Underlying processes of antisocial decisions: Adolescents versus adults

The question of adolescent decision maturity holds significant ramifications for today\u27s youth. When adolescents are viewed as competent, rational decision makers, they may be considered mature enough to make decisions in their best interest in criminal court (Grisso, 1997) and are held fully culpable for their crimes. In contrast, when adolescents are viewed as immature decision makers, they may be considered less competent to make criminal decisions, and thus may not be considered fully culpable for their crimes (Woolard, Reppucci, & Redding, 1996). The present study is based on responses to hypothetical vignettes and measures maturity of judgment (Scott, Reppucci, & Woolard, 1995; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996) via standardized scales and qualitative analyses of open-ended responses. This work investigates the relations between maturity of judgment, consequential thinking, and participation in delinquent behaviors in adolescents (ages12-18), adults (ages 35-63), and delinquent youth (ages 14-17). Results suggest that adolescents and adults differ significantly on the judgment factors that influence their decisions and their decision processes. However, adolescent within-group differences stemmed from the outcome xv expectancy that sensation seeking was a reason TO engage in antisocial behavior, and from differences on consequential thinking variables. In all, findings suggests that for adolescents, but not adults, the domains most central to the endorsement of antisocial decisions are outcome expectancies related to peers, sensation seeking, negative emotion, short term benefits, lack of risk, and over-emphasis on said positive expectancies. Further, exploratory analyses showed external validity for the study\u27s qualitative coding. Taken together, the results of this study offer the potential to inform adolescent-focused legal policies and interventions

Tuning into the real effect of smartphone use on parenting: a multiverse analysis

© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Background: Concerns have been raised regarding the potential negative impacts of parents’ smartphone use on the parent–child relationship. A scoping literature review indicated inconsistent effects, arguably attributable to different conceptualizations of parent phone use and conflation of phone use with technological interference. Methods: Based on a sample of n = 3, 659 parents collected in partnership with a national public broadcaster, we conducted a multiverse analysis. We explored 84 different analytic choices to address whether associations were weak versus robust, and provide clearer direction for measurement, theory, and practice. Effects were assessed in relation to p values, effect sizes, and AIC; we further conducted a meta-analytic sensitivity check. Results: Direct associations between smartphone use and parenting were relatively weak and mixed. Instead, the relation between use and parenting depended on level of technological interference. This pattern was particularly robust for family displacement. At low levels of displacing time with family using technology, more smartphone use was associated with better (not worse) parenting. Conclusions: Our results indicate fragility in findings of risks for parental smartphone use on parenting; there were few concerns in this regard. Rather, at low levels of technological interference, more phone use was associated with higher parenting quality. Scholars should avoid generalized narratives of family risk and seek to uncover real effects of smartphone use on family outcomes across diverse households and contexts

Tuning into the real effect of smartphone use on parenting: A multiverse analysis

Background Concerns have been raised regarding the potential negative impacts of parents' smartphone use on the parent-child relationship. A scoping literature review indicated inconsistent effects, arguably attributable to different conceptualizations of parent phone use and conflation of phone use with technological interference. Methods Based on a sample of n = 3, 659 parents collected in partnership with a national public broadcaster, we conducted a multiverse analysis. We explored 84 different analytic choices to address whether associations were weak versus robust, and provide clearer direction for measurement, theory, and practice. Effects were assessed in relation to p values, effect sizes, and AIC; we further conducted a meta‐analytic sensitivity check. Results Direct associations between smartphone use and parenting were relatively weak and mixed. Instead, the relation between use and parenting depended on level of technological interference. This pattern was particularly robust for family displacement. At low levels of displacing time with family using technology, more smartphone use was associated with better (not worse) parenting. Conclusions Our results indicate fragility in findings of risks for parental smartphone use on parenting; there were few concerns in this regard. Rather, at low levels of technological interference, more phone use was associated with higher parenting quality. Scholars should avoid generalized narratives of family risk and seek to uncover real effects of smartphone use on family outcomes across diverse households and contexts

Participation in organized activities protects against adolescents’ risky substance use, even beyond development in conscientiousness

Adolescents are at a significant risk for binge drinking and illicit drug use. One way to protect against these behaviors is through participation in extracurricular activities. However, there is a debate about whether highly conscientious adolescents are more likely to participate in activities, which raises the concern of a confound. To disentangle these relationships, we tested the latent trajectories of substance use and personality across three years, with participation in activities and sports as time-varying predictors. We surveyed 687 adolescents (55% female, 85.4% Caucasian) in Western Australia schools across 3 years. At Time 1, the students were in Year 10 (mean age 15 years). The results showed that participation in activities and conscientiousness are related, but each uniquely predicts slower growth in substance use. Across waves, participation in activities predicted less risky substance use a year later, over and above conscientiousness development. These results suggest that there may be unique benefits of participation in activities that protect against risky substance use

Participation in organized activities protects against adolescents’ risky substance use, even beyond development in conscientiousness

Adolescents are at a significant risk for binge drinking and illicit drug use. One way to protect against these behaviors is through participation in extracurricular activities. However, there is a debate about whether highly conscientious adolescents are more likely to participate in activities, which raises the concern of a confound. To disentangle these relationships, we tested the latent trajectories of substance use and personality across three years, with participation in activities and sports as time-varying predictors. We surveyed 687 adolescents (55% female, 85.4% Caucasian) in Western Australia schools across 3 years. At Time 1, the students were in Year 10 (mean age 15 years). The results showed that participation in activities and conscientiousness are related, but each uniquely predicts slower growth in substance use. Across waves, participation in activities predicted less risky substance use a year later, over and above conscientiousness development. These results suggest that there may be unique benefits of participation in activities that protect against risky substance use

What Is Digital Parenting? A Systematic Review of Past Measurement and Blueprint for the Future.

Peer reviewed: TrueConcerns about parenting adolescents are not new, but the rapid diffusion of digital technologies has heightened anxieties over digital parenting. Findings are decidedly mixed regarding the impact of digital technologies on adolescent well-being, and parents are left to navigate their concerns without an empirically based road map. A missing link for understanding the state of the science is a clear characterization of how digital parenting is measured, including an evaluation of which areas demand an outsized share of scientific attention and which have been overlooked. To address this gap, we undertook two interdisciplinary systematic reviews of the digital-parenting literature and characterized measurement across (a) quantitative surveys (n = 145 studies) and (b) qualitative focus groups, interviews, codesign studies, and user studies (n = 49). We describe previously popular areas of survey measurement that are of decreasing relevance to parenting of digital spaces (e.g., co-use, hovering). We likewise highlight areas that have been overlooked, including consideration of positive uses of digital technologies, acknowledgment of bidirectional influence, and attention to heterogeneity among families and to extraparental social ecologies of support and monitoring. We provide recommendations for the future of digital-parenting research and propose a more comprehensive approach to measuring how modern adolescents are parented

Testing a model of reward sensitivity, implicit and explicit drinker identity and hazardous drinking

The aim of this study was to investigate both implicit and explicit drinker identity as mediators of reward sensitivity and problematic drinking. University students engage in problematic levels of alcohol consumption, exposing them to increased negative health outcomes. Although personality traits (e.g. reward sensitivity) and social-cognitive variables (e.g. implicit and explicit drinker identity) have been used to investigate drinking behaviour, few studies link personality and multiple indices of drinker identity to problematic drinking.University students (N = 136) completed a drinker identity implicit association test, and questionnaires measuring reward sensitivity, explicit binge drinker identity and problematic drinking as part of a lab-based correlational study.The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test was the main outcome measure with participants self-reporting drinking frequency, quantity and negative physical and psychological outcomes of drinking over the past 3-months.A mediation model revealed that reward sensitivity was significantly associated with explicit, but not implicit, binge drinker identity. Explicit binge drinker identity mediated the reward sensitivity and problematic drinking association.This research provides an evidence base for identity-based drinking interventions for students characterised by high reward sensitivity, by promoting identities that do not idealise problematic drinking behaviour

Reciprocal relations between past behavior, implicit beliefs, and habits : A cross-lagged panel design

The current study assessed cross-lagged relationships between binge drinking, implicit beliefs, and habit in undergraduate university students (N = 105). Students completed self-report survey and implicit measures in lab visits 3 months apart. A structural equation model revealed cross-lagged relations between habit and behavior, and some evidence for a reciprocal relationship between implicit beliefs and habit. Implicit beliefs were related to alcohol behavior across time, but no cross-lagged relationship was observed. Findings provide preliminary support for recent advances in habit theory, suggesting that implicit beliefs and habit may develop in tandem or even share common knowledge structures and schemas.peerReviewe

sj-sav-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053231164492 – Supplemental material for Reciprocal relations between past behavior, implicit beliefs, and habits: A cross-lagged panel design

sj-sav-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053231164492 for Reciprocal relations between past behavior, implicit beliefs, and habits: A cross-lagged panel design by Kyra Hamilton, Daniel J Phipps, Natalie J Loxton, Kathryn L Modecki and Martin S Hagger in Journal of Health Psychology</p