Two-System Hypothesis and Adolescent Development - Essay Example

Two-System Hypothesis and Adolescent Development Introduction There are said to be two distinct neurobiological systems that are responsible for the development of behaviour in adolescence and these include socioemotional system and cognitive control system (Steinberg, 2008). In the case of risk-taking capacity of the adolescents for instance, Steinberg (2010) explicated that it is hypothesized that the said capability for risk-taking behaviour is ignited by the dynamic surge of dopaminergic activity in the socioemotional system during the time of puberty, which eventually leads to the reward-seeking behaviour. However, Steinberg further argued that this reward-seeking behaviour will eventually lead to the maturation of the cognitive control system and together with the connection to the socioemotional system. This according to Steinberg will happen in a gradual process, which eventually takes place over the course of adolescence, permitting dynamic self-regulation and impulse control. Furthermore, Steinberg (2008) highlighted that in early adolescent development, the temporal gap between the arousal of the socioemotional system develops, while the cognitive control system together with its maturation occurs later, and here where adolescents will reach the point of heightened vulnerability to risk-taking particularly during the middle-adolescence stage. The work at hand tries to describe and evaluate the above-stated ‘two-system’ hypothesis of adolescent development. Description of the ‘two-system’ hypothesis of adolescent development It is remarkably clear that based on the explanation of Steinberg about the two-system hypothesis of adolescent development, young individuals will definitely undergo reward-seeking and impulsivity, however, these two processes will take place at varying timetables and variant neural underpinnings. As introduced earlier, it is clear that the variability in the timetables has the great contribution to the increase of risk-taking behaviour during the stage of adolescence. Based on the stated concept and hypothesis above, it is also clear that there is a strong link between social acceptance and reward-seeking because the socioemotional system, which precedes the cognitive control system may happen to be in line with the prevailing experience and exposure to the point when adolescents are eager to look for positive recognition from peers, parents, and the society as a whole. In this case, there is a remarkable primary contribution of the socioemotional aspect to the actual development prior to the inclusion of the cognitive control system of the brain in the process. However, more than the descriptions stated concerning the two-system hypothesis of adolescent development, the need to assess this hypothesis is a vital consideration prior to knowing its important implication or application in the actual context. Evaluation of the ‘two-system’ hypothesis of adolescent development The puberty stage is said to be the part of the teen’s life, where there are both biological and psychological changes, because the physical well-being may potentially change, and linked to the varying physical changes are behavioural changes too. However, there is a certain study, which reveals and challenges the existing hypothesis that the risk taking is at its peak in the middle adolescence, the time when the varying developmental time courses may have significant large impact on the cognitive control systems. According to the research study, the highest levels of risk taking behaviours including alcohol and drug use occur among emerging adults, which further place a significant area on the social context as the predictor of risk taking behaviours (Willoughby, Good, Adachi, Hamza & Tavernier, 2013). The significant finding of Willoughby et al may have a substantial truth, because based on another research investigation, adolescents, twelve to eighteen years old, and young adults, eighteen to twenty five years old are more likely than the older adults to drive while intoxicated or use prohibited substances and engage in both minor and serious antisocial behaviours (Dayan, Bernard, Olliac, Mailhes & Kermarrec, 2010). This reveals the point that emerging adults may at some point have part in the statistics of the individuals with highest level of risk taking behaviours, considering that there is no sufficient percentage as to how many adolescents from between twelve to eighteen years old are actually engaged in driving while intoxicated or took part in the prohibited activities by law and the stated antisocial behaviours. On the other hand, opposing to the findings of Willoughby et al and Dayan et al is the relevant argument based on the research finding that the pubertal maturation at the other side is associated with adolescent decision making, but the brain function systems, the reward-focused processing system and the reasoned processing system are found to lead the adolescents to become more vulnerable to socio-emotional influences and risk-taking behaviours (Smith, Chein & Steinberg, 2013). In particular, the study adheres to the idea that the pubertal influences are linked to the maturation of the affective, reward-focused processing system. This finding therefore strongly supports the idea presented in the two-system of hypothesis development. Going down to the more biological nature and its influence on the adolescents’ behaviour, there is another remarkable study that created a significant contribution to the prevailing insight concerning the puberty-related changes in reward sensitivity. Based on the research study, the testosterone levels have strong link to the stronger striatal response to monetary reward of the adolescents (Op de Macks et al., 2011). This study specifically wanted to identify the existing relationship between the gonadal hormones and reward processing in adolescents. Moving back to socio-emotional influences, another research study reveals that the identity development of the adolescents is found to be based on their identity explorations, identity commitment in the midst of a pressuring and controlling peer groups (Dumas, Ellis & Wolfe, 2012). This research finding reasonably considers the thought that the reward-seeking behaviour may significantly apply in the heightened stage of adolescent development by which the peer pressure is a remarkable factor of adolescents’ behaviours. Based on the stated findings or results of the existing studies as stated above concerning the adolescents’ development, even if there are some remarkable contradictions at some point, it is however clear that the socioemotional influences took place and even the risk-taking behaviours may have existed together with the reward-seeking behaviour. For one important reason, the need to be appreciated or be part of the peer is a remarkable consideration of the teens, which could be the rationalisation of their prevailing actions particularly in the risk-taking activities. This at some point may agree with the point of Willoughby et al that the emerging adults and not somewhere in the middle adolescence that the risk-taking behaviours may prevail much. This should therefore contradict the point of Steinberg concerning the two-system hypothesis of adolescent development. However, it is clear that the socioemotional aspects may have come first prior to the cognitive control development. In line with the proof of this argument, as stated, it is evident that the first primary reason of the behavioural changes among adolescents and the young growing adults is the reward of being accepted or simply the presence of rewards of what they do. This therefore may provide a rational point on their part, which later will have to ignite a rational justification of even their decisions towards risks. For this reason, there is a remarkable point to help justify that the two-system hypothesis of adolescent development holds true. Conclusion The work at hand just tried to describe and evaluated the two-system hypothesis of adolescent development. There were remarkable contradictions in order to disprove or prove this hypothesis, but one thing that is clear is the point that there is rationality behind the risk-taking behaviours of teens or adolescents as part of their psychological development, which can be clearly elaborated through the primary occurring socioemotional influences and the vulnerability of the adolescents to engage in them as this must essentially be part of their biological growth. As noticed, there is therefore a complex integration of the relevant concepts on the adolescent development, but it is reasonably clear that the social influences come first, and which may lead to the rationalisation of behaviours that falls at the cognitive control process of the adolescents’ development. This justification makes the two-system hypothesis of adolescent development to generate remarkable sense or meaning, at some point. References Dayan, J., Bernard, A., Olliac, B., Mailhes, A. S., & Kermarrec, S. (2010). Adolescent brain development, risk-taking and vulnerability to addiction. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 104(5), 279-286. Dumas, T. M., Ellis, W. E., & Wolfe, D. A. (2012). Identity development as a buffer or adolescent risk behaviors in the context of peer group pressure and control. Journal of Adolescence, 35(4), 917-927. Op de Macks, Z. A., Moor, B. G., Overgaauw, S., Guroglu, B., Dahl, R. E., & Crone, E. A. (2011). Testosterone levels correspond with increased ventral striatum activation in response to monetary rewards in adolescents. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(4), 506-516. Smith, A. R., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Impact of socio-emotional context, brain development, and pubertal maturation on adolescent risk-taking. Hormones and Behavior, 64(2), 323-332. Steinberg, L. (2008). A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78-106. Steinberg, L. (2010). A Dual Systems Model of Adolescent Risk-Taking. Development Psychobiology, 52, 216-224. Willoughby, T., Good, M., Adachi, P. J. C., Hamza, C., & Tavernier, R. (2013). Examining the link between adolescent brain development and risk taking from a social-developmental perspective. Brain and Cognition, 83(3), 315-323. Read More