Dual systems model
The temporal gap in the development of the socioemotional and cognitive control systems creates a period of heightened vulnerability to risk-taking during mid-adolescence.
In the dual systems model, "reward sensitivity" and "cognitive control" refer to neurobiological constructs that are measured in studies of brain structure and function.
It is highly contested and debated within developmental psychology and neuroscientific fields whether or not when the prefrontal cortex is said to be fully or efficiently developed.
Most longitudinal evidence suggests that myelination of gray matter in the frontal lobe is a very long process and may be continuing until well into middle age or greater, and major facets of the brain are recorded to reach mature levels in one's mid-teens, including the parts that are responsible for response inhibition and impulse control, suggesting that many later age markers may ultimately be arbitrary.
[7] The dual systems model arose out of evidence from developmental cognitive neuroscience providing insight into how patterns of brain development could explain aspects of adolescent decision-making.
The maturational imbalance model portrays a socioemotional system that reaches its peak around mid-adolescence and then plateaus into adulthood.
[11] These later models hypothesize that cognitive control development is completed by mid-adolescence and attribute increased risk-taking during adolescence to the hyperarousal of the socioemotional system.
[12] The "triadic model", which includes a third brain system responsible for emotion processing and primarily implicating the amygdala.
The dual systems model looks to experimental paradigms in developmental neuroscience for evidence of this greater biological propensity for risk-taking.
[20] These findings are linked to increases in sensation-seeking, which is the tendency to seek out novel, exciting, and rewarding stimuli, during adolescence, and continued development of impulse control, which is the ability to regulate one's behavior.
[35] Evidence from rodent studies indicates the dopaminergic system, the pathway connecting the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens and olfactory tubercle, plays a critical role in the brain's reward circuitry and the dopamine-rich striatum has been implicated as a key contributor to reward sensitivity in the brain.
[31] Some studies have found that striatum activity is blunted compared to children and adults when anticipating rewards,[50] which has been linked to greater risk-taking behaviors.
[52] In other words, that is, that adolescents are motivated, in part, to engage in greater reward-seeking behaviors because of developmental changes in the striatum that contribute to hypersensitivity to reward.
During adolescence, this pruning process is specialized with some areas losing approximately half of their synaptic connections but others showing little change.
[57] Evidence supporting the dual systems model theory of delayed maturation of the cognitive control system is supported by evidence of structural changes like cortical thinning[55] as well as less diffuse activation of frontal regions during inhibitory control tasks from adolescence to adulthood.
Passive exposure tasks generally involve exposing the participant to pleasant stimuli (e.g., monetary reward, attractive faces).
[34] During feedback on decision-making tasks, greater striatal activation to rewarding outcomes has been observed in adolescents compared to adults.
[75] Adolescent developmental immaturity and culpability were central to three US Supreme Court cases: Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v.
[citation needed] Prior to Roper in 2005, the Supreme Court had relied on common sense standards to determine adolescent culpability.
For example, in Thompson v. Oklahoma, the Court prohibited capital punishment for individuals under the age of 16 stating that "Contemporary standards of decency confirm our judgment that such a young person is not capable of acting with the degree of culpability that can justify the ultimate penalty.
In Miller, the Court stated "It is increasingly clear that adolescent brains are not yet fully mature in regions and systems related to higher-order executive functions such as impulse control, planning ahead, and risk avoidance.
"[77] Most criticism of the dual systems model arises from one continual error; the lack of actual evidence proving a casual relation between youth misbehavior and a dysfunctional brain.
[80] Additionally, a 2004 study indicated that "response inhibition" and "processing speed" reached adult levels by the age of fourteen and fifteen, respectively.
There is also a lack of evidence indicating the limbic system being mature (and sensation seeking peaking) while the executive functioning of the brain remains immature.
In one longitudinal study, individual differences in working memory predicted subsequent levels of sensation seeking even after controlling for age, suggesting that sensation-based risk taking rises in concert with executive function.
Researchers drew a modest conclusion from this study, indicating that there were qualitative similarities in the processing abilities of adolescents and adults.
This has led to some criticism in how these studies and the results they gather were being interpreted, either through baseless speculation with even accusations of malicious intent levied at journalists and researchers.
Cold cognition relates more to the raw function of the brain and ability to process information and operate competently.
This, coupled with the fact that the study never went anywhere near the brain, suggests that social immaturity of adolescents and young adults could be influenced by culture or environment rather than by biological means.
[This quote needs a citation] This provides some credence that the troubled teen industry is driven by motivation to expand the education system.
