Adolescent Development Part 2
Page 3: Main Questions in Adolescent Development
Are experimental evidences consistent with Elkind’s theory?
What criticisms exist for Elkind’s theory?
How do social factors influence adolescent behaviour?
What biological developmental changes explain certain adolescent characteristics and behaviours?
Page 4: Elkind (1967) - Adolescent Egocentrism
Characterized by excessive focus on mental life:
Illusion of Transparency: Belief that others are aware of one’s thoughts and feelings.
Personal Fable: A belief in one’s uniqueness and invulnerability.
Private God: A belief in a personal guardian or divine figure.
Risk-Taking: Greater propensity for taking risks.
Imaginary Audience: The misconception that one is always being observed by others.
Self-Consciousness: Heightened awareness of self.
Page 5: Somerville et al. (2013) - Self-Consciousness Study
Sample: 69 participants aged 8-22 underwent fMRI scanning.
Method: Told about a camera embedded in the scanner but did not perform tasks.
Page 6: Somerville et al. (2013) - Camera Settings and Conditions
Camera settings:
Off: Resting state.
Warming Up: Anticipation condition.
ON: Evaluation condition; participants informed a peer monitored the feed.
Page 7: Somerville et al. (2013) - Embarrassment Response
Adolescents reported higher embarrassment levels than children and adults.
Physiological responses (skin conductance) heightened when believed they were observed.
Page 8: Somerville et al. (2013) - Brain Activation Patterns
Increased brain activation observed in areas related to social cognition and emotion evaluation in adolescents, particularly the MPFC.
Indicated that self-consciousness is tied to age-specific sensitivity of brain systems.
Page 9: Metacognitive Abilities (Weil et al., 2013)
Focus on the development of metacognitive abilities in adolescence.
Participants (56, aged 11-41) were assessed on a perceptual task requiring confidence ratings after each trial.
Page 10: Metacognitive Ability by Age
Adolescents demonstrated lower metacognitive ability compared to late adolescents and adults.
Graph illustrating metacognitive ability vs. age group.
Page 11: Metacognitive Abilities Insights
Younger adolescents showed the least ability to identify accuracy levels in tasks.
Metacognitive growth relates to egocentricity and developing self-awareness.
Page 12: Personal Fable (Alberts et al., 2007)
Sample: 119 students (mean age= 13 years).
Explored dimensions of personal fable and risk-taking.
Dimensions:
Invulnerability: Belief of getting away with risky behaviours.
Speciality: Feeling misunderstood by others.
Page 13: Personal Fable Questionnaire Examples
Example questions:
Invulnerability: "I know I get away with a lot of stuff others get in trouble for."
Speciality: "When my parents or friends say they know how I feel, I don’t believe them."
Page 14: Personal Fable Implications
Personal fable scores increase with age; adolescents scored higher than pre-adolescents.
Males showed higher scores in invulnerability dimension.
Significant correlation between personal fable and risk-taking behaviors.
Page 15: Imaginary Audience Theory Critique
Numerous studies criticize this outdated theory, yet it remains quite real for adolescents.
The new look model: Suggests that imaginary audience and personal fable function as coping mechanisms in adolescence.
Page 16: Gender Differences in Imaginary Audience
Doesn't fully address sex differences; females may face greater social pressures and concerns.
Reference studies indicating differences in behaviour between genders.
Page 17: Conceptual Interest
Reflection on which concept is most intriguing and propose an experimental investigation.
Page 18: Adolescents and Risk-Taking
Explore why adolescents engage in higher risk-taking behaviors compared to children and adults, focusing on social influences and brain development.
Page 19: Social Influence on Risk Perception (Knoll et al., 2015)
Study with 563 participants rating risk scenarios and recalibrating based on peer ratings.
Page 20: Risk Perception Among Age Groups
Children rated scenarios as riskier than adolescents and adults.
No significant difference in risk ratings between adolescents and adults.
Page 21: Influence of Ratings on Perception
All age groups were influenced by peer ratings, with children and adults more swayed by adult inputs.
Adolescents were more influenced by their peers' ratings.
Page 22: Peer Influence on Risk-Taking (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005)
Task: Driving simulation with three groups - adolescents, youths, and adults, alone vs. with peers.
Page 23: Risk-Taking Behavior Findings
Alone: All age groups took similar risks.
With peers: Adolescents and young adults increased risk-taking while adults remained steady.
Page 24: Implications of Peer Influence
Aligns with data indicating social factors such as peer acceptance are crucial in adolescent risk-taking behaviours.
Page 25: Personal Reflection on Risk-Taking
Engage in personal reflection about changes in risky behaviour in social situations compared to solitary contexts.
Page 26: Risk-Taking and the Limbic System
Adolescents demonstrate higher sensitivity to rewards and risk-taking due to a hypersensitive limbic system.
This may overshadow negative consequences, relating to the personal fable concept.
Page 27: Biological Underpinnings of Adolescent Behaviour
Dual-system model: Maturation difference between the prefrontal cortex and limbic system during adolescence.
Page 28: Dual System Model Overview (Steinberg, 2010)
Structure overview: Brain regions involved in adolescent behaviour.
Page 29: Hypothesis of Dual System Model
Suggests the combination of a hypersensitive limbic system and developing prefrontal cortex influences adolescent behaviour.
However, this model may be oversimplified.