Does adolescent risk taking imply weak executive function? A prospective study of relations between working memory performance, impulsivity, and risk taking in early adolescence: Adolescent risk taking and executive function
Open accessAbstract
Studies of brain development suggest that the increase in risk taking observed during adolescence may be due to insufficient prefrontal executive function compared to a more rapidly developing subcortical motivation system. We examined executive function as assessed by working memory ability in a community sample of youth (n = 387, ages 10 to 12 at baseline) in three annual assessments to determine its relation to two forms of impulsivity (sensation seeking and acting without thinking) and a wide range of risk and externalizing behavior. Using structural equation modeling, we tested a model in which differential activation of the dorsal and ventral striatum produces imbalance in the function of these brain regions. For youth high in sensation seeking, both regions were predicted to develop with age. However, for youth high in the tendency to act without thinking, the ventral striatum was expected to dominate. The model predicted that working memory ability would exhibit (1) early weakness in youth high in acting without thinking but (2) growing strength in those high in sensation seeking. In addition, it predicted that (3) acting without thinking would be more strongly related to risk and externalizing behavior than sensation seeking. Finally, it predicted that (4) controlling for acting without thinking, sensation seeking would predict later increases in risky and externalizing behavior. All four of these predictions were confirmed. The results indicate that the rise in sensation seeking that occurs during adolescence is not accompanied by a deficit in executive function and therefore requires different intervention strategies from those for youth whose impulsivity is characterized by early signs of acting without thinking.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Working memory may play a role in adolescent risk taking through its influence on impulse control.
“Working memory is the capacity for storing and manipulating information in one's mind (Baddeley 2010) and research suggests that it may play a role in adolescent risk taking through its influence on impulse control (Romer et al. 2011).”
From Sleep Problems Across Development: A Pathway to Adolescent Risk Taking Through Working Memory (2015) · cites this paper as Romer et al. 2011
In a 3-year longitudinal study of youth, working memory was associated with two types of impulsivity: sensation seeking tendencies (associated with better working memory) and acting without thinking (associated with poorer working memory).
“In a 3-year longitudinal study of youth, Romer et al. (2011) found that working memory was associated with two types of impulsivity: sensation seeking tendencies (which was associated with better working memory) and acting without thinking (which was associated with poorer working memory).”
From Sleep Problems Across Development: A Pathway to Adolescent Risk Taking Through Working Memory (2015) · cites this paper as Romer et al. 2011
Both forms of impulsivity were correlated with subsequent risk taking, but the relationship was stronger for acting without thinking.
“Although both forms of impulsivity were correlated with subsequent risk taking, the relationship was stronger for acting without thinking (Romer et al. 2011).”
From Sleep Problems Across Development: A Pathway to Adolescent Risk Taking Through Working Memory (2015) · cites this paper as Romer et al. 2011
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 97 · Cited by 160
- Authors
- Romer, D., Betancourt, L. M., Brodsky, N. L., Giannetta, J. M., Yang, W., & Hurt, H.
- Affiliations
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- Developmental Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-06-18
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1119-1133
- ISSN
- 1363-755X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3177153
- OpenAlex
- W1942592573
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 97
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA18913, R01DA018913)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Keywords
- adolescent risk-taking, executive function, working memory, impulsivity, sensation seeking, dorsal striatum, ventral striatum, externalizing problems, early adolescence, brain development
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Aging, Basal Ganglia, Brain, Child, Dopamine, Exploratory Behavior, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Prospective Studies, Risk-Taking, Thinking, Adolescent Development, Executive Function
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review