Brett Bearrows
Kenyon College
Class of 2022
It seems as if the common sentiment of adults toward teenagers, of this generation in particular, is that they are irresponsible, lazy, lacking in proper communication skills, and possessing a general apathy towards others. Whatever factors adults blame for these assumed qualities -- media use, technology, etc -- it is crucial to realize the negative consequences of these views on adolescents and, more importantly, the benefits of changing the attitude of adults toward teens for the sake of our teens and our culture. Misinterpreted adolescent neuroscience research may be to blame for negative stereotypes of young people today. Adolescent neuroscience suggests that the developing brains of young people make them immature, irresponsible, too engaging in risk-taking behavior, and too impulsive. Adults sometimes use this knowledge in a poorly-framed light to fuel their negative, skeptical attitudes and behaviors toward young people instead of, perhaps, utilizing this knowledge of adolescent plasticity and brain development to better the experience of adolescents and create a more meaningful and valued role for young people in society.
We are interpreting adolescent neuroscience incorrectly and unambiguously which causes unfair generalizations to be made and negative stereotypes to be perpetuated. The literature proposes that the adolescent brain does not fully mature until the age of 25, according to Casey et al. The generalization that is made from this knowledge is that “adolescent decision-making and judgment is similarly limited up to this age.” The research suggests that the myelination and pruning of the prefrontal cortex continues beyond adolescence and into adulthood, even after ventral limbic regions that control motivation and reward have developed.
Risk taking in adolescence can be attributed to the typical development of the reward processing center of the brain before the maturation of self-control. In addition, according to Chick (2015,) reward-sensitivity reaches a peak during adolescence and self-regulatory processes are less active. The variance in the development of the reward centers and self-regulatory regions presents an imbalance that also contributes to the miscommunication between parts in the brain and results in behaviors that we deem risky among adolescents.
Despite this knowledge of the imbalance in adolescent brain development we may be too heavily crediting research that is more ambiguous than we previously thought -- and we may be misinterpreting this research in the first place. In other words, although it makes sense for risky adolescent behaviors to be caused by clear variances in brain development that neuroscientists have studied, Bjork and Pardini (2015) present that the imbalance in adolescent brains peaks between ages 14 and 16 while the peak in “binge drinking, risky sex, and unintentional injury, including death, does not occur until the ages of 19–23 years in the United States.” Neuroscientists and other adults alike jump to the conclusion that the common behaviors of adolescents that we can agree upon are necessarily caused by the accepted research of the developing brain. Although there may be evidence for a correlation between risk-taking and imbalanced brain functions in the laboratory setting, the relationship between real-world risk-taking among adolescents and developmental imbalances is still ambiguous, despite the arguments of many neuroscientists and adults, according to Galvan (2007).
Chick (2015) also argues that the average teenager does not behave the way society has stereotyped them. The few adolescents that behave in extremely risky, careless, or reckless ways seem to promote a generalization of bad teenage behavior. In addition, Reyna and Farley (2006) uniquely argue that children may possess the same inclination to take risks as adolescents but adolescents are presented more and greater opportunities to do so. This research offers a rejection to the rebellious teenager stereotype and the classification of risk-taking as a solely adolescent characteristic and tendency.
Chick also explains that the individuality of brain development makes it even more unfair to generalize even the adolescent-wide development of the brain and its functions. The development of risk-taking initiatives, social maturity, and reward-processing varies within each individual which makes general statements and assumptions about adolescent neuroscience problematic and disadvantages for young people. Similarly, it is hard to make the distinction between increased reward sensitivity and decreased risk sensitivity in the laboratory setting and in real-life studies of adolescence. This limitation in research is important because it enforces generalizations that we cannot fully prove or define. Chick (2015) argues that “reward sensitivity per se may not lead to risk taking; instead, the influence of reward sensitivity may depend on combination with other traits” and each individual’s experiences.
In this way, we, as a society, are quick to blame the behavior of adolescents to their brains and their development. Not only should we not be so quick to condemn our youth and their brains, but we need to change the language in our interpretation of neuroscience — attribute qualities to biology rather than blame them upon biology.
In addition, an important distinction to make in recognizing negative attitudes toward adolescents is that adults tend to love and support the young people they know personally yet still look upon the “average youth” as irresponsible, lazy, and rude. The widespread negativity toward adolescents as a group can be contributed to generational differences in the change in the role of young people in society. Not only is it unfair to stereotype an entire age group in society, but it is also close-minded to neglect the ways in which being a young person today is fundamentally different than it has been in past generations. Changing roles of young people in society, due to different economic, social, and media-related environments may be particularly visible because of the nature of the developing adolescent brain. Adults today may be unaware and as a result close-minded, of the fact that teens today face a wide range of socioeconomic roles and adverse childhood experiences than they used to. Further, the media may play a role in the way adolescent neuroscience and the behaviors of young people are negatively skewed. Unfortunately, another reason why some adults may view teenagers negatively in society is that they forget what it was like to be a teen themselves. They may not remember the daily struggles and worries of high-school aged kids as a result of the memory storage process in the brain -- it is more likely that defining moments are more prevalent in adult’s memories which makes sympathizing with the youth harder and less likely.
Neuroscientist Ron Dahl acknowledges that parents and their views towards certain things cause a huge effect on their teens. Dahl also draws light to the fact that peers, though they increasingly care more about what their peers think of them, also care deeply about whether the adults in their life think of them as well. Teens want admiration and affirmation from teachers, coaches, and parents. What’s more, Dahl found that in some young people at higher risk for depression, anxiety, or other mental health issues, the role of parents or other adults may be even more important than peers.
Dahl suggests an interesting tactic for adults, particularly parents, to implement when dealing with adolescents that I want to try with my own children or adolescents that I come in contact with. The tactic that Dahl describes is “motivational interviewing” in which adults ask the adolescent questions in order to encourage reflection and introspection within the teen in order to prompt a discussion about what they want to do. At this point, Dahl found it effective for the adult to suggest approaches or solutions to their current predicament. Dahl and other neuroscientists agree that adults being involved -- still from a distance -- at an early stage in an adolescent’s development and/or crisis navigation can be crucial in the teen seeking help when they actually need it and grow their independent thinking skills at the same time.
Dahl’s approach mediates the struggles of some parents or adults in adolescent’s lives who struggle to find a middle ground between being overbearing and controlling or too hands-off when their teen needs them most. In approaching these discussions, adults should recognize the importance of breaking down the stereotypical barrier in communication between adults and teens by maintaining a healthy relationship and learning when to give teens space as opposed to approaching them respectfully.
I am biased, as I am still a young person, but I truly believe that adolescents are undervalued and underutilized in society as a result of negative attitudes in adolescent neuroscience and through a misinterpretation of the characteristics of the developing brain. As I grow older I want to actively support youth and be more empathetic to their daily struggles and concerns as well as recognize the growing pressure on young people today. Starting now and into parenthood, I want to advocate for a change in the way we view adolescents both in neuroscience and in societal stereotypes. After learning the way we develop and the way the adolescent brain works, I want to tell adults and parents to relax in their relationship with teens because teenagers rebelling against them, challenging them, and grasping for independence is natural and beneficial in the long run.
Sources
Chick, Christina F. "Reward Processing in the Adolescent Brain: Individual
Differences and Relation to Risk Taking." The Journal of Neuroscience, vol.
35, no. 40, 7 Oct. 2015.
Dahl, Ronald. "5 Ways We Misunderstand Adolescents, According to Brain Science."
World Economic Forum, 19 Jan. 2018, www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/
we-misunderstand-adolescent-brains-science/. Accessed 10 May 2019.
Dawes, R. M., & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 81(2), 95-106.
Matthews, Dona. "Teen Attitude, Teen Trouble." Psychology Today, 15 Aug. 2017,
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/going-beyond-intelligence/201708/
teen-attitude-teen-trouble. Accessed 10 May 2019.
Nichols, Sharon L., and Thomas L. Good. "Why Today's Young People Are Viewed So
Negatively." Education Week, 14 Apr. 2004, www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/
04/14/31good.h23.html.
Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x
Romer, Daniel et al. “Beyond stereotypes of adolescent risk taking: Placing the adolescent brain in developmental context.” Developmental cognitive neuroscience vol. 27 (2017): 19-34. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.07.007
Suttie, Jill. "What Adolescents Really Need from Parents."
GreaterGood.Berkeley.edu, 25 May 2016.
Walker, Deena M., et al. "Adolescence and Reward: Making Sense of Neural and
Behavioral Changes amid the Chaos." The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 37,
no. 45, 8 Nov. 2017, pp. 10855-66.
No comments:
Post a Comment