Brain Development, Social Context, and Justice Policy

This article examines the role played by biological and psychological factors associated with adolescent criminal activity in the context of justice policy reform and its critics. Scott, Duell, and Steinberg assert that risk-taking behavior in adolescence is not solely associated with biological and psychological immaturity, but rather exists as a dynamic interaction between those factors and the individual social context. This interactive model of juvenile offending supports the trend of treating juveniles differently than adults in the criminal justice system and clarifies how correctional programs are crucial in either undermining or promoting healthy development in adolescents

Positive and negative risk-taking : age patterns and relations to domain-specific risk-taking

People take risks at all ages to achieve certain goals. Although these goals may be achieved through negative risks (e.g., adolescent drinking to impress their friends), people also take positive risks. Positive risks are theorized to help individuals achieve goals in developmentally appropriate and socially acceptable ways, such as initiating a new friendship as an adolescent, applying for a promotion as a young adult, or exploring a new hobby as a retiree. To test the hypothesis that people endorse different patterns of risk-taking across life, we examined age patterns in positive and negative risk-taking with a sample of individuals ranging in age from 12 to 71 years. In adults aged 19-71, we also examined to what extent positive and negative risk-taking are associated with domain-specific risk-taking and risk-taking propensity. Results indicated that positive risk-taking varied with age in the form of an inverted-U shape and peaked in middle adulthood. Negative antisocial risk-taking varied with age in the form of a U shape and was highest in adolescence. Negative health risk-taking varied with age in the form of an inverted-U shape and peaked in middle adulthood. In adults, greater positive risk-taking was associated with greater risk-taking in the social domain and greater risk-taking propensity. Greater negative risk-taking was associated with greater risk-taking in ethical and health/safety domains, and with greater risk-taking propensity. Altogether, this study is the first to demonstrate age patterns in positive and negative risk-taking across adolescence and adulthood. It also contributes to the validity of positive risk-taking as a construct distinct from negative risk-taking

Brain Development, Social Context and Justice Policy

Justice policy reform in the past decade has been driven by research evidence indicating that brain development is ongoing through adolescence, and that neurological and psychological immaturity likely contributes in important ways to teenagers’ involvement in crime. But despite the power of this trend, skeptics point out that many (perhaps most) adolescents do not engage in serious criminal activity; on this basis, critics argue that normative biological and psychological factors associated with adolescence are unlikely to play the important role in juvenile offending that is posited by supporters of the reform trend. This Article explains that features associated with biological and psychological immaturity alone do not lead teenagers to engage in illegal conduct. Instead the decision to offend, like much behavior in adolescence, is the product of dynamic interaction between the still-maturing individual and her social context. The Article probes the mechanisms through which particular tendencies and traits linked to adolescent brain development interact with environmental influences to encourage antisocial or prosocial behavior. Brain development in adolescence is associated with reward-seeking behavior and limited future orientation. Further, as compared to adults, adolescents are particularly sensitive to external stimuli (particularly peers), easily aroused emotionally, and less able to regulate strong emotions. The Article shows how these tendencies may be manifested in different teenagers in different ways, depending on many factors in the social context. By analyzing this intricate relationship, the Article clarifies how social environment influences adolescent choices in ways that incline or deter involvement in crime and in other risky behavior. Thus a teenager who lives in a high-crime neighborhood with many antisocial peers is more likely to get involved in criminal activity than one in a neighborhood with few such peers, even though the two may not differ in their tendencies and propensities for risk-taking. The Article’s interactive model offers powerful support for laws and policies that subject adolescent offenders to more lenient sanctions than adults receive and that tailor dispositions to juveniles’ developmental needs. Our examination confirms and illuminates the Supreme Court’s conclusion that juvenile offenders differ in important ways from adult counterparts; juveniles deserve less punishment because their offenses are driven by biological and psychological immaturity, and also because, as legal minors, they cannot extricate themselves from social contexts (neighborhoods, schools and families) that contribute to involvement in crime. The model also confirms that correctional facilities and programs, which constitute young offenders’ social settings, can support healthy development to adulthood in individual offenders, or affect their lives in harmful ways

Differential processing of risk and reward in delinquent and non-delinquent youth

The present study examined the behavioral and neural differences in risky decision-making between delinquent (n = 23) and non-delinquent (n = 27) youth ages 13-17 years (M = 16, SD = 0.97) in relation to reward processing. While undergoing functional neuroimaging, participants completed an experimental risk task wherein they received feedback about the riskiness of their behavior in the form of facial expressions that morphed from happy to angry. Behavioral results indicated that delinquent youth took fewer risks and earned fewer rewards on the task than non-delinquent youth. Results from whole-brain analyses indicated no group differences in sensitivity to punishments (i.e. angry faces), but instead showed that delinquent youth evinced greater neural tracking of reward outcomes (i.e. cash-ins) in regions including the ventral striatum and inferior frontal gyrus. While behavioral results show that delinquent youth were more risk-averse, the neural results indicated that delinquent youth were also more reward-driven, potentially suggesting a preference for immediate rewards. Results offer important insights into differential decision-making processes between delinquent and non-delinquent youth

Age Patterns in Risk Taking Across the World

Epidemiological data indicate that risk behaviors are among the leading causes of adolescent morbidity and mortality worldwide. Consistent with this, laboratory-based studies of age differences in risk behavior allude to a peak in adolescence, suggesting that adolescents demonstrate a heightened propensity, or inherent inclination, to take risks. Unlike epidemiological reports, studies of risk taking propensity have been limited to Western samples, leaving questions about the extent to which heightened risk taking propensity is an inherent or culturally constructed aspect of adolescence. In the present study, age patterns in risk-taking propensity (using two laboratory tasks: the Stoplight and the BART) and real-world risk taking (using self-reports of health and antisocial risk taking) were examined in a sample of 5227 individuals (50.7% female) ages 10–30 (M = 17.05 years, SD = 5.91) from 11 Western and non-Western countries (China, Colombia, Cyprus, India, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, the Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, and the US). Two hypotheses were tested: (1) risk taking follows an inverted-U pattern across age groups, peaking earlier on measures of risk taking propensity than on measures of real-world risk taking, and (2) age patterns in risk taking propensity are more consistent across countries than age patterns in real-world risk taking. Overall, risk taking followed the hypothesized inverted-U pattern across age groups, with health risk taking evincing the latest peak. Age patterns in risk taking propensity were more consistent across countries than age patterns in real-world risk taking. Results suggest that although the association between age and risk taking is sensitive to measurement and culture, around the world, risk taking is generally highest among late adolescents

Large-scale association analysis identifies new lung cancer susceptibility loci and heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across histological subtypes.

Although several lung cancer susceptibility loci have been identified, much of the heritability for lung cancer remains unexplained. Here 14,803 cases and 12,262 controls of European descent were genotyped on the OncoArray and combined with existing data for an aggregated genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis of lung cancer in 29,266 cases and 56,450 controls. We identified 18 susceptibility loci achieving genome-wide significance, including 10 new loci. The new loci highlight the striking heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across the histological subtypes of lung cancer, with four loci associated with lung cancer overall and six loci associated with lung adenocarcinoma. Gene expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) analysis in 1,425 normal lung tissue samples highlights RNASET2, SECISBP2L and NRG1 as candidate genes. Other loci include genes such as a cholinergic nicotinic receptor, CHRNA2, and the telomere-related genes OFBC1 and RTEL1. Further exploration of the target genes will continue to provide new insights into the etiology of lung cancer

Psychological profiles associated with positive and negative risk-taking in adults

Although risk is often considered in the context of maladaptive behaviors, risks can also be positive, allowing individuals to pursue meaningful goals in a socially accepted way. In this study, we were interested in examining psychological profiles associated with positive and negative risk-taking in adults (N = 275, ages 19–71 years, M = 39.25; SD = 13.73) using latent profile analysis. Specifically, we examined whether distinct profiles of psychological characteristics such as future time perspective, tolerance to ambiguity, and sensitivity to reward and punishment are differentially associated with positive and negative risk-taking. We used the Future Time Perspective Scale (FTPS), the Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (MSTAT-II), the Short Version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Scale (SPSRQ-SF), the Positive Risk-Taking Scale (PRTS), and the Negative Risk-Taking Scale (NRTS). Findings yielded two profiles: individuals in the first profile, characterized by lower sensitivity to punishment and higher tolerance to ambiguity, future time perspective, and sensitivity to reward, endorsed greater positive and negative risk-taking. Conversely, individuals in the second profile, characterized by heightened sensitivity to punishment and lower tolerance to ambiguity, future time perspective, and sensitivity to reward, endorsed lower positive and negative risk-taking. The study contributes to previous findings by identifying additional psychological characteristics that may be associated with both positive and negative risk-taking in adults

Brain Development, Social Context and Justice Policy

Justice policy reform in the past decade has been driven by research evidence indicating that brain development is ongoing through adolescence, and that neurological and psychological immaturity likely contributes in important ways to teenagers’ involvement in crime. But despite the power of this trend, skeptics point out that many (perhaps most) adolescents do not engage in serious criminal activity; on this basis, critics argue that normative biological and psychological factors associated with adolescence are unlikely to play the important role in juvenile offending that is posited by supporters of the reform trend. This Article explains that features associated with biological and psychological immaturity alone do not lead teenagers to engage in illegal conduct. Instead the decision to offend, like much behavior in adolescence, is the product of dynamic interaction between the still-maturing individual and her social context. The Article probes the mechanisms through which particular tendencies and traits linked to adolescent brain development interact with environmental influences to encourage antisocial or prosocial behavior. Brain development in adolescence is associated with reward-seeking behavior and limited future orientation. Further, as compared to adults, adolescents are particularly sensitive to external stimuli (particularly peers), easily aroused emotionally, and less able to regulate strong emotions. The Article shows how these tendencies may be manifested in different teenagers in different ways, depending on many factors in the social context. By analyzing this intricate relationship, the Article clarifies how social environment influences adolescent choices in ways that incline or deter involvement in crime and in other risky behavior. Thus a teenager who lives in a high-crime neighborhood with many antisocial peers is more likely to get involved in criminal activity than one in a neighborhood with few such peers, even though the two may not differ in their tendencies and propensities for risk-taking. The Article’s interactive model offers powerful support for laws and policies that subject adolescent offenders to more lenient sanctions than adults receive and that tailor dispositions to juveniles’ developmental needs. Our examination confirms and illuminates the Supreme Court’s conclusion that juvenile offenders differ in important ways from adult counterparts; juveniles deserve less punishment because their offenses are driven by biological and psychological immaturity, and also because, as legal minors, they cannot extricate themselves from social contexts (neighborhoods, schools and families) that contribute to involvement in crime. The model also confirms that correctional facilities and programs, which constitute young offenders’ social settings, can support healthy development to adulthood in individual offenders, or affect their lives in harmful ways