cannot 
mount a strong cortisol response 
when they are low in blood sugar, 
so a fruit snack will create a 
common baseline for all 
participants. The snack can be 
declined without consequences to 
the study, and no change will be 
made to the consent form. 
V3.3 
3.31.23 
Remove Naushil Sridhar from 
personnel. 
We wish to use social media (eg., 
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and 
list serves (eg., ICD or CEHD list 
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 4 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
serve) to share contents of the 
approved 11.12.21 recruitment 
flyer. We would share that flyer, 
only modified for format.  We wish 
to increase the pool of potential 
partcipants.  For social media 
posts, commenting will be 
disabled, to prevent sharing of 
personal information or 
inappropriate comments. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 5 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
Table of Contents 
 
1.0 
72.0 
74.0 
125.0 126.0 167.0 168.0 1710.0 1911.0 2012.0 2113.0 2114.0
 
2215.0 2216.0 2417.0 2518.0 2619.0 2620.0 2621.0 2822.0 2823.0 2824.0 28 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 6 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
ABBREVIATIONS/DEFINITIONS 
● TSST-C: Trier Social Stress Test - Children 
● CORT, AUC: salivary cortisol, area under the curve  
● sAA: salivary alpha amylase 
●  
●  
● ICD: Institute of Child Development 
 
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 7 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
1.0 
Objectives 
1.1 Purpose: The purpose of this experiment is to determine whether social 
buffering by friends of stress physiology remains effective later in puberty 
when friends share the load versus when they provide support but are not 
undergoing the stressor with the target child. There are four conditions: (1) 
Friend and Target both undergo the stressor, (2) Friend provides support 
but does not undergo the stressor, (3) Unfamiliar Peer and Target undergo 
the stressor, and (4) Alone (no partner).  
2.0 
Background 
2.1 Significance of Research Question/Purpose: Adolescence is a dynamic 
period of change that both increases vulnerability to emotional and 
behavioral problems and creates opportunities for healthy development 
(Suleiman & Dahl, 20117).  Becoming emotionally autonomous from 
parents is a critical developmental task of adolescence. While normative 
and essential, this autonomy also poses risks, including loneliness and 
social vulnerability (Laursen & Hartl, 2013). Traditionally, researchers have 
emphasized psychological processes secondary to hormonally induced 
physical changes to explain the increased risks of this period of 
development  (Laursen & Hartl, 2013). Neuroscientists have begun to 
examine neurobiological changes that may also underlie these risks 
(Suleiman & Dahl, 20117; Wong, Yeung, & Lee, 2016). Recently, our group 
identified a normative pubertal change that could form a significant risk for 
stress-related problems. Specifically, puberty appears to disrupt the 
capacity to use one of the most powerful stress protective mechanisms in 
mammals: social stress buffering, or the ability to use the presence of 
relationship partners (parents, friends) to reduce physiological stress 
responses (Doom et al., 2015; Gunnar & Hostinar, 2015; Hostinar et al., 
2015; Hostinar et al, 2014). This disruption of social buffering effectiveness 
is likely to be age-limited as, under the same conditions we used, adults 
(including college students) gain stress-buffering relief from the presence 
and availability of friends and partners (see review, Gunnar, 2017). Because 
poorly regulated physiological stress-response systems can contribute to 
the development of affective disorders in vulnerable youth, it is critical that 
we understand the scope of this loss of buffering effectiveness. If the loss is 
limited to the HPA axis where we have demonstrated it, that is important 
enough, but if it extends to other stress- and emotion-mediating systems, it 
could be highly significant for our understanding of the increase in affective 
disorders in young adolescents. In our opinion, the proposed work is 
significant because normative changes in stress- and emotion-regulatory 
processes over the adolescent transition are currently under-appreciated as 
potential contributors to the increase in emotional and behavioral disorder 
observed during this period.  

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 8 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
2.2 Preliminary Data:  See 2.3, where Literature & Data are integrated.  Note 
that these lay the ground work for additional studies not proposed here, 
but associated with this NICHD grant.  
2.3 Existing Literature: Social buffering, a key concept in the psychobiology of 
stress, describes a phenomenon in which the presence and availability of 
social partners reduces activity of threat- and stress-mediating 
neurobiological and neuroendocrine systems (Gunnar, 2017). It is a key 
pathway through which social support reduces stress (Uchino t al., 2012) 
and enhances health (Kaplan et al., 19770. Impaired social buffering is a 
primary pathway through which adverse childhood experiences get under 
the skin to affect development (Hostinar et al, 2014). Social buffering is 
common to social mammals, although the most effective partners vary by 
species, sex and development (Hennessy et al., 2009). In the lexicon of 
social support, social buffering is received support as someone actually is 
present to provide help (Uchino, 2009). Received social support can be 
counter-productive if it heightens social evaluation (the support person 
becomes yet another evaluator) and/or reduces a sense of competence (I 
am here because you are not capable of helping yourself) (Thorsteinsson & 
James, 1999). Notably, social buffering has its roots in attachment security 
and is related to friendship quality (Allen et al., 2015).  Drawing on 
evolutionary theory, attachment figures are described as “prepared safety 
signals” that throughout evolution have become associated with threat-
reduction (Hornstein et al., 2016). The pubertal shift away from parents and 
towards peers (who are not attachment figures), potentially creates 
conditions in which adolescents may be somewhat bereft of potent social 
buffering support figures. Finally, Social Baseline Theory (Beckes & Coan, 
2011) argues that being with others is our baseline state. Social partners 
reduce stress, in part, because the load is shared. In addition, when we are 
alone, we activate vigilance and threat-preparedness systems. Most of the 
work derived from theories of social support, prepared safety signals, and 
social baseline theory has focused on adults. Work on social buffering has 
involved both adults and infants of a variety of species (Hennessy, Kaiser, 
& Sachser, 2009). But, despite its centrality to stress regulation, in humans 
we know relatively little beyond the infant years about the normative 
development of social buffering. 
 
Social Buffering of the HPA Axis and Development: The HPA axis is one of the two 
central arms of the mammalian stress system whose activity affects physical and 
emotional development (Gunnar, 2017). We have shown that social buffering becomes 
an increasingly powerful HPA axis regulatory mechanism over the first year of life, so 
that by one year the presence of the child’s attachment figure in secure relationships 
completely blocks elevations in cortisol to events that are distressing to the infant 
(Ahnert et al., 2004; Gunnar & Donzella, 2002).. Parents remain effective social buffers 
throughout childhood. Among 9- and 10-year olds, preparing for the Trier Social Stress 
Test (TSST) with a parent completely blocked elevations in cortisol to this social 
evaluative stressor (Fig 1; Hostinar et al., 2015). Puberty results in a waning of parental 
HPA stress buffering effectiveness. Preparing for the TSST with the parent vs 
experimenter had no effect on 15- and 16-year olds or on 11-14 year olds who were at 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 9 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
more advanced pubertal stages (Fig 2; Doom et al., 2016).  Supportive friendships are 
associated with many positive outcomes for children, while their lack is associated with 
negative affect (Laursen & 
Hartl, 2013).  However, 
counter to our initial 
expectations, preparing for 
the TSST with a friend 
increased, rather than 
reduced the cortisol response 
for adolescents (Doom et al., 
2015).  Having the friend 
“help” may actually have 
amplified social evaluation. 
Because so many stressors 
of adolescence involve social 
evaluation, it was striking to 
find that being supported by a 
peer actually increased the 
HPA stress response. This 
led us to hypothesize that early adolescence may 
be a period of time when social buffering 
effectiveness decreases, both when provided by 
parents and by peers. This change in social 
buffering may enhance the young adolescent’s 
risk for stress-related physical and mental health 
problems. 
School-aged children do seem to be able 
to use a friend’s presence to reduce cortisol to 
self-reported negative events that both the child 
and friend are experiencing (Adams, Santo, & 
Bukowski, 2011). Beyond our own work, we know 
of only two studies examining friends as social 
buffers of the HPA axis in adolescence. One 
(Bryd-Craven et al., 2008) experimentally 
examined co-rumination and found that when 
girlfriends were assigned to a co-rumination 
condition, their cortisol levels were higher than in the comparison condition. The other 
(Calhoun et al., 2014) examined youth 11-16 years who were accompanied by a friend 
who they were allowed to talk with AFTER the TSST. They found no evidence that 
positive qualities of the friendship influenced HPA recovery, but negative qualities 
slowed recovery.   
 
(Note: Background to Aim 1 removed, as only relevant to separate MRI study, submitted 
as separate IRB study.) 
Background Aim 2: To determine the pervasiveness of shifts in the 
effectiveness of social buffers over the peripubertal period. Hypothesis 2a. If the 
waning of parental buffering seen in cortisol responses reflects a general physiological 
change during puberty, this waning will also be observed in the sympathetic and 
parasympathetic systems and in oxytocin production, as well as in the neural systems 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 10 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
examined in Aim 1. Stress-mediating systems do not respond uniformly and are 
frequently dissociated (McEwen, 2006). The sympathetic nervous system (SNS, 
norepinephrine) tends to track effort as well as threat, while the HPA axis and the 
sympathoadrenal (SAM, epinephrine) axis tends to be more narrowly responsive to 
physical and psychological threats (Goldstein & Kopin, 2008; Ursin, Baade, & Levine, 
1978). We have measured salivary alpha amylase (sAA, an indirect index of 
norepinephrine) in response to the TSST with and without parental buffering and found 
no buffering effect on sAA despite strong effects on the HPA axis (Doom, Hostinar, 
VanZomeren-Dohn, & Gunnar, 2015). There are two reason that sAA may not have 
been responsive to social buffering in that study. First, only in the speech preparation 
period when the children sit silently and think can autonomic activity in response to 
emotions be clearly differentiated from autonomic activity in response to the physical 
demands of standing and talking. We were not able to isolate the speech period in Doom 
et al., 2015, but will be able to in the proposed studies. Second, sAA does not provide a 
measure of the SAM system which is needed in order to threat/stress more closely. 
Assessing pre-ejection period (PEP) which is a better measure of SAM might have 
yielded different results (see study 3). We know of one other study examining social 
buffering of the SNS in teenage youth (Lougheed et al., 2016).  In this study, girls gave a 
short talk in front of an experimenter while galvanic skin responses (GSRs) were being 
measured. The girls were accompanied by their mothers who were assigned to either 
put their hand over their daughter’s hand or not. GSR was lower in the touch than no-
touch condition, but only for mother-daughter pairs who were low in quality. This study 
did not include a “no mother” condition, so it may be that the mother’s mere presence 
reduced sympathetic reactivity in high quality relationships. However, it is critical to have 
a no buffer condition in order to map developmental changes in parental (and peer) 
social buffering. 
Stress buffering can involve both reduction of threat perceptions and mobilization 
of protective processes that restore pre-stress functioning. Increased activity of the 
parasympathetic system (PNS) may be enhanced by the presence of supportive social 
buffers. Oxytocin may mediate these responses as it has regulatory impacts on the 
autonomic nervous system and on the HPA axis (Heinrichs et al., 2003; Uvnas-Boberg, 
1997). Adults who show large cortisol responses in combination with large oxytocin 
responses to the TSST exhibit faster PNS recovery (Engert et al., 2016). Nasal oxytocin 
administered before the TSST reduces cortisol responses to the TSST and is most 
effective when combined with the presence of a social buffer (Heinrichs, Baumgartner, 
Kirschbaum, & Ehlert, 2003). We (Doom, Doyle, & Gunnar, 2016) examined urinary 
oxytocin before and after the TSST when children and adolescents were provided with 
either the mother or a best friend (Fig 5). Adolescents showed lower levels of oxytocin 
than children; more importantly, while we did not see an increase in oxytocin in response 
to the TSST, we did find that in both children and adolescents, preparing with their 
mothers maintained oxytocin levels. Notably, boys preparing with a friend actually 
showed suppression of oxytocin, suggesting different mechanisms of social support for 
boys and girls that emerge with puberty. In all of the proposed studies, we will not only 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 11 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
measure activity of the HPA axis, but also activity of the autonomic nervous systems and 
of oxytocin.  
 Social buffering is an example of 
received support. Often there is one 
person who is being stressed and 
another who is providing support. 
Received support can backfire if the 
support person evaluates the support 
recipient or acts in a way that makes 
the recipient feel less competent 
(Uchino, 2009). Giving support also 
relieves stress and perhaps 
enhances one’s sense of 
competence (Eisenberger, 2013). 
Teens are strongly motivated to 
become part of a group.  Satisfying this need with high quality friendships positively 
predicts adult health (Allen, Uchino, & Hafen, 2015). From an evolutionary perspective, 
being with others has tremendous threat-protection value, and may be our baseline state 
(Beckes & Coan, 2011). While a teen might take a friend with her as received support 
when getting her ears pierced, it is also very common for youth to experience stressors 
in a group or with their friends who are going through the same stressful experience. 
During high-stakes exams or while walking school hallways where older kids are making 
fun of younger kids, it is intuitive that being with a friend helps make those situations less 
stressful. But, the friend is not only there as a support figure. Instead, both friends are 
giving AND receiving support from one another in these situations. We will examine a 
social evaluative stressor under four between group conditions: (1) two friends both 
experiencing the stressor, (2) two unfamiliar peers both experiencing the stressor, (3) 
one recipient and one giver of social support, and (4) one individual experiencing the 
stressor with no social support. We predict that when two friends are in it together, being 
both recipients and givers of support, being with a friend will reduce physiological stress 
responding. However, when one friend gives support and the other receives it, the 
friend’s presence will increase stress responding (as in our previous study, (Doom et al., 
2016). 
 
Background Aim 3: To examine the emergence of sex differences in social 
buffering effectiveness with puberty.  Basal cortisol levels increase from childhood to 
adolescence as does HPA reactivity to social evaluative stressors (van den Bos et al., 
2016).  These changes are related to pubertal stage (Adam, 2006). Sex differences in 
the cortisol response to social evaluative stressors are not consistently observed until 
later in puberty when, similar to adults, males elevate salivary cortisol more to these 
stressors (e.g., Bouma et al., 2009). Among adults, the patterns of sex differences in 
HPA axis functioning are complex, and are reflected in some but not all measures 
(Kudielka & Kirschbaum, 2005). Notably, the larger cortisol response for men is found in 
salivary (free/unbound) cortisol but not total cortisol. Women in the luteal phase of their 
cycle showed similar cortisol levels to men, but not women in follicular phase (Kudielka 
& Kirschbaum, 2005). Thus, it is likely that this finding relates to estrogen and 
progesterone influences on cortisol binding globulin, and not to reactivity of the axis, per 
se. Nonetheless, as girls begin to cycle more regularly and produce increased levels of 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 12 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
estrogen and progesterone across the cycle, we might expect to see similar variations in 
salivary (free) cortisol levels and reactivity. Therefore, we will have girls report on the 
date of their last period and whether their periods are regular. We can use these data if 
we find sex differences in cortisol reactivity. 
With the exception of our oxytocin findings, we have not observed sex 
differences in our social buffering work. However, in adults, sex differences have 
sometimes been found. To the extent that changes in social buffering effectiveness track 
pubertal development, it would make sense that sex steroids may play a role in this 
phenomenon. As these steroids differ among girls and boys, we might expect them to 
influence sexually-dimorphic patterns of social buffering as puberty proceeds. We will 
collect a sufficient amount of saliva to be able to assay reactivity in sex steroids if we find 
sex differences in social buffering emerging with increased pubertal development. 
Among adults, generally speaking, there is more evidence of HPA axis buffering for men 
and SNS buffering for women (Gunnar, 2017). Women, it is argued, cope more by 
tending and befriending, which might suggest greater estrogen-oxytocin interactions, 
while men cope more by fight and flight, which might suggest more testosterone-
sympathoadrenal interactions (Taylor et al., 2000). However, if coping strategies tend to 
differ between men and women, it is not clear when these differences emerge. Youth 
report increased reliance on friends vs. parents as they move from childhood through 
adolescence, and this reliance does differ by sex of parent and youth (Furman & 
Burhmester, 1992). Teens also report a decrease in emotional closeness to parents with 
pubertal development, although less so for girls and their mothers (Steinberg, 1987). 
These changes in gender differences in parent-child and friend-friend relationship from 
childhood to adolescence may have implications for social buffering. Indeed, as 
described above, there is one study suggesting that 15-year-old girls may still use their 
mothers to regulate sympathetic responding to a mild social evaluative stressor 
(Lougheed, Koval, & Hollenstein, 2016).  
 
3.0 
Study Endpoints/Events/Outcomes 
3.1  
3.2 Primary Endpoint/Event/Outcome: salivary cortisol, salivary alpha amylase 
Secondary Endpoint(s)/Event(s)/Outcome(s): Exploration of possible sex 
differences in social buffering in different conditions later in puberty but 
not earlier in puberty. 
4.0 
Study Intervention(s)/Investigational Agent(s) 
4.1 Description: Note that there are no investigational agent(s) (e.g., drug, 
device) being evaluated. The study qualifies as an intervention due to 
random assignment into social buffering condition, to determine the effect 
of social partner to stress response. 
4.2 Drug/Device Handling:  NA 
4.3 Biosafety: NA 
4.4 Stem Cells: NA 
 
5.0 
Procedures Involved 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 13 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
5.1 Study Design: Rationale:  Adolescents experience social evaluation stress 
frequently. However, it is likely that often they are not alone, but with 
friends who are also going through the same experience. Thus, it is possible 
that under these conditions, social buffering by friends does not wane over 
the peripubertal period.  Participants will be assigned to social conditions 
while engaging in an evaluative stressor task. 
          All sessions will occur ONLINE in a modification to accommodate COVID-19. 
During Session 1, which will occur using the HIPAA-compliant version of 
Zoom the full consent & assent process will take place with parent & youth 
completing forms via REDCap. All youth who complete the TSST will have a 
full Session 1, while families whose youth merely attend as support will be 
given the study description by email or phone, and will be sent a link to 
REDCap for signing consent/assent. Parents will supply background 
information on family income, education and composition. Parents and the 
youth will complete the MacArthur Health and Behavior Questionnaire 
items for the Internalizing, Externalizing and ADHD scales, and reports of 
pubertal development. Youth will complete the Network of Relationships 
Questionnaire and other similar surveys in which they respond to questions 
about their relationships with their parents, their friend, and peers in 
general. Session 2 occurs  approximately 2 weeks after Session 1.  If the 
youth is in the one of the close friend conditions, their same sex close 
friend will also accompany them online. If they are in the unfamiliar peer 
condition, an unfamiliar peer of the same age and sex will be recruited and 
arrive online for session 2, likelywith their parent. The TSST involves 
developing and delivering a speech and doing mental arithmetic while 
being judged/evaluated by two judges while being filmed over HIPAA-
compliant Zoom. We will collect saliva for cortisol and alpha amylase 
assessment. Breakout rooms will be used in Zoom to create the different 
environments described below. For example, the session will start with a 
friendly experimenter who guides people through the online session, and 
participants will be sent to breakout rooms to either wait their turn or 
engage in the TSST task, and return to the main room with the friendly 
experimenter.  We have successfully used this procedure in a recent study 
nearly identical to this one, with the exception of the Peer conditions.  
There are four conditions in this experiment: Close Friend Who Also 
Completes the TSST, Close Friend Provides Social Support, Unfamiliar Peer 
Who Also Completes the TSST, and No Partner. The Close Friends and 
Unfamiliar Peer will complete the Network of Relationships Questionnaire 
and similar surveys about their relationship with the Target youth (Close 
Friend Conditions) or their own same sex best friend (Unfamiliar Peer). 
Both Close Friends and Unfamiliar Peer who complete the TSST will 
undergo the same procedures as the Target Child during session 2, 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 14 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
including salivary measures. Thus, we will have 50 boys and 50 girls who 
undergo the same procedures in parallel with the Target youth. We will 
have an additional 25 boys and 25 girls who provide social support but do 
not go through the same procedures.  
5.2 Study Procedures:     
200 target children, 11- 14 years of age will be tested in one of four 
conditions: 1) Close Friends Both Tested, 2) Unfamiliar Peers Both Tested, 
3) Close Friend Gives Support, and 4) No Social Support. 
Social Buffering Manipulations: Will include 4 between-subjects conditions 
and both sexes. Participants will be randomly assigned to Close Friend- 
Both Tested, Unfamiliar Peer-Both Tested, Received Support from Close 
Friend, and No Social Partner conditions. Definition of Close Friend. We will 
ask the parent to have the child select the close same-sex friend they want 
to have accompany them online. The parent then has to contact that 
child’s family and get their permission for us to contact them. We have 
successfully conducted studies in which the child brings their best friend.  
Stressor Paradigm:  TSST paradigm with the child facing a camera and two 
judges (one male, one female). After consent, parents are invited to exit 
the call (or leave the room); in our recent experience with a Zoom’d TSST, 
youth and parents readily agreed to this separation.  A period of ‘rest’ 
begins where youth watch approximately 20-25 minutes of a mildly 
amusing child appropriate animated movie. The experimenter then sends 
them to a breakout room to begin the TSST sequence. They are greeted by 
2 “judges”, given instructions for the speech and told that they have 5 min 
to prepare. During that time, the judges turn off their audio/video but 
clearly remain in the breakout room. When 5 minutes elapse, the judges 
reappear. If the condition is one of support, the Peer or Friend is sent back 
to the main room and either released from the call or told to continue 
preparation for another 10 minutes until it is their turn.  The judges give 
final speech instructions, and tell the youth to begin their speech, and then 
transition to the math. That participant is then excused back to the main 
room.  If the condition calls for a Peer or Friend to perform the TSST, they 
are then sent to the judging breakout room and deliver their speech/math. 
After each participant completes the speech/math, they return to the main 
room and are greeted by the friendly experimenter, who guides them 
through REDCap links to the various surveys. At several points in session 2, 
saliva samples are obtained.  
Note: In all conditions, one participant will be the target, even though in 
two of the conditions (Close Friends and Unfamiliar Peer Both Tested), 
both youth will go through the TSST and all physiological measures will be 
obtained. The reason for this is two-fold: (1) when we recruit we will know 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 15 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
which youth is the target and this is the youth we select to balance 
pubertal stage and age, while in the close friend conditions, the close 
friend only needs to be within two years the age of the target youth; (2) in 
the “Close Friend Gives Support” condition, the friend will not be assessed 
and will only be there for moral support and to provide information on 
his/her friendship with the target youth.  The collected data from the non-
target youth will be analyzed using non-sponsored funds available to the 
PIs and co-regulation analyses may be conducted.  
Note: These sessions will be recorded, as part of the challenge, to 
document the session, and to make behavioral response to the task 
available for later coding. 
Pubertal Development: All youth      will also complete the Morris and 
Udry (1980) pubertal development questionnaire, which allows placement 
in Tanner stages for hair, testicles, and breast 
development.Questionnaires.  
Demographic Questionnaire: Parents will complete information on pre-tax 
family income, education level of parent(s), composition of the household, 
and medications that the child regularly takes. 
Daily Diary: The parent and the youth both will report the following for the 
child that day: the time of wake up, estimated duration of sleep, 
medication usage, illness/fever, physical activity, and caffeine 
consumption.  
Relationship Quality:  Participants will complete the Network of 
Relationships Inventory - Behavioral Systems Version (NRI-BSV, Furman & 
Buhrmester, 2009) for the parent who accompanies them and their close 
friend. This questionnaire is based on an integration of attachment and 
Sullivanian theory and assesses three systems that are expected to be key 
in close relationships: attachment, caregiving and affiliation.  The scales 
are: companionship, seek safe haven, seek secure base, provide safe 
haven, provide secure base, conflict, antagonism and criticism. We will also 
add 3 scales from the NRI-Relationship Qualities Version: Emotional 
Support, Approval and Satisfaction. Each scale consists of 3 items scored on 
a 5-point Likert scale. Psychometric qualities are high. Condition 
differences in quality of relationships will be examined and included as 
covariates if groups differ significantly. Otherwise, in follow-up analyses we 
will examine whether social buffering effects are stronger in relationships 
the child views as more supportive.  
MacArthur Health and Behavior Questionnaire (HBQ) for 9-18 Year-Olds 
(Parent and Child, 2.1):  This questionnaire was developed by Marilyn 
Essex based on the original HBQ for 4-8 year olds. We have used it many 
times. The scales we proposed to use here have high reliabilities (Cronbach 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 16 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
alpha’s> .8). We will use the peer scales (acceptance/rejection, bullied, 
relational victimization, asocial, behavioral inhibition) and broad-band 
symptoms scales (Internalizing, Externalizing). These measures will be 
examined for balance across groups and if differences by condition, 
pubertal stage, or sex are found, will be entered as covariates.   
Self-Report of Stress: As a manipulation check, participants will rate their 
arousal and emotional state at various points during each study using 
Likert-type scales 
Version 2.0 addition: Added Child-self-report RSQ for Peer, Family, & 
Academic Stress, and PALS Student report of adaptation to challenge in 
environment. 
Physiological Measures. 
Stress Hormones: We will assay saliva samples for stress sensitive 
hormones: cortisol and alpha-amylase. Saliva will be collected using 
SalivaBio Oral Swabs (SOS) or passive drool and stored frozen at −30°C until 
shipped for assay. All testing will be conducted in the late afternoon to 
control for circadian rhythm. Medications will be recorded from parent 
report and classes of drug codes will be used to group meds by presumed 
mechanisms of action and will be entered as covariates (Granger et al., 
2009). Systemic glucocorticoid medications are an exclusion criterion. For 
each analyte, we will calculate area under the curve from intercept (AUCi) 
to provide a single measure for the main analysis.  
 
 
5.3 Study Duration: Participants will attend two sessions. Session 1 will be 1-
1.5hr; Session 2 will be 2-2.5 hrs. It is expected that it will take 
approximately 2 years to enroll all study participants, and that the study 
will end, including data analyses, approximately 5 years after enrollment 
begins. 
5.4 Individually Identifiable Health Information: NA. We do not intend to use 
individually identifiable health information in this study, with the exception 
of date of birth. Birth date will be maintained in order to ensure the correct 
age of the participant at the time of participation. However, this will be 
deleted once age at participation is obtained. This data will be collected 
within REDCap, using appropriate limits on data-sharing to de-identify. 
5.5 Use of radiation: NA  
5.6 Use of Center for Magnetic Resonance Research: NA  
6.0 
Data and Specimen Banking  NA  
7.0 
Sharing of Results with Participants 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 17 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
7.1  
7.2  
7.3 Results will only be shared with participants in aggregate.Regarding other 
biologic measures we take, abnormal values are commonly due to an 
interfering substance present in the sample (ex, milk for salivary cortisol). 
Without a body of evidence, it seems unethical to alarm families given an 
out-of-range assay value and therefore we do not plan to share individual 
results with participant.  
8.0 
Study Population 
8.1 Inclusion Criteria: Healthy 11-14 year olds. Additional inclusion criteria are 
imposed in ensure that youth will be able to follow the study procedures, 
sufficient vision, hearing, and language skills to provide verbal and written 
assent, see and read stimuli presented on the computer screen, and hear 
verbal instructions provided by the experimenter and judges. 
8.2 Exclusion Criteria: Premature birth (less than 37 weeks), congenital and/or 
chromosomal disorders (e.g. cerebral palsy, FAS, mental retardation, 
Turner Syndrome, Down Syndrome, Fragile X), Autism Spectrum Disorders, 
history of serious medical illness (e.g., cancer, organ transplant),serious 
psychiatric illness, or youth taking systemic glucocorticoids or beta-
adrenergic medications. 
8.3 Screening: Screening will occur by asking parents questions at the time of 
recruitment. To reduce confounding age and pubertal stage, we will use a 
stratified recruitment method. During recruitment, parents will be asked 3 
questions about their child’s physical development, and children will be 
initially categorized into Pre/Early and Mid/Late Puberty. As cells fill, 
participants will no longer be enrolled into those cells. Also, to increase 
minority representation we will also sample across zip codes with higher 
racial and ethnic minority representation.   
9.0 
Vulnerable Populations 
9.1 Vulnerable Populations:  
Population / Group 
Identify whether any of the 
following populations will be 
targeted, included (not necessarily 
targeted) or excluded from 
participation in the study.  
Children 
Targeted Population 
Pregnant women/fetuses/neonates 
Excluded from Participation 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 18 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
Prisoners 
Excluded from Participation 
Adults lacking capacity to consent 
and/or adults with diminished 
capacity to consent, including, but 
not limited to, those with acute 
medical conditions, psychiatric 
disorders, neurologic disorders, 
developmental disorders, and 
behavioral disorders 
Excluded from Participation 
Non-English speakers 
Excluded from Participation 
Those unable to read (illiterate) 
Excluded from Participation 
Employees of the researcher 
Excluded from Participation 
Students of the researcher 
Excluded from Participation 
Undervalued or disenfranchised 
social group 
Included/Allowed to Participate 
Active members of the military 
(service members), DoD personnel 
(including civilian employees) 
Included/Allowed to Participate 
Individual or group that is 
approached for participation in 
research during a stressful situation 
such as emergency room setting, 
childbirth (labor), etc. 
Excluded from Participation 
Individual or group that is 
disadvantaged in the distribution of 
social goods and services such as 
income, housing, or healthcare. 
Included/Allowed to Participate 
Individual or group with a serious 
health condition for which there are 
no satisfactory standard treatments. 
Excluded from Participation 
Individual or group with a fear of 
negative consequences for not 
participating in the research (e.g. 
Included/Allowed to Participate 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 19 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
institutionalization, deportation, 
disclosure of stigmatizing behavior). 
Any other circumstance/dynamic 
that could increase vulnerability to 
coercion or exploitation that might 
influence consent to research or 
decision to continue in research. 
Excluded from Participation 
 
9.2  Additional Safeguards:  
Children are the targeted population for this study.  Others that have been 
checked as “allowed” above are not being intentionally included or 
excluded. For example, we will not inquire about someone’s membership 
in a disenfranchised group. Our careful consent/assent procedures 
designed to handle research with children should be sufficient to cover 
other vulnerable participants who may inadvertently enter our study.  
All of the subjects will be children, ranging 11-14 years old. This study 
focuses on adolescents because its goal is an analysis of the impact of 
social buffering and puberty on stress-mediating systems. Children have 
been the focus of my research for the past 30+ years. My staff is highly 
trained in working with children and families. The graduate students 
working on the project will be Child Psychology and/or Child Clinical 
Psychology Ph.D. students. The undergraduate research assistants will, for 
the most part, be majoring in child development.  
 Our recent experience conducting a study using an online version of the 
TSST (Zoom/REDCap) with youth aged 14-16) was very positive and well 
received.  
The risks of this study are generally minimal. For the youth, they largely 
include embarrassment while completing the puberty questionnaires and 
distress/anxiety during the public speaking task. Youth may experience 
concern when completing questionnaires dealing with emotional problem 
symptoms. Parents may experience concern when completing interviews 
about youth psychiatric symptoms. Any time you work with youth there is 
the possibility that they will reveal information about abuse and/or 
indicate that they are thinking of hurting themselves or others. We are 
mandated reporters, a fact that is revealed in both consent and assent 
forms. Parents provide consent, youth provide assent, and see below 
where that process is fully described to ensure that youth have full 
understanding and are free to decline. 
10.0 Local Number of Participants 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 20 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
10.1 Local Number of Participants to be Consented: We plan to analyze at least 
200 target participants.  Of those 50 will participate alone, while 150 will 
participate with a social peer. Social peers will be enrolled as they will at 
least complete a questionnaire. Thus, we will enroll at least 350 children. 
To account for attrition between sessions/replacement for incomplete 
data, we anticipate up to 400 children may be enrolled.  
11.0 Local Recruitment Methods 
11.1 Recruitment Process: Families will be contacted by phone or email and the 
procedures will be described. If the family is interested, the first online visit 
will be scheduled.  Copies of the consent and assent forms will be sent to 
families prior to the visit, along with directions to the University, and a 
reminder call will be a chance for families to confirm their interest in 
participation after having seen the consent forms.  The formal consent 
process will occur at the first visit .  
Regarding recruitment of the social peer to the target, when that peer is a 
friend: The family of the participant will contact the family of the friend 
make sure that they have permission to give us their contact information. 
Parents of friends who participate will then be emailed a REDCap link to a 
consent formthat they can complete and sign online before the session.If 
they do not respond to email in 3 days, our recruiter will call them for a 
reminder. There will be phone and email contact information so that 
parents can ask any questions they have before their child comes to 
theonline. In the event that we are unable to obtain consent for the friend 
prior to the online session, that session will be converted to the “alone” 
condition. If we have parental consent for the friend, but not assent by the 
time of the online session, the assent form will be provided to the friend at 
session 2, and will also have a line that the parent of the primary 
participant can sign as a witness to the consent process.  We have 
successfully used this method in the past. 
11.2 Identification of Potential Participants: Potential participants will be 
identified using the ICD registries of families interested in being contacted 
about research.  Those families have agreed to be contacted, and once ICD 
Registry procedures have been followed, including proof of IRB approval, 
an encrypted list is provided to study staff. No protected records are 
involved.  Study staff will make initial contact.  In our 3/31/23 revision, we 
use social media (eg., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and list serves (eg., ICD 
or CEHD list serve) to share contents of the approved 11.12.21 recruitment 
flyer. We would share that flyer, only modified for format.  We wish to 
increase the pool of potential partcipants.  For social media posts, 
commenting will be disabled, to prevent sharing of personal information or 
inappropriate comments.  

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 21 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
11.3 Recruitment Materials: We will recruit via telephone and email (as parents 
have given us both means of contacting them).  We will also post flyers and 
put the flyer information on our website so that families can contact us. 
Materials are uploaded in ETHOS. 
11.4 Payment: In the four conditions, as follows:  
1. No Social Support: We would give the child up to $50 and parent up to 
$20 in debit cards for participating.  2. Unfamiliar Peers Both Tested: For 
each of the two participants: We would give the child up to $50 and parent 
up to $20 in debit cards for participating.  3. Close Friend Gives Support: 
We would give the child up to $50 and parent up to $20 in debit cards for 
participating.  We would give the friend $20 debit card for attending, as 
well. 
4. Close Friends Both Tested: For each of the two participants: We would 
give the child up to $50 and parent up to $20 in debit cards for 
participating.   
 
We intend to use the prepaid debit cards: Greenphire ClinCard for 
compensation, and have included appropriate language in the consent 
document. (We will provide a Target gift card instead of the ClinCard if parents 
object to the terms and conditions of the ClinCard, tho in our experience, this is 
very rare.) Families will be mailed empty cards, which will be loaded following 
receipt of the card and completion of the sessionsWithdrawal of Participants 
11.5 Withdrawal Circumstances: If participants are enrolled (consent signed) 
and subsequently determined to meet exclusion criteria, their data will be 
excluded from analyses.   
11.6 Withdrawal Procedures: If they have a remaining session scheduled, we 
will cancel the session. If, however, cancelling will bring undue 
embarrassment to the child, in consultation with the parent, we will allow 
the second session to occur. Participants will not be contacted if their 
participation is complete.  
11.7 Termination Procedures: Data will not be used after termination. 
12.0 Risks to Participants 
12.1 Foreseeable Risks:  
 
Questionnaires:  Youth or parents may experience concerns when 
completing questionnaires dealing with symptoms of behavior problems. 
Any time one works with youth there is the possibility that they will reveal 
information about abuse and/or indicate that they are thinking of hurting 
themselves or others. We are mandated reporters, a fact that is revealed in 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 22 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
both consent and assent forms. However, in over a decade of working with 
children and youth drawn from our participant files, we have never 
encountered a reportable incident, so we consider this risk to be very low. 
Trier Social Stress Test for Children. This is a social evaluative stressor. 
Public speaking evokes anxiety in many individuals.  Also, the task involves 
deception, in that the judges do not render judgements as part of the task 
The TSST activates stress-mediating systems because it serves as a threat 
to the social self. Public speaking produces anxiety in most people. 
However, answering questions in class, speaking in front of the class or 
school, and solving problems in front of teachers and classmates is a 
common occurrence in children’s lives. Thus, the TSST standardizes a 
common everyday stressor. To reduce risk, youth are told that they can 
stop without prejudice if they choose.  
Regarding deception: Because they are told they are being evaluated (and 
this is a necessary part of the procedure), after each TSST session, the 
youth will be debriefed to make it clear that there were no judgements 
made about the speech or math performed. It will be explained that 
performance in a social evaluation task was used in order to elicit a 
physical stress response. The youth will never receive any negative 
evaluations from adults as part of being in this study. Our previous 
experience with this deception and debrief is that youth tolerate the 
experience very well. 
Saliva Sampling.  We will collect saliva using passive drool, so this risk is 
eliminated. 
12.2 Reproduction Risks: NA 
12.3 Risks to Others: NA 
13.0 Potential Benefits to Participants 
13.1 Potential Benefits: The only direct benefit to participants is the small 
financial remuneration and the knowledge that they have contributed to a 
better understanding of human development among youth.  
14.0 Statistical Considerations 
14.1 Data Analysis Plan: 200 primary participants, including 100 females and 100 
males. Within each group there will be 50 early and 50 late puberty 
participants.  
Study Design. This randomized control study will assign study participants 
into one of four conditions: Close friend both tested, Unfamiliar Peer both 
tested, Received support from close friend who is not tested, and no 
partner. To perform the randomization, participants will first be placed into 
one of four groups based on sex and pubertal stage: early puberty, female; 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 23 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
late puberty, female; early puberty, male; and late puberty, male. Next, 
participants within a group will be randomly assigned to one of four 
conditions equally in order to have a balanced design. Pubertal stage will 
then be treated as a continuous variable. 
Statistical Methods 
Preliminary Analyses to Determine Covariates Need for Primary Analyses. 
The purpose of collecting data on potential covariates is to identify 
variables that are correlated with both the independent variable (social 
buffering condition, sex, pubertal stage) and the primary outcome 
measures. Those covariates that are associated with the independent and 
outcome variables will be controlled for in the primary analyses. Those that 
are not will be used to describe the sample, but will not need to be 
included in the analyses to obtain unbiased estimates. For each potential 
covariate (listed as “other type” in section 4.3, Outcome Variables), we will 
conduct correlations or t-tests with pubertal stage, and t-tests, ANOVAs, or 
chi-square tests (as appropriate) with sex and condition. If data do not 
confirm to modeling assumptions, we will use non-parametric analogs 
instead. 
14.2 Power Analysis: For the power analysis for the primary analyses, we 
calculated the minimum detectable effect size (MDES) assuming n = 200, 〈 
= .05, and power = .80 with a conservative estimate of 12 covariates in our 
model (see section 4.3). Power was calculated in R (R Core Team, 2018) 
using the pwr library (Champely, 2018).  A power analysis was performed 
to quantify the MDES (measured as f2) for a three-way interaction between 
the social buffering condition, sex, and pubertal stage within a multiple 
regression model controlling for all potential covariates, two-way 
interactions, and main effects (the most complex model considered in our 
primary analysis, see equation 1 below). Assuming these conditions, we 
should be able to detect an f2 of 0.056. In other words, adding the three-
way interaction to a model containing the covariates and all lower order 
interactions and main effects, the three-way interaction would need to 
explain an additional 5.6% of the variability to be detected. This falls 
between Cohen’s criteria for a small (f2 = .02) and medium-sized effect (f2 = 
.15) (Cohen, 1988). With a sample size of 200, even if we lost 40 of the 
participants, assuming all the previous conditions except a sample size of 
160, we would still be power enough to detect an f2 of .070, or still within a 
small-medium effect size. As the number of covariates decreases, the size 
of the MDES will decrease. Therefore, this represents a conservative 
estimate of power for our primary analyses as we are likely to have fewer 
covariates in our models and will use multiple imputation to correct for 
missing data. For the two-way interaction and main effects models, 
described below, the power will be larger than these reported values as the 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 24 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
models will be simpler. In addition, we ran a power analysis that corrected 
for multiple comparisons using the conservative Bonferroni's adjustment. 
Because we expect to run 9 independent multiple regression models or 
fewer, we ran our models assuming an alpha of 0.05 / 9. Based on this 
reduced alpha, we expect to be able to detect an effect of .07. 
14.3 Statistical Analysis: The primary analyses will consist of a series of multiple 
regression models. For each dependent variable, Cortisol AUCi, Alpha-
Amylase AUCi,, we will begin by testing the three-way interaction between 
social buffering condition, sex, and pubertal stage for all outcomes. If the 
three-way interaction is not significant, we will then examine all two-way 
interactions. If the two-way interactions are not significant, we will then 
examine main effects only models. If the three-way interaction is 
significant, we will not examine any other model.  
14.4 Data Integrity: Multiplicity of testing. We will correct for multiple 
comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) correction. The BH 
method works by controlling the false discovery rate, and relative to the 
Bonferroni’s correction is more powerful, while still adequately protecting 
against Type I errors (Williams et al., 1999).  
Missing data. If there is missingness in any of the dependent or 
independent variables, multiple imputation will be used (Little & Rubin, 
2014; Peng et al., 2006; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Variables related to the 
missingness and the variables missing data will be included in the missing 
data model. In the event that missingness is not at random (MNAR), we will 
investigate the use of models for non-ignorable missing data.  
15.0 Confidentiality 
15.1 Data Security:  
Only authorized research staff will have access to the data, and all data will 
be stored on encrypted servers or locked locations. Birth date will be 
maintained in order to ensure the correct age of the participant at the time 
of participation. However, this will be deleted once age at participation is 
obtained. In addition, recordings of the TSST session must be kept in order 
to code for participant, friend behaviors. Recordings and birth date will 
only be linked with participant ID number. 
A password-protected document linking name and ID number will be kept 
until the conclusion of the study in case we must contact a family for any 
reason. We will use REDCap for this.This document will be destroyed at the 
conclusion of the study. 
Password protection is used to protect data files. Because this session will 
be conducted online, we anticipate that all experimenter, parent, and 
youth reports will be completed on REDCap, and stored there or on 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 25 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
University Box. No consent/assent will be placed in participants’ medical, 
employment, or educational records. 
16.0 Provisions to Monitor the Data to Ensure the Safety of Participants 
16.1 Data Integrity Monitoring.  
All of the proposed procedures meet the NIH definition of minimal risk. The PI and 
study coordinator will meet regularly to ensure that study protocols are followed 
and best practices are applied. Study coordinator will bring any identified protocol 
violations to the PI in a timely fashion, and members will be re-trained if needed. 
16.2 Data Safety Monitoring. 
Overall Framework for DSMP 
This project is considered a clinical trial because it involves a) random 
assignment to condition, and b) physiology is being measured.  
 
There is no risk associated with the assignment to conditions (Close Friend-Both 
Tested, Unfamiliar Peer-Both Tested, Close Friend-Social Support Only, No 
Partner). All conditions resemble naturally occurring social situations that 
children might experience, and there is no inherent danger to one condition over 
another as there would be for, say, a drug vs placebo trial.  
 
Further, in three of the conditions the presence of another person is expected to 
provide a social buffer whose stress reduction potency by condition is what is 
being tested. All target youth experience the same stressor, the TSST. The TSST 
mimics a naturally occurring stressor, as when the youth is asked to speak in 
front of the class and his/her performance is being evaluated. This can provoke 
anxiety.  
 
The other potential risks of this study to which all of the participants are exposed 
regardless of condition have been eliminated in this online-only revision. 
 
The steps taken to reduce or prevent these risks include allowing participants to 
refuse the nurse exam and use of proper saliva collection materials. These risks 
are all managed by the routine processes monitored by our IRB, including 
Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) such as deaths, hospitalizations, and life 
threatening events and Unanticipated Problems (UPs), will be managed and 
reported, as required, to the IRB and relevant monitoring authorities. All 
members of the project will have received human subjects training and 
certification in FDA Good Clinical Practice through the Collaborative Institutional 
Training Initiative (CITI) curriculum. 
 
 
 
 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 26 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
The individuals responsible for trial monitoring and advising the appointing 
entity. Because of the low level of risk in this study, the PI, Dr. Megan Gunnar will 
be responsible for reporting. 
 
17.0 Provisions to Protect the Privacy Interests of Participants 
17.1 
Protecting Privacy: Once the participant has been tested, identifying 
information will be removed, and all materials will be identified with a 
participant number only. A master list with participant names, addresses 
and contact information will be maintained on REDCapseparately from the 
data and study materials. Only researchers involved in the study will have 
access to the data and the file that merges participant number and 
personal information.  
Considerable efforts are made to make participants comfortable, despite 
the nature of the stressor in the second session.  Consent and all study 
procedures will be conducted in private, tho online, rooms.  During 
consent/assent multiple efforts are made to make it clear that participation 
is optional and the youth is in control of refusal. (Because cards will be 
mailed empty to prevent possible theft, cards will be loaded after the 
session is complete. However, we would not withhold payment to a 
participant who began a session and ended it due to discomfort. !)  
Collection of biological measures, administration of sensitive 
questionnaires are all done with a “matter of fact” attitude to minimize any 
feeling of embarrassment.  Should a participant need to skip a portion or 
end a session early, experimenters are trained to accept this as a standard 
procedure when working with children rather than a problematic ending to 
the session. We have successfully guided hundreds of youth through these 
very procedures without undue problem, including longitudinal studies 
where the participants continue to return.  
17.2 Access to Participants:  We do not access medical records or other sources 
of private information.  
18.0 Compensation for Research-Related Injury 
18.1 Compensation for Research-Related Injury: All of the proposed procedures 
meet the NIH definition of minimal risk. 
18.2 Contract Language: NA  
19.0 Consent Process 
19.1 Consent Process (when consent will be obtained):  
● 
 
● 
The consent process begins at recruitment.  A full consent will occur 
online over Zoom, where we have been able to interact with them 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 27 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
privately in our experience. We control the environment at our end, 
and all staff take care to maintain a private environment.  We send 
the consent to parents following recruitment, so that participants 
have typically 1-3 weeks to consider, before the online session and 
the full consent process.  
● 
Researchers are trained and experienced consenters follow scripted 
protocols to determine that a potential participant understands the 
information. Open ended questions are gently used to assess 
understanding, for example, “can you tell me what we will do today?” 
● 
At consent/assent, we make it clear that participation can end 
without negative consequences.  Children are told that they can skip 
any task or stop the session as needed. 
● 
Consent & Assent will be documented over REDCap.   
19.2 Waiver or Alteration of Consent Process (when consent will not be 
obtained): N/A  
19.3 Waiver of Written/Signed Documentation of Consent (when written/signed 
consent will not be obtained): N/A  
19.4 Non-English Speaking Participants: N/A 
19.5 Participants Who Are Not Yet Adults (infants, children, teenagers under 18 
years of age): 
● 
All participants will be children, recruited by contacting parents.  Age 
will be verified with parent.  
● 
Parental permission will be obtained from: 
o 
One parent, even if the other parent is alive, known, competent, 
reasonably available, and shares legal responsibility for the care 
and custody of the child. 
● 
 
● 
In the case of the “friend” to the target participant, we will obtain 
consent/assent by phone/email or Zoom. If we lack parental consent, 
that session converts to “alone”, but if we merely lack assent, we will 
obtain that at the online TSST session, and include a line for target 
parent’s signature as witness.  
● 
All youth will be part of the consent process, will be asked questions 
to verify understanding, including the question of “when will you be 
allowed to skip a task or end the session?”, and will sign an assent 
form.  
19.6 Cognitively Impaired Adults, or adults with fluctuating or diminished 
capacity to consent:  
● 
NA  
19.7 Adults Unable to Consent: 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 28 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
● 
NA  
20.0 Setting 
20.1 Research Sites: 
● 
Participants will be recruited from the ICD registry of potential 
participants, or self-identified thru flyer/website.  
● 
Research will be conducted online, using HIPAA-Compliant Zoom 
and REDCap.  
20.2 International Research: NA   
21.0 Multi-Site Research 
NA  
22.0 Resources Available 
22.1 Resources Available:  
● There are sufficient potential participants on the registry to meet the 
needs of the study design/cell count. In the age range we would need 
over the years of this proposal there are 14,529 girls and 15,284 boys 
from which to draw. 
● We anticipate it will take approximately 2 years to complete 
recruitment and testing. 
● 
We do not anticipate the need for either medical or psychological 
resources that participants might need as a result of anticipated or 
unanticipated consequences of the research, as risk is minimal. 
However, Drs Gunnar & Thomas are widely connected to such 
resources at the University. 
● 
All staff & lab personnel, including undergraduate students working 
with de-identified data, undergo required and available ethics 
training, and PI Gunnar’s lab manager has over 25 years of experience 
training staff and conducting research with children. Weekly project 
meetings keep us adequately informed about the protocol, the 
research procedures, and their duties and functions. 
23.0 References 
Adam, E. K. (2006). Transactions among adolescent trait and state emotion and 
diurnal and momentary cortisol activity in naturalistic settings. 
Psychoneuoendocrinology, 31, 664-679.  
Adams, R. E., Santo, J. B., & Bukowski, W. M. (2011). The presence of a best 
friend buffers the effects of negative experiences. Developmental Psychology, 
47, 1786-1791.  
Ahnert, L., Gunnar, M. R., Lamb, M. E., & Barthel, M. (2004). Transition to child 
care: Associations with infant-mother attachment, infant negative emotion, and 
cortisol elevations. Child Development, 75(3), 639-650.  

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 29 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
Allen, J. P., Uchino, B. N., & Hafen, C. A. (2015). Running with the pack: Teen 
peer-relationship qualities as predictors of adult physical health. Psychological 
Science, 26, 1574-1583.  
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in 
social 
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. 
Beckes, L., & Coan, J. A. (2011). Social baseline theory: The role of social 
proximity in emotion and economy of action. Social and Personality Psychology 
Compass, 5 (12), 976-988.  
Bouma, E. M., Riese, H., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2009). 
Adolescents' cortisol responses to awakening and social stress; effects of 
gender, menstrual phase and oral contraceptives.The TRAILS study. 
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 884-893.  
Butler, G. E., Walker, R. F., Walker, R. V., Teague, P., Riad-Fahmy, D., & 
Ratcliffe, S. G. (1989). Salivary testosterone levels and the progress of puberty in 
the normal boy. Clinical Endocrinology, 30, 587-596.  
Byrd-Craven, J., Geary, D. C., Rose, A. J., & Ponzi, D. (2008). Co-ruminating 
increases stress hormone levels in women. Hormones and Behavior, 53, 489-
492.  
Calhoun, C. D., Helms, S. W., Heilbron, N., Rudolph, K. D., Hastings, P. D., & 
Prinstein, M. J. (2014). Relational victimization, friendship, and adolescents' 
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis responses to an in vivo social stressor. 
Development and Psychopathology, 26, 605-618.  
Champely, S. (2018). pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis (Version 1.2-2). Retrieved 
from 
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr 
Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: social 
regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17, 1032-
1039.  
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, New 
Jersey: 
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in 
middle childhood and adolescence: A developmentalanalysis. Developmental 
Review, 11, 99-136.  
Conner, O. L., Siegle, G. J., McFarland, A. M., Silk, J. S., Ladouceur, C. D., Dahl, 
R. E., . . . Ryan, N. D. (2012). Mom-it helps when you're right here! Attenuation of 
neural stress markers in anxious youths whose caregivers are present during 
fMRI. Plos One, 7, e50680.  
Dedovic, K., Renwick, R., Mahani, N. K., Engert, V., Lupien, S. J., & Pruessner, 
J. C. (2005). The Montreal Imaging Stress Task: using functional imaging to 
investigate the effects of perceiving and processing psychosocial stress in the 
human brain. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 30, 319-325.  

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 30 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
Doom, J. R., Doyle, C., & Gunnar, M. R. (2016). Social stress buffering by friends 
in childhood and adolescence: Effects on HPA and xxytocin activity. Social 
Neuroscience, 25, 1-14.  
Doom, J. R., Hostinar, C. E., VanZomeren-Dohn, & Gunnar, M. R. (2015). The 
roles of puberty and age in explaining the diminished effectiveness of parental 
buffering of HPA reactivity and recovery in adolescence. 
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 59:102-11. 
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1986). Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence 
intervals, 
and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1(1), 54–77. 
Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared 
neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 421-
434.  
Eisenberger, N. I. (2013). An empirical review of the neural underpinnings of 
receiving and giving social support: implications for health. Psychosomatic 
Medicine, 75, 545-556.  
Eisenberger, N. I., Mastera, S. L., Inagakia, T. K., Taylor, S. E., Shirinyan, D., 
Lieberman, M. D., & Naliboff, B. D. (2011). Attachment figures activate a safety 
signal-related neural region and reduce pain experience. Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences, 108, 11721-11726.  
Ekman, P. (1982). Emotion in the Human Face. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Engert, V., Koester, A. M., Riepenhausen, A., & Singer, T. (2016). Boosting 
recovery rather than buffering reactivity: Higher stress-induced oxytocin secretion 
is associated with increased cortisol reactivity and faster vagal recovery after 
acute psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 74, 111-120.  
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of 
networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-115.  
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (2009). The network of relationships inventory: 
Behavioral systems version. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 
33, 470-478.  
Gee, D. G., Gabard-Durnam, L., Telzer, E. H., Humphreys, K. L., Goff, B., 
Shapiro, M., . . . Tottenham, N. (2014). Maternal buffering of human amygdala-
prefrontal circuitry during childhood but not during adolescence. Psychological 
Science, 25, 2067-2078.  
Goldstein, D. S., & Kopin, I. J. (2008). Adrenomedullary, adrenocortical, and 
sympathoneural resposnes to stressors: A meta-analysis. Endocrine 
Regulations, 42, 111-119.  
Granger, D. A., Hibel, L. C., Fortunato, C. K., & Kapelewski, C. H. (2009). 
Medication effects on salivary cortisol: tactics and strategy to minimize impact in 
behavioral and developmental science. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 1437-
1448.  
Gunnar, M. R. (2017). Social buffering of stress in development: A career 
perspective. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 12, 355-373.  
Gunnar, M. R., & Donzella, B. (2002). Social regulation of the cortisol levels in 
early human development. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27, 199-220. 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 31 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
Gunnar, M., R., & Hostinar, C. E. (2015). The social buffering of the 
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis in humans: Developmental and 
experiential determinants. Social Neuroscience, 10, 479-488.  
Gutkowska, J., Jankowski, M., & Antunes-Rodrigues, J. (2014). The role of 
oxytocin in cardiovascular regulation. Brazilian Journal of Medical Biological 
Research, 47, 206-214.  
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a 
multicategorical 
independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 
451–470.  
Heinrichs, M., Baumgartner, T., Kirschbaum, C., & Ehlert, U. (2003). Social 
support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to 
psychosocial stress. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 1389-1398.  
Hennessy, M. B., Kaiser, S., & Sachser, N. (2009). Social buffering of the stress 
response: diversity, mechanisms, and functions. Frontiers in 
Neuroendocrinology, 30(4), 470-482.  
Hornstein, E. A., Fanselow, M. S., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2016). A safe haven: 
Investigating social-support figures as prepared safety stimuli. Psychological 
Science, 27, 1051-1060.  
Hostinar, C. E., Johnson, A. E., & Gunnar, M. R. (2015). Parent support is less 
effective in buffering cortisol stress reactivity for adolescents compared to 
children. Developmental Science, 18, 281-297.  
Hostinar, C. E., Sullivan, R. M., & Gunnar, M. R. (2014). Psychobiological 
mechanisms underlying the social buffering of the hypothalamic-pituitary-
adrenocortical axis: A review of animal models and human studies across 
development. . Psychological Bulletin, 140((1)), 256-282.  
Inagaki, T. K., Bryne Haltom, K. E., Suzuki, S., Jevtic, I., Hornstein, E., Bower, J. 
E., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2016). The Neurobiology of Giving Versus Receiving 
Support: The Role of Stress-Related and Social Reward-Related Neural Activity. 
Psychosomatic Medicine, 78, 443-453.  
Kaplan, B. H., Cassal, J. C., & Gore, S. (1977). Social support and health. 
Medical Care, 15, 47-58.  
Karremans, J. C., Heslenfeld, D. J., van Dillen, L. F., & Van Lange, P. A. M. 
(2011). Secure attachment partners attenuate neural responses to social 
exclusion: An fMRI investigation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 81, 
44-50.  
Kudielka, B. M., & Kirschbaum, C. (2005). Sex differences in HPA axis response 
to stress: A review. Biological Psychology, 69, 113-132.  
Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavior assessment: 
Computer applications. In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson & T. Williams (Eds.), 
Technology in mental health care delivery systems (pp. 119-137). Norwood, NJ: 
Ablex. 
Laursen, B., & Hartl, A. C. (2013). Understanding loneliness during adolescence: 
developmental changes that increase the risk of perceived social isolation. 
Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1261-1268.  

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 32 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
Legros, J. J., Chiodera, P., Geenen, V., & von Frenckell, R. (1987). Confirmation 
of the inhibitory influence of exogenous oxytocin on cortisol and ACTH in man: 
evidence of reproducibility. Acta Endocrinology, 114, 345-349.  
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Statistical analysis with missing data. John Wiley & 
Sons. 
Liu, Y., Millsap, R. E., West, S. G., Tein, J.-Y., Tanaka, R., & Grimm, K. J. (2017). 
Testing 
measurement invariance in longitudinal data with ordered-categorical measures. 
Psychological Methods, 22(3), 486–506.  
Lougheed, J. P., Koval, P., & Hollenstein, T. (2016). Sharing the burden: The 
interpersonal regulation of emotional arousal in mother-daughter dyads. Emotion, 
16, 83-93.  
McEwen, B. S. (2006). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators: 
central role of the brain. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8, 367-381.  
Mehta, P. H., Mor, S., Yap, A. J., & Prasad, S. (2015). Dual-hormone changes 
are related to bargaining performance. Psychological Science, 26, 866-876.  
Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing Factorial Invariance in Ordered-
Categorical Measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 479–515. 
Murphy, K., Birn, R. M., Handwerker, D. A., Jones, T. B., & Bandettini, P. A. 
(2009). The impact of global signal regression on resting state correlations: Are 
anti-correlated networks introduced? NeuroImage, 44, 893-905.  
Neumann, D. L., Waters, A. M., Westbury, H. R., & Henry, J. (2008). The use of 
an unpleasant sound unconditional stimulus in an aversive conditioning 
procedure with 8- to 11-year-old children. Biological Psychiatry, 79, 337-342.  
Onoda, K., Okamoto, Y., Nakashima, K., Nittono, H., Ura, M., & Yamawaki, S. 
(2009). Decreased ventral anterior cingulate cortex activity is associated with 
reduced social pain during emotional support. Social Neuroscience, 4, 443-454.  
Pattwell, S. S., Duhoux, S., Hartley, C. A., Johnson, D. C., Jing, D., Elliott, M. D., 
. . . Lee, F. S. (2012). Altered fear learning across development in both mouse 
and human. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16318-
16323.  
Peng, C.-Y. J., Harwell, M., Liou, S.-M., & Ehman, L. H. (2006). Advances in missing 
data 
methods animplications for educational research. Real Data Analysis, 31–78. 
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing Moderated Mediation 
Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 
42(1), 185–227.  
Pruessner, J. C., Gaab, J., Hellhammer, D. H., Lintz, D., Schommer, N., & 
Kirschbaum, C. (1997). Increasing correlations between personality traits and 
cortisol stress responses obtained by data aggregation. 
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 22(8), 615-625.  
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 
3.5.0). 
Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical   Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R 
project.org/ 
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of 
Statistical Software, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 33 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
Rosseel, Y. (2013). Structural equation modeling with lavaan. Retrieved from 
https://personality 
project.org/r/tutorials/summerschool.14/rosseel_sem_intro.pdf 
Satterthwaite, T. D., Elliott, M. A., Gerraty, R. T., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J., 
Calkins, M. E., & Wolf, D. H. (2013). An improved framework for confound 
regression and filtering for control of motion artifact in the preprocessing of 
resting-state functional connectivity data. Neuroimage, 64, 240-256.  
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. 
Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147 
Sebastian, C., Viding, E., Williams, K. D., & Blakemore, S. J. (2010). Social brain 
development and the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain 
and Cognition, 72, 134-134.  
Shirtcliff, E. A., Dahl, R. E., & Pollak, S. D. (2009). Pubertal 
development:correspondence between hormonal and physical development. 
Child Development, 80(2), 327-337.  
Silvers, J. A., Lumian, D. S., Gabard-Durnam, L., Gee, D. G., Goff, B., Fareri, D. 
S., . . . Tottenham, N. (2016). Previous institutionalization is followed by broader 
amygdala-hippocampal-PFC network connectivity during aversive learning in 
human development. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 6420-6430.  
Smith, A. S., & Wang, Z. (2014). Hypothalamic oxytocin mediates social buffering 
of the stress response. Biological Psychiatry, 76, 281-288.  
Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Woolrich, M. W., Beckmann, C. F., Behrens, T. E., 
Johansen-Berg, H., . . . Matthews, P. M. (2004). Advances in functional and 
structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL. Neuroimage, 23 (suppl 
1), S208-S219.  
Steinberg, L. S., L. (3987b). Recent research on the family at adolescence: The 
extent and nature, of sex differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 255-
265., & Steinberg, L. R. r. b. p.-c. d. (1987). Recent research on the family at 
adolescence: The extent and nature of sex differences. Journal of Youth and 
Adolescence, 16, 255-265.  
Suleiman, A. B., & Dahl, R. E. (20117). Leveraging neuroscience to inform 
adolescent health: The need for an innovative transdisciplinary developmental 
science of adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60, 240-248.  
Tanner, J. M. (1962). Growth at adolescence. Springfield, IL: Thomas. 
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & 
Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-
befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological  Review, 107, 411-429.  
Thorsteinsson, E. B., & James, J. E. (1999). A meta-analysis of the effects of 
experimental manipulations of social support during laboratory stress. 
Psychology and Health, 14, 869-886.  
Tottenham, N., & Galván, A. (2016). Stress and the adolescent brain: Amygdala-
prefrontal cortex circuitry and ventral striatum as developmental targets. 
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review, 70, 217-227.  
Tzschoppe, J., Nees, F., Banaschewski, T., Barker, G. J., Büchel, C., Conrod, P. 
J., . . . consortium, I. (2014). Aversive learning in adolescents: modulation by 

PROTOCOL TITLE: Does Social Buffering Continue to be Effective Over the Peripubertal Period 
When Friends Share the Stressor Experience? 
VERSION DATE: v.3.3 3.31.23 
 
Page 34 of 34 
Template Revised On: 02/28/2019 
amygdala-prefrontal and amygdala-hippocampal connectivity and neuroticism. 
Neuropsychopharmacology, 39, 875-884.  
Uchino, B. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and 
physical health: A life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of 
perceived and received support. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 4, 236-
255.  
Uchino, B. N., Bowen, K., Carlisle, M., & Birmingham, W. (2012). Psychological 
pathways linking social support to health outcomes: a visit with the "ghosts" of 
research past, present, and future. Social Science and Medicine, 74, 949-957.  
Ursin, H., Baade, E., & Levine, S. (1978). Psychobiology of stress: A study of 
coping Men. New York: Academic Press. 
Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (1997). Physiological and endocrine effects of social contact. 
Annuls of the National Acadmey of Science, 807, 146-163.  
van den Bos, E., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., & Westenberg, P. M. (2016). Effects 
of adolescent sociocognitive development on the cortisol response to social 
evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1151-1163.  
van Rooij, S. J. H., Cross, D., Stevens, J. S., Alexander Vance, L., Kim, Y. J., 
Bradley, B., . . . Jovanovic, T. (2017). Maternal buffering of fear-potentiated 
startle in children and adolescents with trauma exposure. Social 
Neuroscience.  12(1):22-31. 
Williams, V. S., Jones, L. V., & Tukey, J. W. (1999). Controlling error in multiple 
comparisons, 
with examples from state-to-state differences in educational achievement. Journal of 
Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(1), 42–69. 
Wong, N. M. L., Yeung, P. P. S., & Lee, T. M. C. (2016). A developmental social 
neuroscience model for understanding loneliness in adolescence. Social 
Neuroscience, 18, 1-10.  
Yim, I. S., Quas, J. A., Cahill, L., & Hayakawa, C. M. (2010). Children's and 
adults' salivary cortisol responses to an identical psychosocial laboratory 
stressor. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(2), 241-248.  
Younger, J., Aron, A., Parke, S., Chatterjee, N., & Mackey, S. (2010). Viewing 
pictures of a romantic partner reduces experimental pain: Involvement of neural 
reward systems. PLoS ONE, 5, e133309.  
Ziegler, T. E., & Crockford, C. (2017). Neuroendocrine control in social 
relationships in non-human primates: Field based evidence. Hormones and 
Behavior, 91, 107-121.