4.5 Review

Executive cognitive functions and impulsivity as correlates of risk taking and problem behavior in preadolescents

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 47, 期 13, 页码 2916-2926

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.06.019

关键词

Risk behavior; Adolescence; Impulsivity; Executive function; Working memory; SEM; Drug use

资金

  1. NIDA [R01 DA 18913-01]
  2. NICHD [3P30 HD26979]
  3. GCRC [RR00240]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Initiation of drug use and other risky behavior in preadolescence is associated with poor developmental outcomes. In this research, we examine models that ascribe the trajectory to (a) weak executive cognitive function (ECF), (b) early manifestation of externalizing problems, or (c) heightened levels of trait impulsivity. We test the explanatory power of these factors in a structural equation model with a community sample of 387 preadolescents ages 10-12 years. Participants were tested with a computerized battery of tasks to assess three facets of ECF (working memory, cognitive control, and reward processing) as well as with an audio assisted computerized self-interview to obtain reports of impulsivity and risk behaviors (use of cigarettes and alcohol as well as engaging in fighting and gambling for money) and a self-administered questionnaire to assess externalizing and internalizing problems. The best fitting model explained both early risk taking and externalizing symptoms as the result of individual differences in impulsivity. Although no ECF was directly related to risk taking, working memory and one measure of reward processing performance (reversal learning) were inversely related to impulsivity. The results are discussed in regard to theories of early risk taking with particular focus on the potential relation between ECF and impulsive behavior tendencies and the implications for early intervention to prevent the dysfunctional trajectory associated with early risk behavior. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据