ADOLESCENTS ENGAGE IN MORE RISKY DECISION MAKING

Adolescence has long been regarded as a period of decision-making that is different than adults and includes increased incidents of rash behavior. This account of adolescence is reinforced by empirical data surveying a range of behaviors, such as substance use (Johnston, Miech, Patrick, O’Malley, Schulenberg, & Bachman, 2023), reckless driving (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert, & Steinberg, 2011; Kirley, Robinson, Goodwin, Harmon, O’Brien, West, Harrell, Thomas, & Brookshire, 2023), unsafe sex (Committee on Adolescence, 2013; Herrick, Kuhns, Kinsky, Johnson, & Garofalo, 2013; Finer, 2010), and criminal activity (Brame, Turner, Paternoster, & Bushway, 2012; Loeber, Menting, Lynam, Moffitt, Stouthammer-Loeber, Stallings, Farrington, & Pardini, 2012; Shulman, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2013). The pattern observed across these diverse studies is one in which risky behavior becomes increasingly common during adolescence, peaks in late adolescence and then declines. This pattern also is reflected in the age-crime curve (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2019).

When combined with more fine-grained studies showing specifically how susceptibility to peer pressure, impulsivity, risk taking, and short-term thinking do not subside until later in young adulthood, it becomes impossible to reconcile the argument that 18 years old is a sensible age at which to expect people to “know better”/ be “responsible” (in a legal sense) with the observation that these indicators of impulsive, reckless, self-destructive, and antisocial tendencies peak at precisely this point. For example, in a study of over 1,000 participants ranging in age from 12 to 48 years, impulsivity declined, the ability to think long term increased, and individuals engaged in more responsible decision making as they transitioned out of adolescence and into adulthood (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000). In another study comparing adolescent and adult decision making, results indicated that, when asked to evaluate hypothetical decisions, adolescents as old as 18 years of age were less likely than adults (average age 23 years) to mention possible long term consequences, to evaluate both risks and benefits, and to examine possible alternative options (Halpern-Felsher & Cauffman, 2001). Furthermore, a study involving a gambling task with more than 900 individuals ages 10 to 30 found that late adolescents focus more on the potential rewards of a risky decision than the potential costs, whereas adults tend to consider both (Cauffman, et al., 2010). These empirical studies confirm that adolescents – even older adolescents – have not fully developed these abilities which may account for their poor decision making and immature judgment. In fact, data compiled across 28 different empirical studies demonstrate that adolescents generally perform more similarly to children than to adults when making decisions involving risk (Defoe, Dubas, Figner, van Aken, 2015). Additionally, some more recent work has shown that impulsivity is a feature of adolescence that spans across cultural and economic contexts (Steinberg et al., 2016) and can be linked to neurological and hormonal features during this developmental period (Braams, Peteres, Güroğlu, & Crone, 2014; Braams, van Duijvenvoorde, Peper, & Crone, 2015; Qu, Galvan, Fuligni, Lieberman, & Telzer, 2015).

A deeper body of empirical research on adolescent development and risk taking has accumulated over the past decade that significantly adds to the quantity and quality of existing scientific knowledge. A number of these new studies have already been cited. Others have made significant contributions to our understanding of the role of socio-emotional traits—such as sensation-seeking and self-regulation—in predicting adolescent risk taking (Burt, Sweeten, & Simons, 2014; Forrest, Hay, Widdowson, & Rocque, 2019; Fosco, Hawk, Colder, Meisel, & Lengua, 2019; Shulman, Harden, Chein, & Steinberg, 2015; Vazsonyi, Mikuška, & Kelley, 2017), the pervasive effect of peers in increasing risk behavior (Albert & Steinberg, 2011; Harakeh & de Boer, 2019; Centifanti, Modecki, MacLellan, & Gowling, 2014; Smith, Chein, & Steinberg, 2014), and the adaptive and intuitive nature of risk taking (Shulman & Cauffman, 2014; Tymula, Rosenberg Belmaker, Roy, Ruderman, Manson, Glimcher, & Levy, 2012). Additionally, in 2022, the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital published a White Paper on the Science of Late Adolescence: A Guide for Judges, Attorneys and Policy Makers which detailed the findings in which scientists from various disciplines convened to discuss and integrate existing theory and emerging findings on adolescent risk behavior. In the report, they discuss the existing literature on adolescent brain development and the various individual (e.g., impulsivity) and environmental (e.g., deviant peers, school) risk factors that precede risk-taking behavior.

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES UNTIL AGE 25

What accounts for these differences between adolescents, including those in the transitional period between adolescence and adulthood, and adults with respect to risk-taking, planning, inhibiting impulses, and generating alternatives? Recent neurodevelopmental research demonstrates a biological dimension to adolescent behavioral immaturity: the human brain does not reach its mature, adult form until after the adolescent years have passed and a person has entered young adulthood (Gotgay et al., 2004; Somerville, 2016). As the American Psychological Association (APA) recently acknowledged, “there is no neuroscientific bright line regarding brain development that indicates the brains of 18- to 20-year-olds differ in any substantive way from those of 17-year-olds” (APA, 2022, p. 1).

Although the majority of brain growth occurs prior to adolescence, the brain continues to mature through at least age 20 (e.g., Bigler, 2021; Gur, 2021; McCaffrey & Reynolds, 2021; Somerville, 2016). There is considerable refinement within the brain that occurs across adolescence and through the transitional period in regions related to reward and risk—such as the prefrontal cortex, the nucleus accumbens, and the amygdala (Mills et al., 2014). In fact, the prefrontal cortex is among the last to develop which is important because it is like the CEO of the company. It is responsible for the evaluation of future consequences, the ability to weigh risks and rewards, and general decision-making processes (Bechara et al., 2000). In addition, this region of the brain is also essential for controlling emotions and inhibiting impulses (Casey et al., 2019).

With the aid of advanced brain imaging technology and well-validated behavioral tasks, researchers are pinpointing the conditions under which adolescents’ decision-making differs from adults’ and illuminating the neurological developments that may correspond to these age differences. Synthesizing data from several lines of work, findings suggest that increased risktaking in adolescence results from asynchrony in the development of one’s psychosocial (e.g., self-regulatory system) and cognitive ability (e.g., intellectual ability). The psychosocial/self-regulatory system continues to develop at a steady pace from childhood into adulthood. The maturation of this psychosocial/self-regulatory system, which involves the prefrontal cortex and its connections with subcortical regions, is associated with improved impulse-control, harm-avoidance, and modulation of emotional and behavioral responses. In fact, research has shown that by age 16, adolescents’ general cognitive abilities are essentially indistinguishable from those of adults. Adolescents’ psychosocial functioning, however, even at the age of 17, is significantly less mature than that of individuals in their mid-20s (See Figure 1; Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, & Banich, 2009). As such, in situations that elicit impulsivity, that are typically characterized by high levels of emotional arousal or social coercion, or that do not encourage or permit consultation with an expert who is more knowledgeable or experienced, adolescents’ decision making is likely to be less mature than adults’.

FIGURE 1: Differences in the development of the psychosocial and cognitive (intellectual) systems

ADOLESCENTS ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND THE BRAIN IS ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE DURING ADOLESCENCE

Peers have a particularly strong effect on adolescents. When in the presence of peers, adolescents’ appear to value more immediate rewards over long term benefits (O’Brien, Albert, Chein, & Steinberg, 2011). This bias toward short-term gains while in the presence of peers may lead adolescents to discount the potential consequences of risky decisions and may explain, to some degree, adolescents’ tendency to engage in risk taking. There is substantial psychological research illustrating this. For example, during a computerized driving task, adolescents who were randomly assigned to a condition of peer observation were found to take more risks (i.e., crash the car) than those adolescents who were assigned to perform the task alone (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). Adult participants’ risk taking during the driving task did not significantly vary by condition (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, exposure to peers doubled the amount of risky behavior among mid-adolescents (with a mean age of 14), increased it by 50 percent among college undergraduates (with a mean age of 19), and had no impact at all among young adults (See Figure 2; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005).

FIGURE 2: Risky driving as assessed by number of times car crashes with and without peers present

A follow-up study was conducted using fMRI to measure participants’ brain activity during the same driving task under a solo condition and peer-observation condition (Chein et al., 2011). It is important to note that in the peer condition, the peer was not with the participant in the fMRI but rather watching the participant through the glass while the fMRI was being conducted. Findings indicated that the mere knowledge, and not actual presence, of your peer evaluating you increased risk taking among adolescents but not adults. Notably, when adolescents performed the task under peer conditions they demonstrated greater activation of brain regions related to reward during the decision making component of the task than was seen in the solo trials; in contrast, adults’ activation in these brain regions did not vary by social context (Chein et al., 2011).

These and other studies demonstrate that adolescents are more susceptible than adults to peer pressure and to the influence of others who are in positions of authority (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007). It is thus not surprising that a disproportionate number of juvenile crimes occur when adolescents are in groups, or that teenagers are especially susceptible to pressure from somewhat older individuals to engage in antisocial activity (Braams, van Duijvenvoorde, Peper, & Crone, 2015; Shulman & Cauffman, 2014).

THE VAST MAJORITY OF ADOLESCENTS DESIST FROM CRIME BY AGE 25

As adolescents transition to adulthood and their cognitive and psychosocial systems become fully mature, we would expect to see improvements in self-regulation and a gradual ceasing of engagement in criminal behavior. Thus, one way to consider the impact of this development on crime is through a study of why and when adolescents desist from (stop) criminal behavior. The Pathways to Desistance Study (Mulvey, Schubert, & Piquero, 2013) was designed for the express purpose of examining the second half of the age-crime curve: the desistance tail. Pathways, a prospective longitudinal study of over 1,300 serious adolescent offenders (e.g., offenses included robbery, aggravated assault, murder, etc.), tracked desistance from crime across adolescence and into adulthood. Youth who had committed serious felony level offenses were recruited for the study between the ages of 14-18 and were interviewed over 7 years, completing the study at ages 21-25 (see Schubert, Mulvey, Steinberg, Cauffman, Losoya, Hecker, & Knight, 2004 for details on the study’s methodology).

As illustrated in Figure 3, the Pathways study found that most youth, despite being serious felony offenders, do indeed desist from crime; less than 10% of the participating youth persisted in high-level offending after 7 years (see Figure 3; Monahan, Steinberg, Cauffman & Mulvey, 2013). This pattern has been replicated across fourteen other studies in addition to the Pathways study, providing strong evidence for a generally stable relationship between age and desistance (Doherty & Bersani, 2018).

Indeed, the major factor that distinguished those youth who persisted at a high level from those who desisted or remained at low levels was the increase in their psychosocial/self-regulatory development. Specifically, youth who persisted in offending displayed less psychosocial maturity (particularly lower levels of impulse control, suppression of aggression, and future orientation), while youth who stopped their criminal behavior displayed developmentally normative increases in these domains (Monahan, Steinberg, Cauffman, & Mulvey, 2013). This relationship between psychosocial maturity and desistance has also been replicated in other samples (Rocque, Posick, & White, 2015). In sum, the desistance tail of the age-crime curve may be largely (though certainly not wholly) explained by normative developmental changes that occur across adolescence and into adulthood.

It is important to highlight not only that there are changes in brain and personality with age but that the environment and life experiences can influence development. Life experiences, like the start of a new relationship or career, may place new demands on youth that result in long lasting brain and personality changes (Costa et al. 2019, Damian et al. 2019). These same experiences may act as turning points for serious criminal behavior, through which youth adopt new roles, responsibilities, and attitudes that lead them to desist from crime (Sampson & Laub 2005). For youth and young adults, it is essential that opportunities for different life experiences exist to promote psychosocial development.

DIVERSION IS RELATED TO LOWER RECIDIVISM AND BETTER OUTCOMES THAN FORMAL PROCESSING

A review of the literature suggests that diversion for low-to-moderately at-risk youth involved with the justice system is related to lower rates of recidivism than formal processing. Even when using the most conservative and statistically rigorous tests, almost all available evidence suggests that diversion is related to significantly reduced recidivism (at best) or no impact (at worse).

For example, in Crossroads, a longitudinal study of over 1,200 male youth found that informally processed youth (i.e., youth who were diverted from formal processing and handled at the probation department) were less likely than formally processed youth (i.e., youth whose cases were handled in the court) to be re-arrested, to be incarcerated, to engage in aggressive and violent offending, and to affiliate with delinquent peers up to 5 years after their first arrest (Cauffman et al., 2021). Specifically, over 60% of youth who were formally processed in adolescence were re-arrested within 5 years (compared to 43% of informally processed youth) and approximately 28% were incarcerated (compared to 17% of informally processed youth). In addition, informally processed youth were more likely to be enrolled in school, graduate from high school (or equivalent) within 5 years, and have higher perceptions of opportunities than formally processed youth. A lack of sufficient education is concerning as ample research shows that individuals without high school diplomas or equivalency are less likely to earn a livable wage and maintain stable, gainful employment (Bridgeland et al., 2006; Kienzl & Kena, 2006). Indeed, it is possible that justice system involvement is related to poor long-term occupational and economic outcomes because of the impact of the justice system on education attainment (see Figure 4; Cauffman et al., 2021).

FIGURE 4: Crossroads Study: Informal processing (diversion) leads to lower rates of incarceration/re-arrest and higher rates of high school completion/GED compared to formal processing.

In addition to processing type, sanction types and the way in which youth are treated by the justice system have been associated with recidivism (Gatti et al., 2009; Schubert et al., 2012). For example, the study by Gatti and colleagues (2009) found that youth who served time in secure placements (e.g., detention) had a higher likelihood of being arrested during adulthood than youth who served time on community supervision and youth who were never arrested (Gatti et al., 2009). Moreover, the climate inside secure facilities has also been related to reoffending. For example, Brown and colleagues (2019) examined the predictors of violence while incarcerated, and found that youth who perceived staff as fair were less likely to engage in institutional violence than youth who perceived staff as unfair (Brown et al., 2019). Furthermore, institutional climate has also been shown to influence youth behavior after release. One analysis with the Pathways data showed that youth who had more positive perceptions of their confinement experience were less likely to be re-arrested post-release, less likely to return to a secure facility, and exhibited lower self-reported offending in the year after being released (Schubert et al., 2012).

Other studies with Pathways and Crossroads data have demonstrated that some types of contact with the justice system (e.g., secure confinement) and exposure to serious violence may actually inhibit the development of psychosocial maturity during adolescence and early young adulthood (Dmitrieva et al., 2012). For example, youth who are incarcerated and embedded in harsh environments may be less likely to attain strong levels of psychosocial maturity by their mid-20s and may in turn fail to “age out” of the criminal behavior as they enter young adulthood (Dmitrieva et al., 2012). Thus, incarceration may actually delay normative development.

SUMMARY

In a summary of 20 years of research on adolescent and juvenile justice (Cauffman et al., 2024), it is clear that justice system responses need to take the developmental considerations described above into account. Specifically, although youth who commit crime should unquestionably face consequences for their offenses, the sanctions applied should be appropriate to the offender’s developmental status, amenability to future change, and degree of culpability (which may be lowered because of the diminished reasoning capacity implied by a lack of fully developed impulse control or ability to recognize long-term negative consequences of risky behavior). In addition, formal processing or incarceration as a means of deterrence or even rehabilitation is ineffective. In fact, more punitive sanctioning and incarceration can promote antisocial behavior and ensnare youth in trajectories of chronic offending (Cauffman, et. al 2021; Gatti et al. 2009). There are more effective alternatives to incarceration that address public safety concerns as well as serve the needs of the adolescent.

Summary

ADOLESCENTS ENGAGE IN MORE RISKY DECISION MAKING

Adolescence is characterized by decision-making processes distinct from those of adults, often resulting in heightened instances of impulsive behavior. This characterization of adolescence finds support in empirical data across various behaviors, such as substance use, reckless driving, unsafe sexual practices, and criminal activity. A consistent pattern emerges from these studies: risky behavior displays an increase during adolescence, reaching a peak in late adolescence, followed by a subsequent decline. This pattern mirrors the age-crime curve.

Further analysis, incorporating fine-grained studies, reveals that susceptibility to peer pressure, impulsivity, risk-taking propensities, and short-term thinking do not reach maturity until later in young adulthood. This observation challenges the notion that 18 years of age represents a sensible age at which individuals are expected to possess a mature understanding of responsibility. Numerous studies, such as the one conducted by Cauffman and Steinberg (2000), demonstrate that impulsivity decreases, long-term thinking abilities improve, and responsible decision-making practices become more prominent as individuals transition from adolescence into adulthood. Other studies, including those by Halpern-Felsher and Cauffman (2001) and Cauffman et al. (2010), highlight the distinct decision-making patterns of adolescents compared to adults. These studies reveal that adolescents, even those in their late teens, tend to prioritize potential rewards over potential costs when facing risky decisions, a contrast to the more comprehensive risk-benefit analysis employed by adults. The findings of these studies collectively support the conclusion that the developmental trajectory of adolescents, specifically their incompletely developed cognitive abilities, may account for their susceptibility to poor decision-making and immature judgment. Indeed, a meta-analysis of 28 studies by Defoe et al. (2015) demonstrates that adolescents consistently exhibit decision-making patterns more akin to children than adults when confronted with risk. Furthermore, recent research emphasizes the universality of impulsivity during adolescence, extending across diverse cultural and socioeconomic contexts (Steinberg et al., 2016). This phenomenon can be attributed to the neurological and hormonal changes characteristic of this developmental stage (Braams et al., 2014; Braams et al., 2015; Qu et al., 2015).

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES UNTIL AGE 25

The observed differences in risk-taking behavior, planning abilities, impulse control, and alternative generation between adolescents and adults can be attributed to ongoing brain development. Neurodevelopmental research highlights the biological basis of adolescent behavioral immaturity: the human brain does not attain its mature adult form until the completion of adolescence and the transition into young adulthood (Gotgay et al., 2004; Somerville, 2016). As acknowledged by the American Psychological Association (APA), "there is no neuroscientific bright line regarding brain development that indicates the brains of 18- to 20-year-olds differ in any substantive way from those of 17-year-olds" (APA, 2022, p. 1).

While the majority of brain growth occurs prior to adolescence, brain maturation continues through at least age 20 (Bigler, 2021; Gur, 2021; McCaffrey & Reynolds, 2021; Somerville, 2016). Substantial refinement within the brain occurs throughout adolescence and the transitional period in regions associated with reward and risk, including the prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens, and amygdala (Mills et al., 2014). The prefrontal cortex, the last brain region to fully develop, plays a crucial role in evaluating future consequences, weighing risks and rewards, and facilitating general decision-making processes (Bechara et al., 2000). It is also essential for regulating emotions and inhibiting impulses (Casey et al., 2019).

Advanced brain imaging technology, coupled with validated behavioral tasks, allows researchers to pinpoint the specific conditions under which adolescent decision-making diverges from that of adults, shedding light on the underlying neurological developments associated with these age differences. A synthesis of data from various research lines suggests that heightened risk-taking during adolescence stems from an asynchronous development of psychosocial and cognitive abilities. The psychosocial/self-regulatory system exhibits steady growth from childhood into adulthood. Maturation of this system, involving the prefrontal cortex and its connections with subcortical regions, leads to improvements in impulse control, harm avoidance, and modulation of emotional and behavioral responses. Research demonstrates that by age 16, adolescents' cognitive abilities essentially align with those of adults. However, even at the age of 17, their psychosocial functioning remains less mature compared to individuals in their mid-20s (Steinberg et al., 2009). Consequently, in situations characterized by impulsivity, heightened emotional arousal, social coercion, or a lack of access to expert guidance, adolescent decision-making is likely to be less mature than that of adults.

ADOLESCENTS ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND THE BRAIN IS ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE DURING ADOLESCENCE

Peers exert a particularly strong influence on adolescents. In the presence of peers, adolescents tend to prioritize immediate rewards over long-term benefits (O’Brien et al., 2011). This bias towards short-term gains may lead adolescents to discount the potential consequences of risky decisions, contributing to their tendency to engage in risk-taking behaviors. Substantial psychological research supports this observation. For example, in a computerized driving task, adolescents in a condition of peer observation demonstrated higher risk-taking behaviors (i.e., more car crashes) compared to those performing the task alone (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). Adult participants' risk-taking behavior remained largely unchanged across both conditions (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). Specifically, as depicted in Figure 2, peer exposure doubled risky behavior among mid-adolescents (mean age of 14), increased it by 50% among college undergraduates (mean age of 19), and had no impact on young adults (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005).

A follow-up study utilizing fMRI measured brain activity during the same driving task under both solo and peer-observation conditions (Chein et al., 2011). Notably, in the peer condition, the peer was not physically present but observed the participant through a glass window during the fMRI scan. Findings indicated that the mere awareness, not actual presence, of a peer evaluation heightened risk-taking among adolescents but not adults. When performing the task under peer conditions, adolescents exhibited greater activation in brain regions associated with reward during the decision-making phase compared to solo trials. Conversely, adults' activation in these brain regions remained consistent across both social contexts (Chein et al., 2011).

These studies, along with others, highlight adolescents' increased susceptibility to peer pressure and the influence of authority figures (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007). The disproportionate occurrence of juvenile crimes in group settings and adolescents' vulnerability to pressure from older individuals to engage in antisocial activity align with these findings (Braams et al., 2015; Shulman & Cauffman, 2014).

THE VAST MAJORITY OF ADOLESCENTS DESIST FROM CRIME BY AGE 25

As adolescents transition into adulthood and their cognitive and psychosocial systems mature, we expect to see improvements in self-regulation and a gradual cessation of criminal behavior. To understand the impact of this development on crime, we can examine the factors and timing of adolescent desistance from criminal behavior. The Pathways to Desistance Study (Mulvey et al., 2013) was specifically designed to investigate the latter portion of the age-crime curve: the desistance tail. This prospective longitudinal study followed over 1,300 serious adolescent offenders (e.g., robbery, aggravated assault, murder) across adolescence and into adulthood. Participants, who had committed serious felony offenses, were recruited between the ages of 14-18 and interviewed over a 7-year period, concluding at ages 21-25 (Schubert et al., 2004).

As illustrated in Figure 3, the Pathways study revealed that a majority of youth, despite engaging in serious felony offenses, do desist from crime. Less than 10% of the study participants continued with high-level offending after 7 years (Monahan et al., 2013). This pattern has been replicated in fourteen other studies, providing strong evidence for a consistent relationship between age and desistance (Doherty & Bersani, 2018).

The key factor distinguishing youth who persisted with high-level offending from those who desisted or maintained low levels was their psychosocial/self-regulatory development. Specifically, persistent offenders displayed lower psychosocial maturity, particularly exhibiting lower levels of impulse control, aggression suppression, and future orientation. Conversely, youth who ceased their criminal behavior demonstrated developmentally normative increases in these domains (Monahan et al., 2013). This relationship between psychosocial maturity and desistance has been corroborated in other samples (Rocque et al., 2015). In summary, the desistance tail of the age-crime curve can be largely attributed to normative developmental changes occurring during adolescence and into adulthood.

It's crucial to recognize that while changes in brain and personality occur with age, the environment and life experiences can significantly influence development. Life experiences, such as the formation of new relationships or career pursuits, may introduce new demands on youth, resulting in enduring changes in brain and personality (Costa et al., 2019; Damian et al., 2019). These experiences can serve as turning points for serious criminal behavior, prompting youth to adopt new roles, responsibilities, and attitudes that lead to desistance (Sampson & Laub, 2005). For youth and young adults, access to diverse life experiences is essential for fostering psychosocial development.

DIVERSION IS RELATED TO LOWER RECIDIVISM AND BETTER OUTCOMES THAN FORMAL PROCESSING

A review of the literature suggests that diversionary programs for low-to-moderately at-risk youth involved in the justice system are associated with lower rates of recidivism compared to formal processing. Even using the most conservative and statistically rigorous tests, the available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that diversion is linked to significantly reduced recidivism or, at worst, no impact.

For example, the Crossroads study, a longitudinal investigation of over 1,200 male youth, found that informally processed youth (those diverted from formal processing and handled by the probation department) exhibited lower rates of re-arrest, incarceration, aggressive and violent offending, and delinquent peer affiliation compared to formally processed youth (those whose cases were handled in court) up to 5 years after their initial arrest (Cauffman et al., 2021). Notably, over 60% of formally processed youth in adolescence were re-arrested within 5 years (compared to 43% of informally processed youth), and approximately 28% were incarcerated (compared to 17% of informally processed youth). Furthermore, informally processed youth were more likely to be enrolled in school, graduate from high school (or equivalent) within 5 years, and hold higher perceptions of opportunities compared to formally processed youth. The lack of sufficient education is a significant concern, given ample research demonstrating that individuals without high school diplomas or equivalency are less likely to earn a livable wage and maintain stable employment (Bridgeland et al., 2006; Kienzl & Kena, 2006). It's plausible that justice system involvement contributes to poor long-term occupational and economic outcomes due to its impact on education attainment (Cauffman et al., 2021).

Beyond processing type, sanction types and the manner in which youth are treated by the justice system have also been associated with recidivism (Gatti et al., 2009; Schubert et al., 2012). For instance, Gatti et al. (2009) found that youth who served time in secure placements (e.g., detention) had a higher likelihood of being arrested during adulthood compared to youth who served time under community supervision and those who were never arrested. Furthermore, the climate within secure facilities has been linked to reoffending. Brown et al. (2019) examined predictors of violence during incarceration, discovering that youth who perceived staff as fair were less likely to engage in institutional violence compared to those who perceived staff as unfair. Institutional climate has also been shown to influence youth behavior following release. An analysis utilizing Pathways data revealed that youth who held more positive perceptions of their confinement experience were less likely to be re-arrested post-release, less likely to return to a secure facility, and reported lower levels of offending in the year after release (Schubert et al., 2012).

Other studies utilizing Pathways and Crossroads data demonstrate that certain types of justice system contact (e.g., secure confinement) and exposure to serious violence can hinder the development of psychosocial maturity during adolescence and early adulthood (Dmitrieva et al., 2012). For example, youth incarcerated in harsh environments may be less likely to achieve strong levels of psychosocial maturity by their mid-20s and may fail to "age out" of criminal behavior as they enter young adulthood (Dmitrieva et al., 2012). Therefore, incarceration can potentially delay normative development.

SUMMARY

A comprehensive overview of 20 years of research on adolescent and juvenile justice (Cauffman et al., 2024) underscores the importance of incorporating developmental considerations into justice system responses. While youth who commit crimes should be held accountable, the sanctions imposed should be commensurate with their developmental status, potential for future change, and degree of culpability. The latter may be reduced due to the diminished reasoning capacity associated with incompletely developed impulse control or the inability to recognize the long-term negative consequences of risky behavior. Formal processing or incarceration, as a means of deterrence or rehabilitation, proves ineffective. In fact, more punitive sanctions and incarceration can promote antisocial behavior and trap youth in cycles of chronic offending (Cauffman et al., 2021; Gatti et al., 2009). Effective alternatives to incarceration exist that address public safety concerns while serving the needs of adolescents.

Summary

Adolescents' brains continue to develop until their mid-twenties, with significant changes occurring in regions associated with reward, risk, impulse control, and decision-making. This ongoing development has implications for adolescents' behavior and legal culpability.

Adolescents Engage in More Risky Decision Making

Research shows that risky behavior increases during adolescence, peaks in late adolescence, and then declines. Studies consistently demonstrate that adolescents, even those in the transitional period between adolescence and adulthood, are more susceptible to peer pressure, impulsivity, risk-taking, and short-term thinking compared to adults. These behaviors are linked to the ongoing development of the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for evaluating consequences, weighing risks and rewards, and controlling impulses.

Brain Development Continues Until Age 25

The prefrontal cortex, among the last brain regions to mature, plays a crucial role in cognitive abilities related to decision-making, planning, and impulse control. Adolescents' psychosocial/self-regulatory systems, involving the prefrontal cortex and its connections, continue to develop at a steady pace into adulthood. While adolescents' general cognitive abilities are comparable to adults by age 16, their psychosocial functioning remains less mature than adults in their mid-twenties.

Adolescents Are More Susceptible to Social Influence and the Brain Is Especially Sensitive to Social Influence During Adolescence

Peer influence significantly impacts adolescent risk-taking behavior. Research suggests that adolescents, when in the presence of peers, place a greater value on immediate rewards over long-term benefits, leading to a discounting of potential consequences. This susceptibility to peer pressure highlights the importance of considering the social context when assessing adolescent behavior.

The Vast Majority of Adolescents Desist From Crime by Age 25

The age-crime curve demonstrates that most individuals desist from criminal behavior as they transition into adulthood. Studies show that individuals who desist from crime typically display greater psychosocial maturity, including improved impulse control, reduced aggression, and a greater future orientation.

Diversion is Related to Lower Recidivism and Better Outcomes Than Formal Processing

Research indicates that diversion programs, which steer low-to-moderately at-risk youth away from formal processing in the justice system, are associated with lower rates of recidivism compared to traditional formal processing. Diversion programs can help promote positive developmental trajectories by reducing the negative consequences associated with incarceration and providing opportunities for education and social support.

Summary

These findings highlight the need for a developmentally sensitive approach to adolescent justice. While holding youth accountable for their actions, it is essential to consider their stage of development, amenability to change, and degree of culpability. Alternatives to incarceration, such as diversion programs, can effectively address public safety concerns while supporting adolescents' development and reducing the risk of recidivism.

Summary

Teens are more prone to risky behavior than adults, a trend that peaks in late adolescence and then declines. This behavior is rooted in ongoing brain development, which continues until around age 25.

Adolescents Engage in More Risky Decision Making

Adolescence is a time of heightened risk-taking, fueled by factors like susceptibility to peer pressure, impulsivity, and short-term thinking. Studies show these traits peak in late adolescence and decline as people enter adulthood. This pattern aligns with the age-crime curve, which also shows a peak in crime rates during late adolescence.

Brain Development Continues Until Age 25

The brain continues to mature through young adulthood, with significant refinement in areas related to reward and risk, like the prefrontal cortex. This region is essential for evaluating consequences, weighing risks and rewards, and controlling impulses.

Adolescents Are More Susceptible to Social Influence and the Brain is Especially Sensitive to Social Influence During Adolescence

Peer influence plays a significant role in adolescent risk-taking. Research has shown that adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior when they are aware of being observed by peers, highlighting their vulnerability to social pressure.

The Vast Majority of Adolescents Desist From Crime by Age 25

While a substantial proportion of teens engage in criminal behavior, the majority eventually desist from crime. Studies have shown that developmental changes in psychosocial maturity, including improved impulse control and future orientation, contribute significantly to this trend.

Diversion is Related to Lower Recidivism and Better Outcomes Than Formal Processing

Diversion programs, which offer alternatives to formal court processing, are associated with lower rates of recidivism and better outcomes for youth. These programs help reduce the negative impact of justice system involvement on education and overall development, leading to more positive life trajectories for young people.

Summary

Teens are still growing and learning, even after they turn 18. Their brains are not fully developed until they are about 25 years old. That means they may not always make the best decisions, especially when they are with their friends.

Adolescents Engage in More Risky Decision Making

Teenagers are more likely to take risks than adults. This is because their brains are still developing and they are more influenced by their friends. For example, teens may drive faster or try drugs when they are with their friends. They may not think about the long-term consequences of their actions. They are also more likely to focus on the good things that might happen, and not the bad things that could happen.

Brain Development Continues Until Age 25

The part of the brain that helps us make good decisions, plan for the future, and control our impulses keeps growing until we are about 25 years old. This part of the brain is called the prefrontal cortex.

Adolescents Are More Susceptible to Social Influence and the Brain Is Especially Sensitive to Social Influence During Adolescence

When teens are with their friends, they are more likely to take risks. This is because their brains are more sensitive to social influence. When they are with their friends, they care more about what their friends think and want to be accepted by them.

The Vast Majority of Adolescents Desist From Crime by Age 25

As teens grow up, they learn from their mistakes and start to make better decisions. By the time they are 25, most teens have stopped doing things that are against the law.

Diversion Is Related to Lower Recidivism and Better Outcomes Than Formal Processing

It's better to help teens learn from their mistakes than to punish them. That's why diversion programs, which help teens stay out of jail and get the help they need, are better than sending them to jail.