HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author Manuscript
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 30. Published in final edited form as: J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016 March ; 57(3): 369–370. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12539.
Commentary: Risk taking, impulsivity, and externalizing problems in adolescent development – commentary on Crone et al. 2016
Author Manuscript
Joel T. Nigg and Bonnie J. Nagel Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Author Manuscript
Crone et al. provide a timely review of an important and fast developing field. The neural mechanisms related to the development of risk taking and the unique characteristics of this development in adolescence are of considerable interest for the light they can shed on neurodevelopmental mechanisms of risk and resilience. They are also, as the authors point out, potentially important for understanding how externalizing behavior problems develop. Given the varied, and at times seemingly contradictory findings in the field, it is particularly helpful to have in one place the perspective of competing theories. These include theories related to (a) neurodevelopmental trajectories (e.g., linear vs. asynchronous neural development vs. triadic imbalance model), (b) psychological mechanisms (e.g., affective weighting, cognitive processing, and learning via salience cues), and (c) neural maturation (e.g., intrinsic connectivity of key striatal-frontal circuitry). We appreciated the authors’ differentiation of circuits in relation to questions remaining. Clearly, rich potential remains in this line of investigation. As the authors note, much of the field has focused on frontal-striatal circuity. While this is justified, it will be important for further work to recognize more explicitly and consistently the important concurrent interactions with other brain networks in the context of risk taking and how these interactions may shape risk-taking behavior.
Author Manuscript
We also appreciated the allusion to the bidirectional and recursive developmental dynamics that may be in play between neural development and risk-taking behavior, such that amplification or dampening of behavioral tendencies may occur in adolescence, depending on extrinsic and intrinsic social, environmental, and emotional contexts. Without a careful account of these influential contexts, the brain imaging findings will not be coherent. This insight, finally, can open the door to translating the brain imaging work into proposals for intervention and developmental supports for adolescents in different contexts. Crone et al.’s reflection on the exquisitely context-sensitive nature of adolescent ‘risk taking’ observations and behaviors is extremely important. The distinction between affective and deliberative risk taking is essential to make sense of adolescent development. Put
Correspondence: Joel T. Nigg, Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA; [email protected]. The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this work.
Nigg and Nagel
Page 2
Author Manuscript
another way, risk taking in peer social and emotional contexts likely operates by different mechanisms and has a different developmental trajectory than risk taking in other contexts. As a result, the reviewers correctly present risk taking itself as ‘value neutral’ in relation to psychopathology. Positive correlates of increased risk taking may be as important as negative correlates. The field may have focused too much on pathologizing adolescent risk taking rather than highlighting its adaptive characteristics as well, such that we lack a clear mapping of the contexts in which increased risk taking is associated with better rather than worse adaptation. Indeed, at this point, data on adaptive advantages of moderate risk taking in adolescence seem in short supply. The authors provide a helpful way forward in studying this issue by noting the insights available from considering risk taking not in isolation as an absolute, but in relation to a second construct they term ‘rate of return’ – that is, the actual consequences or benefits of the risk.
Author Manuscript
This brings us to our one quibble with Crone et al.: we would draw a stronger distinction between risk taking and impulsivity. Risk taking, as just noted, is multicomponential, comprising both affective and deliberative decision-making behaviors. From that perspective, we accept the definition of risk taking as choosing the most variable option – the one with the biggest potential loss and the biggest potential gain. But we emphasize that choosing such an option can be adaptive or maladaptive, depending on the rate of return associated with it.
Author Manuscript
Impulsivity is likewise multifaceted, even in children (Zapolski, Stairs, Settles, Combs, & Smith, 2010). While affective risk taking may overlap with some aspects of impulsivity (e.g., unreflective action), the construct of impulsivity is overall quite distinct from risk taking. It includes impulsive actions driven not by positive affect or reward anticipation, but by negative affect as well. One formal definition, or form, of impulsivity is a self-defeating preference for immediate over long-term rewards that leads to a reduced rate of return (Madden & Bickel, 2010). It is driven either by a failure to inhibit a stimulus driven response or by an excessively steep discounting of future versus immediate rewards. The alcoholic who wants to be sober, but chooses to drink right now, typifies the highly impulsive action. The immediate drink wins, defeating the ultimate goal. However, the alcoholic’s decision to drink is not a risk-taking decision to choose the option with the most variable outcome, but rather an impulsive decision due either to failure to inhibit the stimulus-activated response, or to automatic overweighting of cues for near-term anticipated reward. By this definition, extreme high impulsivity is unlikely ever to be adaptive. The same is not clear for extreme risk taking, as some successful entrepreneurs have demonstrated.
Author Manuscript
Thus, while affective risk taking may be impulsive, at least in a deliberative context, these constructs can be orthogonal. Even in the affective context, one can ask whether the relation to adaptation follows the same mathematical function. Affective risk taking may have a linear relation with adaptation (although this is an empirical question), while impulsivity may have a curvilinear association with adaptation. For example, Shedler and Block (1990) reported that the best long-term adaptation was associated with moderate levels of impulsivity (in that sample, this was also associated with experimentation, but not addiction to alcohol or drugs) while excessive impulsivity led to problematic long-term adjustment.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 30.
Nigg and Nagel
Page 3
Author Manuscript
The precursors to adolescent problems, such as early substance use, are present in many instances in childhood behaviors such as ADHD or conduct problems where excessive impulsivity is at play, rather than elevated risk taking (see Zucker, Heitzeg, & Nigg, 2011). Here, impulse control itself involves at least two distinct psychological and neural processes, including a bottom-up reactive process and a top-down control process that partially, but only partially, overlaps the circuitry so ably described by Crone et al. There would be significant value in neuroimaging studies that would differentiate these two constructs, and their components, across the course of adolescence to evaluate the degree of differentiation at the neural level, as well as associated maturational trajectories. Some forms of impulsivity may precede, mediate, or moderate forms of risk taking in development (Romer, 2010).
Author Manuscript
Interaction of other personality traits with risk taking also warrants more consideration. Individuals vary in their baseline preference for risk taking, so a particular action may represent high risk taking for that individual, if not for another individual. As Crone et al. allude to, many individual differences remain unexplored in this literature. Normal variation in related personality traits (e.g., sensation seeking, resiliency) also links to differences in risk-taking behavior and associated neurobiological correlates. To reiterate, the literature reflects insufficient appreciation of the bidirectional interactions of these individual-level traits with the panoply of intrinsic and extrinsic developmental influences.
Author Manuscript
A final issue is that of measurement. That is, what is the ecological validity of the laboratory risk taking tasks employed, and how does developmental change (both behavioral and neurobiological) on these tasks related to real world risk taking and outcomes? Here, there is value in existing work that has examined trajectories and the predictive capacity of laboratory risk taking indices with later real life outcomes. Additional work considering the varied contexts in which risk taking occurs will be necessary to further understand the value of these studies in prognostic determination of future risky and resilient behavior and outcomes for youth. These include developmental and psychosocial contexts, such as early trauma, stressful experiences, and social supports (Romer, 2010).
Author Manuscript
We conclude by underscoring a key point made by Crone et al. – we have too little information on developmental neural correlates of actual real-world versus task-based outcomes. Gaining that perspective is an opportunity provided by new imaging approaches, in particular network connectivity approaches, such as resting state intrinsic connectivity or structural connectivity (e.g., as measured by diffusion tensor imaging). Even more, the integration of these multimodal methods, in combination with an appreciation of contexts and careful delineation of distinct forms of risk taking versus impulsivity, is likely to yield further and exciting progress that can continue to better inform the dynamic nature of adolescent psychopathology risk and adaptation over the course of maturation.
Acknowledgments This article was supported by grant number MHR3759105 to J.N. This commentary article was invited by the Annual Research Review Editor and has been subject to internal review.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 30.
Nigg and Nagel
Page 4
Author Manuscript
References
Author Manuscript
Crone EA, van Duijvenvoorde ACK, Peper JS. Annual Research Review: Neural contributions to risktaking in adolescence–developmental changes and individual differences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2016; 57:353–368. [PubMed: 26889896] Madden, GJ.; Bickel, WK. Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010. Romer D. Adolescent risk taking, impulsivity, and brain development: Implications for prevention. Developmental Psychobiology. 2010; 52:263–276. [PubMed: 20175097] Shedler J, Block J. Adolescent drug use and psychological health. A longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist. 1990; 45:612–630. [PubMed: 2350080] Zapolski TC, Stairs AM, Settles RF, Combs JL, Smith GT. The measurement of dispositions to rash action in children. Assessment. 2010; 17:116–125. [PubMed: 19955108] Zucker RA, Heitzeg MM, Nigg JT. Parsing the Undercontrol/Disinhibition Pathway to Substance Use Disorders: A Multilevel Developmental Problem. Child Development Perspectives. 2011; 5:248– 255. [PubMed: 22116786]
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 30.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 30. Published in final edited form as: J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016 March ; 57(3): 369–370. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12539.
Commentary: Risk taking, impulsivity, and externalizing problems in adolescent development – commentary on Crone et al. 2016
Author Manuscript
Joel T. Nigg and Bonnie J. Nagel Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Author Manuscript
Crone et al. provide a timely review of an important and fast developing field. The neural mechanisms related to the development of risk taking and the unique characteristics of this development in adolescence are of considerable interest for the light they can shed on neurodevelopmental mechanisms of risk and resilience. They are also, as the authors point out, potentially important for understanding how externalizing behavior problems develop. Given the varied, and at times seemingly contradictory findings in the field, it is particularly helpful to have in one place the perspective of competing theories. These include theories related to (a) neurodevelopmental trajectories (e.g., linear vs. asynchronous neural development vs. triadic imbalance model), (b) psychological mechanisms (e.g., affective weighting, cognitive processing, and learning via salience cues), and (c) neural maturation (e.g., intrinsic connectivity of key striatal-frontal circuitry). We appreciated the authors’ differentiation of circuits in relation to questions remaining. Clearly, rich potential remains in this line of investigation. As the authors note, much of the field has focused on frontal-striatal circuity. While this is justified, it will be important for further work to recognize more explicitly and consistently the important concurrent interactions with other brain networks in the context of risk taking and how these interactions may shape risk-taking behavior.
Author Manuscript
We also appreciated the allusion to the bidirectional and recursive developmental dynamics that may be in play between neural development and risk-taking behavior, such that amplification or dampening of behavioral tendencies may occur in adolescence, depending on extrinsic and intrinsic social, environmental, and emotional contexts. Without a careful account of these influential contexts, the brain imaging findings will not be coherent. This insight, finally, can open the door to translating the brain imaging work into proposals for intervention and developmental supports for adolescents in different contexts. Crone et al.’s reflection on the exquisitely context-sensitive nature of adolescent ‘risk taking’ observations and behaviors is extremely important. The distinction between affective and deliberative risk taking is essential to make sense of adolescent development. Put
Correspondence: Joel T. Nigg, Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97219, USA; [email protected]. The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this work.
Nigg and Nagel
Page 2
Author Manuscript
another way, risk taking in peer social and emotional contexts likely operates by different mechanisms and has a different developmental trajectory than risk taking in other contexts. As a result, the reviewers correctly present risk taking itself as ‘value neutral’ in relation to psychopathology. Positive correlates of increased risk taking may be as important as negative correlates. The field may have focused too much on pathologizing adolescent risk taking rather than highlighting its adaptive characteristics as well, such that we lack a clear mapping of the contexts in which increased risk taking is associated with better rather than worse adaptation. Indeed, at this point, data on adaptive advantages of moderate risk taking in adolescence seem in short supply. The authors provide a helpful way forward in studying this issue by noting the insights available from considering risk taking not in isolation as an absolute, but in relation to a second construct they term ‘rate of return’ – that is, the actual consequences or benefits of the risk.
Author Manuscript
This brings us to our one quibble with Crone et al.: we would draw a stronger distinction between risk taking and impulsivity. Risk taking, as just noted, is multicomponential, comprising both affective and deliberative decision-making behaviors. From that perspective, we accept the definition of risk taking as choosing the most variable option – the one with the biggest potential loss and the biggest potential gain. But we emphasize that choosing such an option can be adaptive or maladaptive, depending on the rate of return associated with it.
Author Manuscript
Impulsivity is likewise multifaceted, even in children (Zapolski, Stairs, Settles, Combs, & Smith, 2010). While affective risk taking may overlap with some aspects of impulsivity (e.g., unreflective action), the construct of impulsivity is overall quite distinct from risk taking. It includes impulsive actions driven not by positive affect or reward anticipation, but by negative affect as well. One formal definition, or form, of impulsivity is a self-defeating preference for immediate over long-term rewards that leads to a reduced rate of return (Madden & Bickel, 2010). It is driven either by a failure to inhibit a stimulus driven response or by an excessively steep discounting of future versus immediate rewards. The alcoholic who wants to be sober, but chooses to drink right now, typifies the highly impulsive action. The immediate drink wins, defeating the ultimate goal. However, the alcoholic’s decision to drink is not a risk-taking decision to choose the option with the most variable outcome, but rather an impulsive decision due either to failure to inhibit the stimulus-activated response, or to automatic overweighting of cues for near-term anticipated reward. By this definition, extreme high impulsivity is unlikely ever to be adaptive. The same is not clear for extreme risk taking, as some successful entrepreneurs have demonstrated.
Author Manuscript
Thus, while affective risk taking may be impulsive, at least in a deliberative context, these constructs can be orthogonal. Even in the affective context, one can ask whether the relation to adaptation follows the same mathematical function. Affective risk taking may have a linear relation with adaptation (although this is an empirical question), while impulsivity may have a curvilinear association with adaptation. For example, Shedler and Block (1990) reported that the best long-term adaptation was associated with moderate levels of impulsivity (in that sample, this was also associated with experimentation, but not addiction to alcohol or drugs) while excessive impulsivity led to problematic long-term adjustment.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 30.
Nigg and Nagel
Page 3
Author Manuscript
The precursors to adolescent problems, such as early substance use, are present in many instances in childhood behaviors such as ADHD or conduct problems where excessive impulsivity is at play, rather than elevated risk taking (see Zucker, Heitzeg, & Nigg, 2011). Here, impulse control itself involves at least two distinct psychological and neural processes, including a bottom-up reactive process and a top-down control process that partially, but only partially, overlaps the circuitry so ably described by Crone et al. There would be significant value in neuroimaging studies that would differentiate these two constructs, and their components, across the course of adolescence to evaluate the degree of differentiation at the neural level, as well as associated maturational trajectories. Some forms of impulsivity may precede, mediate, or moderate forms of risk taking in development (Romer, 2010).
Author Manuscript
Interaction of other personality traits with risk taking also warrants more consideration. Individuals vary in their baseline preference for risk taking, so a particular action may represent high risk taking for that individual, if not for another individual. As Crone et al. allude to, many individual differences remain unexplored in this literature. Normal variation in related personality traits (e.g., sensation seeking, resiliency) also links to differences in risk-taking behavior and associated neurobiological correlates. To reiterate, the literature reflects insufficient appreciation of the bidirectional interactions of these individual-level traits with the panoply of intrinsic and extrinsic developmental influences.
Author Manuscript
A final issue is that of measurement. That is, what is the ecological validity of the laboratory risk taking tasks employed, and how does developmental change (both behavioral and neurobiological) on these tasks related to real world risk taking and outcomes? Here, there is value in existing work that has examined trajectories and the predictive capacity of laboratory risk taking indices with later real life outcomes. Additional work considering the varied contexts in which risk taking occurs will be necessary to further understand the value of these studies in prognostic determination of future risky and resilient behavior and outcomes for youth. These include developmental and psychosocial contexts, such as early trauma, stressful experiences, and social supports (Romer, 2010).
Author Manuscript
We conclude by underscoring a key point made by Crone et al. – we have too little information on developmental neural correlates of actual real-world versus task-based outcomes. Gaining that perspective is an opportunity provided by new imaging approaches, in particular network connectivity approaches, such as resting state intrinsic connectivity or structural connectivity (e.g., as measured by diffusion tensor imaging). Even more, the integration of these multimodal methods, in combination with an appreciation of contexts and careful delineation of distinct forms of risk taking versus impulsivity, is likely to yield further and exciting progress that can continue to better inform the dynamic nature of adolescent psychopathology risk and adaptation over the course of maturation.
Acknowledgments This article was supported by grant number MHR3759105 to J.N. This commentary article was invited by the Annual Research Review Editor and has been subject to internal review.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 30.
Nigg and Nagel
Page 4
Author Manuscript
References
Author Manuscript
Crone EA, van Duijvenvoorde ACK, Peper JS. Annual Research Review: Neural contributions to risktaking in adolescence–developmental changes and individual differences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2016; 57:353–368. [PubMed: 26889896] Madden, GJ.; Bickel, WK. Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010. Romer D. Adolescent risk taking, impulsivity, and brain development: Implications for prevention. Developmental Psychobiology. 2010; 52:263–276. [PubMed: 20175097] Shedler J, Block J. Adolescent drug use and psychological health. A longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist. 1990; 45:612–630. [PubMed: 2350080] Zapolski TC, Stairs AM, Settles RF, Combs JL, Smith GT. The measurement of dispositions to rash action in children. Assessment. 2010; 17:116–125. [PubMed: 19955108] Zucker RA, Heitzeg MM, Nigg JT. Parsing the Undercontrol/Disinhibition Pathway to Substance Use Disorders: A Multilevel Developmental Problem. Child Development Perspectives. 2011; 5:248– 255. [PubMed: 22116786]
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 30.
