As mentioned in the Welcome post, I became interested in the topic because I myself believed that teenagers are inherently less capable of making good decisions when my intro psychology professor told us that the brain won’t fully develop until we become 22 year-old.
I would like to become a psychologist or at least use what I am learning at college, so I want to be as much accurate as I can in my comments on anything related to psychology. With a degree in psychology, I feel I have responsibility in doing my best to be accurate when people ask me as a psychology major. In addition, it is important for me to be able to admit that psychology may not have revealed much about the human psych yet. If asked to evaluate how “solid” the discipline is as a science, I do not think many psychological experiments can accurately control human behaviors like other scientific disciplines, since it is almost impossible to create the identical environments and people in a lab. So, tackling with this myth has reminded me of the importance in being able to always consider alternative explanations to any psychological findings.
In addition, I am old enough to have my own kids. If I do have some kids in the future, I would like to make a fair judgment on to what extent I am responsible for their behaviors. If I did not think about the myth in the blog, I would have probably used the myth to give up disciplining my kids and have just strictly supervised them, depriving them of any freedom.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Vulnerable Population
Parents
If parents do not want to believe that teens’ risky behaviors are consequences of their inabilities in disciplining their children, they may use the teenage brain myth as an excuse to why their children are not behaving well.
Therapists for Child Discipline
When therapists want to prove their competence over other therapists, they want some edge that can make them stand out. Since the public likes science, adding any topic in the brain science to their talk may allow those therapists to get more customers.
The media
Newspapers and popular magazines cannot provide latest scientific findings in detail because of their limited space and duty to be eye-catching, which leads them to omit limitations to those primary findings.
Brain Scientists and the Pharmaceutical Industry
This may sound weird, but it may be not if we consider who are funding their research. For example, if a pharmaceutical company funds a research, they want a result showing that the brain structure and functions strongly affect human risky behaviors; the pharmaceutical industry needs to show how medication can help control people’s behaviors. Therefore, brain scientists (psychologists?) are expected to find positive results, not negative results. If brain scientists are valued only when they find a strong influence of the brain structure and functions on behaviors, then it is easy to imagine that they may want to overestimate or overstate the role of the brain in human behaviors, which could also support the legitimacy of the teenage brain myth.
If parents do not want to believe that teens’ risky behaviors are consequences of their inabilities in disciplining their children, they may use the teenage brain myth as an excuse to why their children are not behaving well.
Therapists for Child Discipline
When therapists want to prove their competence over other therapists, they want some edge that can make them stand out. Since the public likes science, adding any topic in the brain science to their talk may allow those therapists to get more customers.
The media
Newspapers and popular magazines cannot provide latest scientific findings in detail because of their limited space and duty to be eye-catching, which leads them to omit limitations to those primary findings.
Brain Scientists and the Pharmaceutical Industry
This may sound weird, but it may be not if we consider who are funding their research. For example, if a pharmaceutical company funds a research, they want a result showing that the brain structure and functions strongly affect human risky behaviors; the pharmaceutical industry needs to show how medication can help control people’s behaviors. Therefore, brain scientists (psychologists?) are expected to find positive results, not negative results. If brain scientists are valued only when they find a strong influence of the brain structure and functions on behaviors, then it is easy to imagine that they may want to overestimate or overstate the role of the brain in human behaviors, which could also support the legitimacy of the teenage brain myth.
Cultural Differences
Japan: the topic is not popular in Japan compared to effective learning for young children such as Mozart Effect.
Why do Japanese not concern the teenage brain as much as Americans?
My 100% unscientific hypotheses are:
Psychology is not as much popular as in the U.S.
The amount of information and the public attention to psychology in Japan may be significantly lower than in the U.S.
Japanese teens are already under stricter supervision than those in the U.S. Americans may be torn between supervision and nurturing self-responsibility of children.
Japan has more equal distribution of wealth than the U.S.
Teens in Japan, with OK economic back grounds, may be able to avoid dealing with the dark side of the society such as drugs and violence.
Japan is safer than in the U.S.
Again, less experience in the dark side of the society may reduce the risk of teenagers’ criminal behaviors.
The Japanese media has less impact on teens’ behaviors.
Even though the Japanese media such as Manga and TV games are sometimes accused of showing violence, according to my observation, American movies and TV dramas show , for example, more aggressive scenes than Japanese ones. American teens may learn more risky behaviors than Japanese teens do from the media. In addition, watching real humans acting immaturely in movies may have more impact on teens’ behaviors than reading unreal pictures in Manga or animation. Compared to American movies and TV shows, Japanese ones are very mild.
Why do Japanese not concern the teenage brain as much as Americans?
My 100% unscientific hypotheses are:
Psychology is not as much popular as in the U.S.
The amount of information and the public attention to psychology in Japan may be significantly lower than in the U.S.
Japanese teens are already under stricter supervision than those in the U.S. Americans may be torn between supervision and nurturing self-responsibility of children.
Japan has more equal distribution of wealth than the U.S.
Teens in Japan, with OK economic back grounds, may be able to avoid dealing with the dark side of the society such as drugs and violence.
Japan is safer than in the U.S.
Again, less experience in the dark side of the society may reduce the risk of teenagers’ criminal behaviors.
The Japanese media has less impact on teens’ behaviors.
Even though the Japanese media such as Manga and TV games are sometimes accused of showing violence, according to my observation, American movies and TV dramas show , for example, more aggressive scenes than Japanese ones. American teens may learn more risky behaviors than Japanese teens do from the media. In addition, watching real humans acting immaturely in movies may have more impact on teens’ behaviors than reading unreal pictures in Manga or animation. Compared to American movies and TV shows, Japanese ones are very mild.
Most Important Misunderstanding
The most important misunderstanding is thatscience confirmed teenagers are innately unable to think as well as adults. No matter how much we train the teenage brain, it fails to make mature decisions because the brain can only develop according to one’s biological age.
First and foremost, scientists have never found any causation that teenagers are innately prone to make bad decisions.
Second, the same brain makes different decisions according to different environmental cues; that is, if teens are in an environment that induces risky actions typical in adolescence, they of course show more risky behaviors and different actions than adult. For example, teenagers may use drugs because their peers do. We could of course hypothesize that this is because teenagers are generally vulnerable to that temptation. However, can we eliminate a possibility that the society have been failing to teach teenagers mature behaviors compared to the society in the past, when many teenagers were treated as adults (like when human beings could only live for 50 years)? If this is the case, we cannot only blame the teenage behaviors on the teenage brain.
Overall, many people assume that the teenage brain is inherently less capable of making mature decisions than the adult brain because most newspaper articles and speakers for disciplining children do not mention the importance of social contexts in adolescent behaviors. It may lead the society to placing teenagers under more extreme supervisions of parents and the society, preventing adolescents from making their own life decisions.
First and foremost, scientists have never found any causation that teenagers are innately prone to make bad decisions.
Second, the same brain makes different decisions according to different environmental cues; that is, if teens are in an environment that induces risky actions typical in adolescence, they of course show more risky behaviors and different actions than adult. For example, teenagers may use drugs because their peers do. We could of course hypothesize that this is because teenagers are generally vulnerable to that temptation. However, can we eliminate a possibility that the society have been failing to teach teenagers mature behaviors compared to the society in the past, when many teenagers were treated as adults (like when human beings could only live for 50 years)? If this is the case, we cannot only blame the teenage behaviors on the teenage brain.
Overall, many people assume that the teenage brain is inherently less capable of making mature decisions than the adult brain because most newspaper articles and speakers for disciplining children do not mention the importance of social contexts in adolescent behaviors. It may lead the society to placing teenagers under more extreme supervisions of parents and the society, preventing adolescents from making their own life decisions.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Examples in Popular Culture
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/11837-health-the-teenage-brain-video.htm
About the video clip: In the experiment, the intelligent teen struggles with judging facial emotions. According to the video, the amygdala, responsible for feeling emotions, develops first, and teens overestimate an emotional reward from a risky behavior until the prefrontal cortex, responsible for inhibition and planning, is fully developed in adulthood. The narrator emphasizes that even the genius teen has an underdeveloped brain compared to adults’.
What the video implies: All teenagers innately have undeveloped brains no matter how smart they are.
Critique: Does having a college degree at the age of 12 mean the same as being able to make moral judgments? One point to question the video clip is that we are not sure if the teenage genius had as much time as ordinary adults to experience judging others’ facial expressions. That is, it is possible that the teenage genius could have done better if he had more socialized before. And some adults who have not socialized well could only do as much as the teen genius did. In short, we never know if teenagers tend to behave badly because of their innate developmental period or because of the amount of social experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IysnctaEAk&feature=related
The above link is to a TV show telling why teens do something risky, (as if adults never do…)
About the video clip: In the experiment, the intelligent teen struggles with judging facial emotions. According to the video, the amygdala, responsible for feeling emotions, develops first, and teens overestimate an emotional reward from a risky behavior until the prefrontal cortex, responsible for inhibition and planning, is fully developed in adulthood. The narrator emphasizes that even the genius teen has an underdeveloped brain compared to adults’.
What the video implies: All teenagers innately have undeveloped brains no matter how smart they are.
Critique: Does having a college degree at the age of 12 mean the same as being able to make moral judgments? One point to question the video clip is that we are not sure if the teenage genius had as much time as ordinary adults to experience judging others’ facial expressions. That is, it is possible that the teenage genius could have done better if he had more socialized before. And some adults who have not socialized well could only do as much as the teen genius did. In short, we never know if teenagers tend to behave badly because of their innate developmental period or because of the amount of social experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IysnctaEAk&feature=related
The above link is to a TV show telling why teens do something risky, (as if adults never do…)
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What People Mean
Since the brain makes decisions, the myth “Teens behave irresponsibly because of their immature brains” may not be actually a myth, but a true phenomenon. However, how people interpret this phenomenon may be problematic.
Interpretation 1: The teenage brain cannot develop to the adult level no matter what until they become a certain age.
Interpretation 2: No matter how parents and school teach teens to behave, they cannot behave like adults.
Interpretation 3: All teens from the age of puberty to 19 years-old, are coherently less capable of responsible decision making than adults.
Interpretation 4: Adults are coherently better at making decisions, so they should be responsible for their children’s life decisions.
Interpretation 5: “The only one who knew the danger of the teenage brain is the auto insurance industry, which imposes considerably high premium on those who are under 25” (A famous joke among neuroscientists)
Possible impacts of these interpretations are discussed in the post Most Important Misunderstanding.
Interpretation 1: The teenage brain cannot develop to the adult level no matter what until they become a certain age.
Interpretation 2: No matter how parents and school teach teens to behave, they cannot behave like adults.
Interpretation 3: All teens from the age of puberty to 19 years-old, are coherently less capable of responsible decision making than adults.
Interpretation 4: Adults are coherently better at making decisions, so they should be responsible for their children’s life decisions.
Interpretation 5: “The only one who knew the danger of the teenage brain is the auto insurance industry, which imposes considerably high premium on those who are under 25” (A famous joke among neuroscientists)
Possible impacts of these interpretations are discussed in the post Most Important Misunderstanding.
Mind Traps
Causation and correlation
Even if A and B are correlated, it doesn’t mean A causes B nor vice versa.
For example, suppose you lost your weight after you started taking an expensive supplement you got at Amazon.com. You may think that the supplement worked, but, in fact, we never know, since there are many other possible causes such as that you slept really well, that something stressful was gone in your work environment, or that you recovered from some unknown disease that had caused you gaining weight. Unless all these variables are well controlled in scientific laboratories, you cannot make any claim that the supplement actually works to you.
Similarly, even though undeveloped brain and risky behaviors are correlated, no scientific research has found that an undeveloped brain caused certain risky behaviors typical to teens. First, it is unethical to make teens actually take high-risk behaviors in a controlled setting. Therefore, scientists can experiment only on non-risky behaviors such as a gambling game, which cannot fully replicate risky behaviors in a variable-free setting. Collecting data from what actually happened in the society have other possible variables such as cultures, classes or peer-environments of teens.
Seeing what we expect to see
Once people form beliefs, people often unintentionally seek information that confirms their beliefs as well as find flaws in information that disconfirms their beliefs.
For example, suppose you wanted to get a new car, and you already have your favorite BMW in your mind. Any good review on the BMW easily get your attention, but any bad critique to the car only prompts you to question the reviewer by saying like “This author comments more on the BMW’s aesthetics compared to the one I read in the other magazine. He may not be an expert in mechanics. Why should I believe him?” We like confirming information maybe because we don’t have much time and resources to contemplate every decision we make.
Similarly, once people believe that teens behave badly because of their immature brains, they seek evidence that supports the belief. For example, suppose parents concluded the myth is true because they couldn’t discipline their kids well. After forming the belief they may unintentionally start finding evidence that supports the myth because, in their hidden desires, they do not want to spend more time on what they have already concluded.
Leveling Information
When the speaker/writer needs to be informative and interesting, they may present only parts that attract people.
For example, a car dealer tells that your favorite BMW has a super efficient gas mileage, 50mpg. However, what he does not tell you is that when and where the car has that mileage. Usually, the mileage in a car catalog is often measured at the manufacturer’s test course that is flat and oval like a track for athletes. The weather is nice too. Therefore, we cannot really tell how a car is really efficient in gas unless somebody tests it in a real environment.
Similarly, many newspaper articles, popular magazines and speakers for discipline seminars do not always give you the whole picture of primary scientific findings. For example, the NY Times articles in Read this/Not that section don’t mention limitations to their claims such as that scientists haven’t found any causation between the teenage brain structure, or functions, and risky behaviors typical to teens. It may be understandable because newspaper articles have limited space to provide attractive information to the reader. Since mentioning limitations to primary findings may spoil sensations to the reader, they may unintentionally, or intentionally, level information from primary sources that is less attractive to the reader.
Even if A and B are correlated, it doesn’t mean A causes B nor vice versa.
For example, suppose you lost your weight after you started taking an expensive supplement you got at Amazon.com. You may think that the supplement worked, but, in fact, we never know, since there are many other possible causes such as that you slept really well, that something stressful was gone in your work environment, or that you recovered from some unknown disease that had caused you gaining weight. Unless all these variables are well controlled in scientific laboratories, you cannot make any claim that the supplement actually works to you.
Similarly, even though undeveloped brain and risky behaviors are correlated, no scientific research has found that an undeveloped brain caused certain risky behaviors typical to teens. First, it is unethical to make teens actually take high-risk behaviors in a controlled setting. Therefore, scientists can experiment only on non-risky behaviors such as a gambling game, which cannot fully replicate risky behaviors in a variable-free setting. Collecting data from what actually happened in the society have other possible variables such as cultures, classes or peer-environments of teens.
Seeing what we expect to see
Once people form beliefs, people often unintentionally seek information that confirms their beliefs as well as find flaws in information that disconfirms their beliefs.
For example, suppose you wanted to get a new car, and you already have your favorite BMW in your mind. Any good review on the BMW easily get your attention, but any bad critique to the car only prompts you to question the reviewer by saying like “This author comments more on the BMW’s aesthetics compared to the one I read in the other magazine. He may not be an expert in mechanics. Why should I believe him?” We like confirming information maybe because we don’t have much time and resources to contemplate every decision we make.
Similarly, once people believe that teens behave badly because of their immature brains, they seek evidence that supports the belief. For example, suppose parents concluded the myth is true because they couldn’t discipline their kids well. After forming the belief they may unintentionally start finding evidence that supports the myth because, in their hidden desires, they do not want to spend more time on what they have already concluded.
Leveling Information
When the speaker/writer needs to be informative and interesting, they may present only parts that attract people.
For example, a car dealer tells that your favorite BMW has a super efficient gas mileage, 50mpg. However, what he does not tell you is that when and where the car has that mileage. Usually, the mileage in a car catalog is often measured at the manufacturer’s test course that is flat and oval like a track for athletes. The weather is nice too. Therefore, we cannot really tell how a car is really efficient in gas unless somebody tests it in a real environment.
Similarly, many newspaper articles, popular magazines and speakers for discipline seminars do not always give you the whole picture of primary scientific findings. For example, the NY Times articles in Read this/Not that section don’t mention limitations to their claims such as that scientists haven’t found any causation between the teenage brain structure, or functions, and risky behaviors typical to teens. It may be understandable because newspaper articles have limited space to provide attractive information to the reader. Since mentioning limitations to primary findings may spoil sensations to the reader, they may unintentionally, or intentionally, level information from primary sources that is less attractive to the reader.
Better Way to Think about It
Causation and Correlation
Even if A and B are correlated, it doesn’t mean that A causes B nor vice versa.
For example, suppose you lost your weight after you started taking an expensive supplement you got at Amazon.com. You may think that the supplement worked, but, in fact, we never know, since there are many other possible causes such as that you slept really well, that something stressful in your work was gone, or that you recovered from some unknown disease that had caused you gaining weight. Unless all these variables are well controlled in a scientific laboratory, you cannot make any claim that the supplement actually worked.
Similarly, even though undeveloped brain and risky behaviors are correlated, no scientific research has found that undeveloped brain caused certain risky behaviors typical to teens. First, it is unethical to make teens actually engage in risky behaviors. Therefore, scientists can experiment only on non-risky behaviors such as a gambling game, which cannot fully replicate risky behaviors in a variable-free setting. Collecting data from what actually happened in the society have other possible variables such as cultures, classes or peer-environments of teens.
Seeing What We Expect to See
Once people form beliefs, they unintentionally seek information that confirms their beliefs as well as find flaws in information that disconfirms their beliefs.
For example, suppose you wanted to get a new car, and you already have your favorite BMW in your mind. Any good review on the BMW easily get your attention, but any bad critique to the car only prompts you to question the reviewer by saying like “This author comments more on the BMW’s aesthetics compared to the one I read in the other magazine. He may not be an expert in mechanics. Why should I believe him?” We like confirming information maybe because we don’t have much time and resources to contemplate every decision we make.
Similarly, once people believe that teens behave badly because of their immature brains, they seek evidence that supports the belief. For example, suppose parents concluded the myth is true because they couldn’t discipline their kids well. After forming the belief they may unintentionally start finding evidence that supports the myth because, in their hidden desires, they do not want to spend any more time on what they have already concluded.
Leveling Information
When a speaker/writer needs to be informative and interesting, he/she may only present what attracts people.
For example, a car dealer tells that your favorite BMW has a super efficient gas mileage, 50mpg. However, what he does not tell you is that when and where the car has that mileage. The mileage in a car catalog is often measured at the manufacturer’s test course that is flat and oval like a track for athletes. The weather is nice too. Therefore, we cannot really tell how efficient in gas a car really is unless somebody tests it in a real environment.
Similarly, many newspaper articles, popular magazines and speakers for discipline seminars do not always give you the whole picture of primary scientific findings. For example, one of the NY Times articles in Read This/Not That doesn’t mention limitations to their claims such as that scientists haven’t found any causation between the teenage brain structure, or functions, and risky behaviors typical to teens. It may be understandable because newspaper articles have limited space to provide attractive information to the reader. Since mentioning limitations to primary findings may spoil sensations to the reader, they may unintentionally, or intentionally, level information from primary sources that is less attractive to the reader.
Even if A and B are correlated, it doesn’t mean that A causes B nor vice versa.
For example, suppose you lost your weight after you started taking an expensive supplement you got at Amazon.com. You may think that the supplement worked, but, in fact, we never know, since there are many other possible causes such as that you slept really well, that something stressful in your work was gone, or that you recovered from some unknown disease that had caused you gaining weight. Unless all these variables are well controlled in a scientific laboratory, you cannot make any claim that the supplement actually worked.
Similarly, even though undeveloped brain and risky behaviors are correlated, no scientific research has found that undeveloped brain caused certain risky behaviors typical to teens. First, it is unethical to make teens actually engage in risky behaviors. Therefore, scientists can experiment only on non-risky behaviors such as a gambling game, which cannot fully replicate risky behaviors in a variable-free setting. Collecting data from what actually happened in the society have other possible variables such as cultures, classes or peer-environments of teens.
Seeing What We Expect to See
Once people form beliefs, they unintentionally seek information that confirms their beliefs as well as find flaws in information that disconfirms their beliefs.
For example, suppose you wanted to get a new car, and you already have your favorite BMW in your mind. Any good review on the BMW easily get your attention, but any bad critique to the car only prompts you to question the reviewer by saying like “This author comments more on the BMW’s aesthetics compared to the one I read in the other magazine. He may not be an expert in mechanics. Why should I believe him?” We like confirming information maybe because we don’t have much time and resources to contemplate every decision we make.
Similarly, once people believe that teens behave badly because of their immature brains, they seek evidence that supports the belief. For example, suppose parents concluded the myth is true because they couldn’t discipline their kids well. After forming the belief they may unintentionally start finding evidence that supports the myth because, in their hidden desires, they do not want to spend any more time on what they have already concluded.
Leveling Information
When a speaker/writer needs to be informative and interesting, he/she may only present what attracts people.
For example, a car dealer tells that your favorite BMW has a super efficient gas mileage, 50mpg. However, what he does not tell you is that when and where the car has that mileage. The mileage in a car catalog is often measured at the manufacturer’s test course that is flat and oval like a track for athletes. The weather is nice too. Therefore, we cannot really tell how efficient in gas a car really is unless somebody tests it in a real environment.
Similarly, many newspaper articles, popular magazines and speakers for discipline seminars do not always give you the whole picture of primary scientific findings. For example, one of the NY Times articles in Read This/Not That doesn’t mention limitations to their claims such as that scientists haven’t found any causation between the teenage brain structure, or functions, and risky behaviors typical to teens. It may be understandable because newspaper articles have limited space to provide attractive information to the reader. Since mentioning limitations to primary findings may spoil sensations to the reader, they may unintentionally, or intentionally, level information from primary sources that is less attractive to the reader.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Read This/ Not That
This is where you can see different sources according to relevant themes to the blog topic. But before doing so, please consider the issue of credibility of the sources:
Peer-Reviewed Articles: The articles in Theme 1 to Theme 4 are all peer-reviewed; that is, they cite all the sources that are not their own, which makes it easy for us to see if the authors overstate or level information. Scientists expect critiques when they publish their works in peer-reviewed magazines, so they are careful not to make sweeping claims like newspapers and magazines do. It is important to know scientific findings, especially in psychology, often have many limitations.
How about Newspapers or Websites?: The rest of the articles come from newspapers and a website, which may not be as credible as peer-reviewed articles because of the reasons mentioned above. However, the newspaper article in Theme 5 is recommended because it cites sources well, such as that who said what in which study. The rest of the articles in Not That, however, contain less information on primary sources, which makes it difficult to check if they do not overstate or level information. Still, they can be a good starting point for further research.
________________________________________
Read This/ Articles Recommended
________________________________________
Theme 1: Don’t Ignore Social Factors When Talk about the Teenage Brain
Males (2009) argues that recent brain studies have failed to take social contexts into account when they talk about their findings. For example, a higher crime rate is seen in people who are poor as well as are a group of ethnic minority. Males also mentions that adults in the U.S. commit many more crimes than adolescents. In conclusion, Males implies that teenagers may engage in risky behaviors because of external forces rather than innate brain development according to their biological ages.
On the other hand, Johnson and Sudhinaraset (2010) criticize Males (2009), arguing that social environments by themselves cannot explain teenagers’ risk-taking behaviors. Still, they state that the link between the brain development and risk taking is still correlational. They also state that most scientists in the field think that the brain development theory and social learning theory go hand in hand. This is important because popular scientific magazines and newspapers often fail to address social factors when they report on brain development.
Theme 2: Don’t Think That We Have the Perfect Measurement for All the Decision Making Skills
Hooper et al.’s (2004) study shows that development of decision making is related to some parts of the brain, using a famous psychological measurement called the Iowa Gambling Task. Simply put, the game tests on how willingly you aim at the high reward in a card game even when you know the lower reward earns more in total. However, the authors admit that the measurement cannot be used to study all the skills related to decision making. That is, different risky behaviors use different skills that may have not been studied yet.
Theme 3: Don’t Assume that Adolescents Do Not Know What Is Risky
Van Leijenhorst, Westenberg, and Crone (2008) discovered that risk perception ability is equal in both adolescents and adults. That is, adolescents do know what is wrong and risky. Although we could still argue that adolescents cannot just inhibit their behaviors that they know are wrong, we are still not 100% sure what separates the teenage brain from the adult brain.
Theme 4: Don’t Put Younger Adolescents and Older Adolescents All Together When Talk about Brain and Risky Behaviors
Brody (2007) quotes a scientist’s comment, arguing that parental supervision is needed for younger adolescents, since their ability to learn from a consequence (e.g. learn not to gamble after losing money) is not as well-developed as adults’. However, please note that they only talk about younger adolescents, not older adolescents.
________________________________________
Not That/ Articles Not Recommended
________________________________________
Theme 5: Don’t Believe What You are Told Right Away without Checking the Source
A New York Times article (Anonymous, 2008) describes the recent brain research, lending support to the undeveloped teenage brain. However, it does not include any reference nor mention the importance of social factors in teens’ risky behaviors.
Similarly, Cooke (n.d.) states, without any citation, that teens do not think binge drinking is very dangerous, which contradicts the finding of Leijenhorst, Westenberg, and Crone (2008) in Theme 3.
Theme 6: Don’t Always Believe Everything Psychologists Say
A psychologist/mother (“Teens,” 2007) wrote a letter to Brody’s (2007) article. She criticizes Brody on not mentioning the latest brain research showing that the brain will not fully develop until the mid-20s. However, the letter does not mention the importance of social factors. Therefore, do not assume automatically that psychologists are always correct; this is only a letter without any sources cited, and she will not get reviewed on this letter by any other scientists.
References
Anonymous. Teens and decision making: What brain science reveals. (2008, April). New York Times Upfront, 140(13), 18-20. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from Platinum Periodicals. (Document ID: 1460776351).
Brody, J. E. Teenage risks, and how to avoid them. (2007, December 18). New York Times. Retrieved from May 18, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/health/18brod.html
Cooke, B. (n.d.). The teenage brain. Retrieved from June 6, 2010, from http://life.familyeducation.com/teen/growth-and-development/36499.html
Hooper, C. J., Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., & Yarger, R. S. (2004). Adolescents' performance on the iowa gambling task: Implications for the development of decision making and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1148-1158. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1148
Johnson, S. B., Sudhinaraset, M., & Blum, R. W. (2010). Neuromaturation and adolescent risk taking: Why development is not determinism. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(1), 4-23. doi:10.1177/0743558409353339
Males, M. (2009). Does the adolescent brain make risk taking inevitable? A skeptical appraisal. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(1), 3-20. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35946696&site=ehost-live
Teens and Decision Making :[Letter]. (2007, December 25). New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. 4. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from New York Times. (Document ID: 1403800841).
Van Leijenhorst, L., Westenberg, P. M., & Crone, E. A. (2008). A developmental study of risky decisions on the cake gambling task: Age and gender analyses of probability estimation and reward evaluation. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(2), 179-196. doi:10.1080/87565640701884287
Peer-Reviewed Articles: The articles in Theme 1 to Theme 4 are all peer-reviewed; that is, they cite all the sources that are not their own, which makes it easy for us to see if the authors overstate or level information. Scientists expect critiques when they publish their works in peer-reviewed magazines, so they are careful not to make sweeping claims like newspapers and magazines do. It is important to know scientific findings, especially in psychology, often have many limitations.
How about Newspapers or Websites?: The rest of the articles come from newspapers and a website, which may not be as credible as peer-reviewed articles because of the reasons mentioned above. However, the newspaper article in Theme 5 is recommended because it cites sources well, such as that who said what in which study. The rest of the articles in Not That, however, contain less information on primary sources, which makes it difficult to check if they do not overstate or level information. Still, they can be a good starting point for further research.
________________________________________
Read This/ Articles Recommended
________________________________________
Theme 1: Don’t Ignore Social Factors When Talk about the Teenage Brain
Males (2009) argues that recent brain studies have failed to take social contexts into account when they talk about their findings. For example, a higher crime rate is seen in people who are poor as well as are a group of ethnic minority. Males also mentions that adults in the U.S. commit many more crimes than adolescents. In conclusion, Males implies that teenagers may engage in risky behaviors because of external forces rather than innate brain development according to their biological ages.
On the other hand, Johnson and Sudhinaraset (2010) criticize Males (2009), arguing that social environments by themselves cannot explain teenagers’ risk-taking behaviors. Still, they state that the link between the brain development and risk taking is still correlational. They also state that most scientists in the field think that the brain development theory and social learning theory go hand in hand. This is important because popular scientific magazines and newspapers often fail to address social factors when they report on brain development.
Theme 2: Don’t Think That We Have the Perfect Measurement for All the Decision Making Skills
Hooper et al.’s (2004) study shows that development of decision making is related to some parts of the brain, using a famous psychological measurement called the Iowa Gambling Task. Simply put, the game tests on how willingly you aim at the high reward in a card game even when you know the lower reward earns more in total. However, the authors admit that the measurement cannot be used to study all the skills related to decision making. That is, different risky behaviors use different skills that may have not been studied yet.
Theme 3: Don’t Assume that Adolescents Do Not Know What Is Risky
Van Leijenhorst, Westenberg, and Crone (2008) discovered that risk perception ability is equal in both adolescents and adults. That is, adolescents do know what is wrong and risky. Although we could still argue that adolescents cannot just inhibit their behaviors that they know are wrong, we are still not 100% sure what separates the teenage brain from the adult brain.
Theme 4: Don’t Put Younger Adolescents and Older Adolescents All Together When Talk about Brain and Risky Behaviors
Brody (2007) quotes a scientist’s comment, arguing that parental supervision is needed for younger adolescents, since their ability to learn from a consequence (e.g. learn not to gamble after losing money) is not as well-developed as adults’. However, please note that they only talk about younger adolescents, not older adolescents.
________________________________________
Not That/ Articles Not Recommended
________________________________________
Theme 5: Don’t Believe What You are Told Right Away without Checking the Source
A New York Times article (Anonymous, 2008) describes the recent brain research, lending support to the undeveloped teenage brain. However, it does not include any reference nor mention the importance of social factors in teens’ risky behaviors.
Similarly, Cooke (n.d.) states, without any citation, that teens do not think binge drinking is very dangerous, which contradicts the finding of Leijenhorst, Westenberg, and Crone (2008) in Theme 3.
Theme 6: Don’t Always Believe Everything Psychologists Say
A psychologist/mother (“Teens,” 2007) wrote a letter to Brody’s (2007) article. She criticizes Brody on not mentioning the latest brain research showing that the brain will not fully develop until the mid-20s. However, the letter does not mention the importance of social factors. Therefore, do not assume automatically that psychologists are always correct; this is only a letter without any sources cited, and she will not get reviewed on this letter by any other scientists.
References
Anonymous. Teens and decision making: What brain science reveals. (2008, April). New York Times Upfront, 140(13), 18-20. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from Platinum Periodicals. (Document ID: 1460776351).
Brody, J. E. Teenage risks, and how to avoid them. (2007, December 18). New York Times. Retrieved from May 18, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/health/18brod.html
Cooke, B. (n.d.). The teenage brain. Retrieved from June 6, 2010, from http://life.familyeducation.com/teen/growth-and-development/36499.html
Hooper, C. J., Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., & Yarger, R. S. (2004). Adolescents' performance on the iowa gambling task: Implications for the development of decision making and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1148-1158. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1148
Johnson, S. B., Sudhinaraset, M., & Blum, R. W. (2010). Neuromaturation and adolescent risk taking: Why development is not determinism. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(1), 4-23. doi:10.1177/0743558409353339
Males, M. (2009). Does the adolescent brain make risk taking inevitable? A skeptical appraisal. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(1), 3-20. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35946696&site=ehost-live
Teens and Decision Making :[Letter]. (2007, December 25). New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. 4. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from New York Times. (Document ID: 1403800841).
Van Leijenhorst, L., Westenberg, P. M., & Crone, E. A. (2008). A developmental study of risky decisions on the cake gambling task: Age and gender analyses of probability estimation and reward evaluation. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(2), 179-196. doi:10.1080/87565640701884287
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Welcome to PsychMyth Buster!
Did you take an intro-psychology class? Didn’t your professor say something like “Your brain, especially the region responsible for decision-making, won’t fully develop until you are 22 year-old”?
In this blog, I would like to examine a popular belief, “Teenagers behave irresponsibly because their brains are immature.” Is this a complete myth? Or does it have any scientific support?
The topic was interesting to me because I myself heard the same story from my Intro-Psychology professor as well as other psychology instructors in my undergraduate school. It made me think:
"so a 19-year old can't judge things as well as adults no matter what, since there is a limit to how much his/her brain can develop when he/she is younger than 22 year-old."
and
"then I shouldn't fully trust my future kid in his/her choices until he/she becomes 22!"
I would like to examine the belief while I am still at the same undergraduate school so that I can correct my professors if they were wrong.
Let’s buster the myth …or find it actually true….?
Key Terms: teens, young or older adolescents, environmental factors, the capacity of brain development for teens and adults
In this blog, I would like to examine a popular belief, “Teenagers behave irresponsibly because their brains are immature.” Is this a complete myth? Or does it have any scientific support?
The topic was interesting to me because I myself heard the same story from my Intro-Psychology professor as well as other psychology instructors in my undergraduate school. It made me think:
"so a 19-year old can't judge things as well as adults no matter what, since there is a limit to how much his/her brain can develop when he/she is younger than 22 year-old."
and
"then I shouldn't fully trust my future kid in his/her choices until he/she becomes 22!"
I would like to examine the belief while I am still at the same undergraduate school so that I can correct my professors if they were wrong.
Let’s buster the myth …or find it actually true….?
Key Terms: teens, young or older adolescents, environmental factors, the capacity of brain development for teens and adults
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)