Mechanisms underlying heightened risk taking in adolescents as compared with adults

Abstract

Self-report surveys and behavioral tasks indicate greater risk-taking behavior in adolescents as compared with adults. However, the underlying causes of these behavioral differences remain unclear. The present study examined the possibility that adolescents may be more susceptible to immediate positive and negative outcomes than adults. We compared the behavior of adolescents and adults on a modified version of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (Lejuez et al., 2002). The task required that participants press a button to "inflate" a series of balloons on a computer screen. Balloons inflated until either the participant released the button ("saved" balloons) or the balloon "burst." Accumulated points increased as the duration of the buttonpress increased; however, simultaneously, the likelihood that the balloon would burst also increased. Adolescents inflated balloons to a larger size prior to saving them than adults did, suggesting relatively higher levels of risk taking, although the adolescents' behavior was not uniformly risk prone. Further, in comparison with adults, behavior in adolescents was more influenced by whether a balloon was saved or had burst on the preceding trial, suggesting that sensitivity to immediate consequences is one mechanism that underlies the observed difference in risk taking.

Forecasted economic change and the self-fulfilling prophecy in economic decision-making

“…The current study used a rather homogenous population, namely students, and differences in both behavioral and neural responsiveness between younger and older adults are well documented in existing decision-making literature [68–71]. However, we do think that the findings in our experiment capture the psychological reality of forecasted economic changes on decision-making that applies to both young and old.…”

Test-retest characteristics of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).

“…Regarding pump reward values, the present study used the most commonly-used reward value for pumps, i.e., 5 cents per pump (e.g., Killgore, 2007; Benjamin & Robbins, 2007; White, Lejeuz & de Wit, 2007; Hunt et al, 2005; Aklin et al, 2005; Lejuez et al, 2003a,b, 2005; Hopko et al, 2006; Bornovalova et al, 2005); and used several additional reward values (1/2 and 1 cent per pump) which are also in wide use (for instance, 1 cent per pump, Crowley et al, 2006; ½, 1, and 5 cents per pump, White, Lejeuz, & de Wit, 2007; Reynolds et al, 2004, 2006b; 1, 5, and 25 cents per pump, Acheson et al, 2007, 2008; Hamidovic et al, 2008), though other reward levels have also been used, which are not addressed here (i.e., 1 point per pump, redeemable for prizes, Lejuez et al, 2007; 10, 25, and 50 cents per pump, Reynolds et al, 2006a; and an escalating reward of 50 cents per pump with 2 cent increases; Fein & Chang, 2008). Regarding number of balloons, the study estimated test-retest reliability using a moderate to high number of balloons (20 balloons per condition; 60 balloons total per assessment); this exceeds the 10-balloon minimum required for the task (see Lejeuz et al, 2002; Aklin et al, 2005), and places the current study in the middle of the range of trials typically used for the task, which varies from 10 balloons total (Bornovalova et al, 2005; Hopko et al, 2006); to 10 balloons per condition (Acheson, Richards & de Wit, 2007; Acheson & de Wit, 2008; Hamidovic et al, 2008; Reynolds et al, 2004, 2006a, 2006b); 20 balloons total (Benjamin & Robbins, 2007); to 20 balloons per condition (Benjamin & Robbins, 2007; White, Lejuez & de Wit, 2007); 30 balloons total (Aklin et al, 2005; Crowley et al, 2006; Hunt et al, 2005; Killgore, 2007; Lejuez et al, 2003a,b, 2005a,b, 2007; Skeel et al, 2007); to 30 balloons per condition (Lejuez et al, 2002); and 40 balloons total (Benjamin & Robbins, 2007), 60 balloons total (Fein & Chang, 2008; White, Lejuez & de Wit, 2007); and 90 balloons total (Lejuez et al, 2002); with a recent novel variant (the 2BIT; Mitchell et al, 2008) topping out at 300 total balloons (150 balloons per condition; Mitchell et al, 2008). Thus the present data correspond favorably to the majority of studies using...…”

Efficacy of HIV Prevention Interventions in Latin American and Caribbean Nations, 1995–2008: A Meta-Analysis

“…One possible culprit is that, from a developmental perspective, adolescents and young adults tend to be more risk prone, impulsive, and increasingly sexually active. 85,86 Thus, increased condom use may be more difficult to achieve as compared to older populations; it is of note that such populations also generally have less access to key resources necessary to safe behavior. Similarly, it is often the case that school-based interventions are limited to the resources and skills that the schools and their teachers have to offer.…”