Does adolescent risk taking imply weak executive function? A prospective study of relations between working memory performance, impulsivity, and risk taking in early adolescence.

Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806, USA.
Developmental Science (Impact Factor: 3.89). 09/2011; 14(5):1119-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01061.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Studies of brain development suggest that the increase in risk taking observed during adolescence may be due to insufficient prefrontal executive function compared to a more rapidly developing subcortical motivation system. We examined executive function as assessed by working memory ability in a community sample of youth (n = 387, ages 10 to 12 at baseline) in three annual assessments to determine its relation to two forms of impulsivity (sensation seeking and acting without thinking) and a wide range of risk and externalizing behavior. Using structural equation modeling, we tested a model in which differential activation of the dorsal and ventral striatum produces imbalance in the function of these brain regions. For youth high in sensation seeking, both regions were predicted to develop with age. However, for youth high in the tendency to act without thinking, the ventral striatum was expected to dominate. The model predicted that working memory ability would exhibit (1) early weakness in youth high in acting without thinking but (2) growing strength in those high in sensation seeking. In addition, it predicted that (3) acting without thinking would be more strongly related to risk and externalizing behavior than sensation seeking. Finally, it predicted that (4) controlling for acting without thinking, sensation seeking would predict later increases in risky and externalizing behavior. All four of these predictions were confirmed. The results indicate that the rise in sensation seeking that occurs during adolescence is not accompanied by a deficit in executive function and therefore requires different intervention strategies from those for youth whose impulsivity is characterized by early signs of acting without thinking.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adolescents are characterized by impulsive risky behavior, particularly in the presence of peers. We discriminated high and low risk-taking male adolescents aged 18-19 years by assessing their propensity for risky behavior and vulnerability to peer influence with personality tests, and compared structural differences in gray and white matter of the brain with voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), respectively. We also compared the brain structures according to the participants' actual risk-taking behavior in a simulated driving task with two different social conditions making up a peer competition situation. There was a discrepancy between the self-reported personality test results and risky driving behavior (running through an intersection with traffic lights turning yellow, chancing a collision with another vehicle). Comparison between high and low risk-taking adolescents according to personality test results revealed no significant difference in gray matter volume and white matter integrity. However, comparison according to actual risk-taking behavior during task performance revealed significantly higher white matter integrity in the high risk-taking group, suggesting that increased risky behavior during adolescence is not necessarily attributed to the immature brain as conventional wisdom says.
    PLoS ONE 11/2014; 9(11):e112780. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adolescents who engage in regular marijuana use may have a higher propensity to take unsafe risks despite the possible negative consequences. We compared adolescents with a history of regular marijuana use to non-using teens on a behavioral measure of risk-taking. Given the involvement of the pre-frontal cortex in both risk-taking and executive functioning, we also examined whether risk-taking was associated with measures of executive functioning.
    Journal of Psychopharmacology 09/2014; · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Psychological Inquiry 08/2014; 25(3-4):394-413. · 4.73 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014