Adolescent risk-taking is predicted by individual differences in cognitive control over emotional, but not non-emotional, response conflict

49Citations
Citations of this article
187Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

While much research on adolescent risk behaviour has focused on the development of prefrontal self-regulatory mechanisms, prior studies have elicited mixed evidence of a relationship between individual differences in the capacity for self-regulation and individual differences in risk taking. To explain these inconsistent findings, it has been suggested that the capacity for self-regulation may be, for most adolescents, adequately mature to produce adaptive behaviour in non-affective, “cold” circumstances, but that adolescents have a more difficult time exerting control in affective, “hot” contexts. To further explore this claim, the present study examined individual differences in self-control in the face of affective and non-affective response conflict, and examined whether differences in the functioning of cognitive control processes under these different conditions was related to risk taking. Participants completed a cognitive Stroop task, an emotional Stroop task, and a risky driving task known as the Stoplight game. Regression analyses showed that performance on the emotional Stroop task predicted laboratory risk-taking in the driving task, whereas performance on the cognitive Stroop task did not exhibit the same trend. This pattern of results is consistent with theories of adolescent risk-taking that emphasise the impacts of affective contextual influences on the ability to enact effective cognitive control.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Botdorf, M., Rosenbaum, G. M., Patrianakos, J., Steinberg, L., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Adolescent risk-taking is predicted by individual differences in cognitive control over emotional, but not non-emotional, response conflict. Cognition and Emotion, 31(5), 972–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1168285

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free