Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Neurobiological Models of Risky Decision-Making and Adolescent Substance Use

  • Adolescent / Young Adult Addiction (T Chung, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Addiction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This article provides an overview of evidence-based neurobiological models of risky decision-making, noting their implications for adolescent substance use. Drawing on brain and behavioral research, neural imbalance and fuzzy-trace theory are reviewed to explain developmental differences in preferences for risk (tolerating the possibility of bad outcomes to achieve larger rewards), time (waiting for larger but delayed rewards), and ambiguity (willingness to explore the unknown to achieve rewards).

Recent Findings

Consistent with these theories and evidence, and also with major theories of addiction, developmental differences in reward sensitivity, cognitive control to inhibit impulses, and their neural substrates partially explain adolescents’ greater willingness to use substances. However, meta-analyses show that preferences depend on a shift in cognitive representations from risk-reward tradeoffs to simple gist, as predicted by fuzzy-trace theory. Gist representations also facilitate adolescents’ ability to connect social norms and values to decisions.

Summary

Implications for periods of vulnerability, individual differences, and treatments for addiction are discussed, including opioid addiction. Addiction can begin when multiple vulnerabilities coincide at neurological, psychological, and sociocultural levels, but theory identifies potential strategies for prevention and treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. •• Bickel WK, Mellis AM, Snider SE, Athamneh LN, Stein JS, Pope DA. 21st century neurobehavioral theories of decision making in addiction: review and evaluation. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2018;164:4–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2017.09.009. This is an evidence-based review of major models of addiction, comparing each theory and evaluating them according to seven benchmarks of theoretical robustness, including predicting the developmental time course of addiction (see Fig. 1 in Bickel et al.).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. •• Casey BJ. Beyond simple models of self-control to circuit-based accounts of adolescent behavior. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015;66:295–319. This is a comprehensive update of an important developmental theory.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reyna VF, Huettel SA. Reward, representation, and impulsivity: a theoretical framework for the neuroscience of risky decision making. In: Reyna VF, Zayas V, editors. The neuroscience of risky decision making. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2014. p. 11–42.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Steinberg L. A neurobehavioral perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Dev Rev. 2008;28(1):78–106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Telzer EH. Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: a new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016;17:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.10.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kurkela K, Dennis NA. Event-related fMRI studies of false memory: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia. 2016;81:149–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.12.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sherman LE, Steinberg LD, and Chein JM, (in press). Connecting brain responsivity and real-world risk taking: strengths and limitations of current methodological approaches. Dev Cogn Neurosci.

  8. Trigeiro AA, Kirsh KL, Passik SD. Scope of the problem: intersection of chronic pain and addiction. In: Staats PS, Silverman SM, editors. Controlled substance management in chronic pain: a balanced approach. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG; 2016. p. 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30964-4_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Suleiman AB, Dahl RE. Leveraging neuroscience to inform adolescent health: the need for an innovative transdisciplinary developmental science of adolescence. J Adolesc Health. 2017;60(3):240–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Casey BJ, Getz S, Galván A. The adolescent brain. Dev Rev. 2008;28(1):62–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Reyna VF, Rivers SE. Current theories of risk and rational decision making. Dev Rev. 2008;28(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2008.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. van den Bos W, Rodriguez CA, Schweitzer JB, McClure SM. Adolescent impatience decreases with increased frontostriatal connectivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(29):E3765–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Blakemore S-J. (2018). Avoiding social risk in adolescence. Curr Dir Psycholog Sci.

  14. Gardner M, Steinberg L. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Dev Psychol. 2005;41(4):625–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chein J, Albert D, O’Brien L, Uckert K, Steinberg L. Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Dev Sci. 2011;14(2):F1–F10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Casey BJ, Galván A, Somerville LH. Beyond simple models of adolescence to an integrated circuit-based account: a commentary. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016;17:128–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenbaum M, Venkatraman V, Steinberg L & Chein J (2017) The influences of described and experienced information on adolescent risky decision making. Dev Rev. Available online 19 October 2017.

  18. •• Shulman E, Smith A, Silva K, Icenogle G, Duell N, Chein J, et al. The dual systems model: review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2016;17:103–17. This is a comprehensive update of an important developmental theory.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pfeifer JH, Allen NB. Arrested development? Reconsidering dual-systems models of brain function in adolescence and disorders. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012;16(6):322–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rudolph M, Miranda-Dominguez O, Cohen A, Breiner K, Steinberg L, Bonnie RJ, et al. At risk of being risky: the relationship between “brain age” under emotional states and risk preference. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2017;24:96–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Romer D, Reyna VF, Satterthwaite TD. Beyond stereotypes of adolescent risk taking: placing the adolescent brain in developmental context. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2017;27:19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.07.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Tymula A, Rosenberg Belmaker L, Roy A, Ruderman L, Manson K, Glimcher P, et al. Adolescents’ risk-taking behavior is driven by tolerance to ambiguity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (PNAS). 2012;109(42):17135–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Spear LP. The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000;24:417–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Defoe IN, Dubas JJS, Figner B, van Aken MAG. A meta-analysis on age differences in risky decision making: adolescents versus children and adults. Psychological Bulletin. 2015;141(1):48–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038088. This is a major meta-analysis of controlled studies of risk preference in adolescence comparing alternative theories.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Blalock SJ, Reyna VF. Using fuzzy-trace theory to understand and improve health judgments, decisions, and behaviors: a literature review. Health Psychol. 2016;35(8):781–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000384.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kwak Y, Payne J, Cohen A, Huettel SA. The rational adolescent: strategic information processing during decision making revealed by eye tracking. Cogn Dev. 2015;36:20–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. White CM, Gummerum M, Hanoch Y. Framing of online risk: young adults’ and adolescents’ representations of risky gambles. Decision. Advance online publication. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1037/dec000006.

  28. Helm RK, Reyna VF. Too young to plead? Risk, rationality, and plea bargaining’s innocence problem in adolescents. Psychol Public Policy Law. in press;

  29. Stevens JR. Impulsivity: how risk and time influence decision making. New York: Springer; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Reyna VF, Wilhelms EA. The gist of delay of gratification: understanding and predicting problem behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak. 2017;30(2):610–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1977.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McClure SM, Bickel WK. A dual-systems perspective on addiction: contributions from neuroimaging and cognitive training. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1327:62–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Berridge KC, Robinson TE. Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Am Psychol. 2016;71(8):670–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Vanderschuren LJMJ, Di Ciano P, Everitt BJ. Involvement of the dorsal striatum in cue-controlled cocaine seeking. J Neurosci. 2005;25(38):8665–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bromberg U, Lobatcheva M, Peters J. Episodic future thinking reduces temporal discounting in healthy adolescents. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0188079. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188079.

  35. Reyna VF, Mills BA. Theoretically motivated interventions for reducing sexual risk taking in adolescence: a randomized controlled experiment applying fuzzy- trace theory. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143(4):1627–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036717.

  36. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Pain management and the opioid epidemic: balancing societal and individual benefits and risks of prescription opioid use. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017. https://doi.org/10.17226/24781.

  37. Fortuna RJ, Robbins BW, Caiola E, Joynt M, Halterman JS. Prescribing of controlled medications to adolescents and young adults in the United States. Pediatrics. 2010;126(6):1108–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. McCabe SE, West BT, Boyd CJ. Leftover prescription opioids and nonmedical use among high school seniors: a multi-cohort national study. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(4):480–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rudd RA, Aleshire N, Zibbell JE, Gladden RM. Increases in drug and opioid overdose deaths—United States, 2000–2014. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016a;64(50–51):1378–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rudd RA, Seth P, David F, Scholl L. Increases in drug and opioid-involved overdose deaths—United States, 2010–2015. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016b;65(50–51):1445–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chung T, Paulsen DJ, Geier CF, Luna B, Clark DB. Regional brain activation supporting cognitive control in the context of reward is associated with treated adolescents’ marijuana problem severity at follow-up: a preliminary study. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015;16:93–100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. DeWitt SJ, Aslan S, Filbey FM. Adolescent risk-taking and resting state functional connectivity. Psychiatry Res. 2014;222(3):157–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Feldstein Ewing SW, Chung T, Caouette JD, Ketcherside A, Hudson KA, Filbey FM. Orbitofrontal cortex connectivity as a mechanism of adolescent behavior change. NeuroImage. 2017;151:14–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Reyna VF, Estrada SM, DeMarinis JA, Myers RM, Stanisz JM, Mills BA. Neurobiological and memory models of risky decision making in adolescents versus young adults. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011;37(5):1125–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Preparation of this article was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Nursing Research R21NR016905) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NYC-321407). Valerie F. Reyna received research support through grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and the National Institutes of Health (1R01NR014368).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Neuroscience Institute, Department of Human Development, and Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Valerie F. Reyna

Authors
  1. Valerie F. Reyna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerie F. Reyna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Adolescent/Young Adult Addiction

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reyna, V.F. Neurobiological Models of Risky Decision-Making and Adolescent Substance Use. Curr Addict Rep 5, 128–133 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-018-0193-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-018-0193-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation