Adolescent Risk-Taking Is Predicted by Individual Differences in Cognitive Control Over Emotional, but Not Non-Emotional, Response Conflict
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cognition and Emotion ISSN: 0269-9931 (Print) 1464-0600 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20 Adolescent risk-taking is predicted by individual differences in cognitive control over emotional, but not non-emotional, response conflict Morgan Botdorf, Gail M. Rosenbaum, Jamie Patrianakos, Laurence Steinberg & Jason M. Chein To cite this article: Morgan Botdorf, Gail M. Rosenbaum, Jamie Patrianakos, Laurence Steinberg & Jason M. Chein (2016): Adolescent risk-taking is predicted by individual differences in cognitive control over emotional, but not non-emotional, response conflict, Cognition and Emotion To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1168285 Published online: 06 Apr 2016. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pcem20 Download by: [Temple University Libraries], [Jamie Patrianakos] Date: 07 April 2016, At: 11:23 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1168285 BRIEF ARTICLE Adolescent risk-taking is predicted by individual differences in cognitive control over emotional, but not non-emotional, response conflict Morgan Botdorfa, Gail M. Rosenbauma, Jamie Patrianakosa, Laurence Steinberga,b and Jason M. Cheina aDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; bKing Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY While much research on adolescent risk behaviour has focused on the development of Received 30 November 2015 prefrontal self-regulatory mechanisms, prior studies have elicited mixed evidence of a Revised 17 February 2016 relationship between individual differences in the capacity for self-regulation and Accepted 14 March 2016 fi individual differences in risk taking. To explain these inconsistent ndings, it has KEYWORDS been suggested that the capacity for self-regulation may be, for most adolescents, “ ” Cognitive control; risk taking; adequately mature to produce adaptive behaviour in non-affective, cold executive function; circumstances, but that adolescents have a more difficult time exerting control in adolescence; affect 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. It is well known that adolescents take risks more often peak reactivity during adolescence (Galván, Hare, than do children and adults, including reckless driving Voss, Glover, & Casey, 2007; Steinberg, 2008). This mis- (Chen, Baker, & Li, 2000), binge drinking (Marcotte, matched developmental timing leads to a period, Bekman, Meyer, & Brown, 2012), and delinquency coinciding with middle and late adolescence, in (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). A prominent which individuals experience an increased drive model of adolescent risk-taking, the dual systems towards the rewarding aspects of risk taking, but model (Steinberg, 2008), proposes that heightened possess only a limited capacity to exert control over risk-taking in adolescence can be understood in potentially dangerous impulses (Somerville, Jones, & terms of asynchronous changes in the maturation of Casey, 2010). Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries], [Jamie Patrianakos] at 11:23 07 April 2016 a “cognitive control” system responsible for self-regu- While the dual systems (and related “maturational latory processes and a socio-emotional “incentive imbalance”) models offer a provocative theoretical processing” system responsible for processes related explanation for adolescent risk-taking, and are sup- to reward, emotion, and social cognition. Specifically, ported by considerable empirical evidence (Shulman, the cognitive control system is believed to mature Harden, Chein, & Steinberg, 2015; Strang, Chein, & gradually and linearly across adolescence and into Steinberg, 2013), inconsistent results have arisen adulthood, whereas the incentive processing system from studies investigating individual differences in is thought to follow an inverted-U pattern, reaching self-reported and behaviourally assessed impulsivity CONTACT Jason M. Chein [email protected] © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 M. BOTDORF ET AL. (a manifestation of weaker cognitive control) and their also be interpreted with reference to brain develop- correlation with individual differences in self-reported ment, where evidence points to the earlier maturation and experimentally assessed risk-taking. For instance, and strengthening of connections between the Galván et al. (2007) found that individual differences regions that govern aspects of cold, reasoned cogni- between self-reported impulsivity and self-reported tion rather than the pathways linking cognitive and risk-taking were uncorrelated. Likewise, Steinberg affective systems – pathways that eventually enable et al. (2008) found that although individual differences down-regulation of affectively charged responses. in self-reported sensation seeking (which can be con- From this perspective, the inconsistent relation sidered a manifestation of increased reactivity in the found between cognitive control and risk taking in incentive processing system [Smith, Chein, & Stein- adolescence is not necessarily inconsistent with the berg, 2013]) were linked to behaviourally assessed dual systems model. Rather, it suggests that perform- risk-taking (on the Stoplight driving game), individual ance on cold and hot cognitive control tasks may be differences in impulsivity were not. Conversely, other differentially predictive of risk taking, and that a studies indicate that impulsivity is linked to laboratory more suitable test of the model’s claims might risk-taking. For example, Collado, Felton, MacPherson, necessitate the use of cognitive control tasks that and Lejuez (2014) reported a significant correlation measure adolescents’ ability to exert control in the between self-reported impulsivity and risk taking on face of emotional arousal. the BART, a widely used behavioural measure of risk In recognition of the importance of understanding taking. developmental changes in the interaction between The fact that studies do not consistently link indi- affective and cognitive processes, the use of affec- vidual differences in cognitive control to differences tively charged cognitive control tasks has become in risk taking may seem to contradict a central tenet more prevalent in developmental research. For of the dual systems model: that the propensity to example, a handful of recent studies (Cohen et al., engage in risky behaviours hinges in part on 2016; Somerville, Hare, & Casey, 2011) have employed deficiencies in one’s capacity for self-regulatory an emotional go/no-go task, in which participants are control. The apparent contradiction can be resolved, asked to respond when they see one type of face (e.g. however, by considering one of the hallmark charac- happy face), but to withhold their response when they teristics of adolescent risk-taking – that it most often see another type of face (e.g. angry face). In one of occurs in affectively “hot” contexts (Figner, Mackinlay, these studies (Somerville et al., 2011), adolescents’ Wilkening, & Weber, 2009; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). performance on the task was found to be similar to That is, adolescents’ engagement in risky behaviour is that of adults and children when they had to inhibit most apparent under circumstances that more inten- responding to faces showing neutral expressions. sely arouse socio-emotional reward processes. For However, relative to both children and adults, the ado- example, teens often take risks in the presence of lescents struggled to withhold responding when they peers, a phenomenon that has been shown to be con- were presented with happy faces – a rewarding stimu- nected to increased reward system activation in teens lus. This pattern of findings suggests that, in accord during risk taking (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert, & with the interpretation offered above, adolescents Steinberg, 2011) and reward tasks (Smith et al., may more ably exert inhibitory control in neutral con- 2013). Likewise, the availability of immediate feedback ditions, than in affectively arousing ones (see also regarding performance and reward outcomes can Hartley & Somerville, 2015). Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries], [Jamie Patrianakos] at 11:23 07 April 2016 increase affective engagement, and thereby accentu- Emotional variants of the Stroop task represent ate the differences between adolescents’ and adults’ another class of affective cognitive control measures risk behaviour (Figner et al., 2009). that have been widely used (e.g. Imbir & Jarymowicz, One way to interpret such results is to assume that 2013; Preston & Stansfield,