Decision-making

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: decision theory
Sample flowchart representing the decision process to add a new article to Wikipedia.
Decision-making can be regarded as the cognitive process resulting in the selection of a belief or a
course of action among several alternative possibilities. Every decision-making process produces a
final choice
[!
that may or may not prompt action. "ecision-making is the study of identifying and
choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision maker. "ecision-making
is one of the central activities of management and is a huge part of any process of implementation.
Overview[edit]
#uman performance with regard to decisions has been the sub$ect of active research from several
perspectives%
&sychological % e'amining individual decisions in the conte't of a set of needs, preferences
and values the individual has or seeks.
(ognitive % the decision-making process regarded as a continuous process integrated in the
interaction with the environment.
)ormative % the analysis of individual decisions concerned with the logic of decision-
making and rationality and the invariant choice it leads to.
[*!
"ecision-making can also be regarded as a problem-solving activity terminated by a solution
deemed to be satisfactory. +t is, therefore, a reasoning or emotional process which can
be rational or irrational and can be based on e'plicit assumptions or tacit assumptions. ,ational
choice theory encompasses the notion that people try to ma'imi-e benefits while minimi-ing costs.
[.!
Some have argued that most decisions are made unconsciously. /im )ightingale states that 0we
simply decide without thinking much about the decision process.0
[1!
+n a controlled environment, such
as a classroom, instructors might try to encourage students to weigh pros and cons before making a
decision. 2his strategy is known as Franklin3s rule. #owever, because such a rule re4uires time,
cognitive resources and full access to relevant information about the decision, this rule may not best
describe how people make decisions.
[citation needed!
5ogical decision-making is an important part of all science-based professions, where specialists
apply their knowledge in a given area to make informed decisions. For e'ample, medical decision-
making often involves a diagnosis and the selection of appropriate treatment. Some
[which?!
research
using naturalistic methods shows, however, that in situations with higher time pressure, higher
stakes, or increased ambiguities, e'perts use intuitive decision-making rather than structured
approaches 6 following a recognition primed decision that fits the their e'perience 6 and arrive at a
course of action without weighing alternatives. ,ecent robust decision research has formally
integrated uncertainty into its decision-making model.
[citation needed!
"ecision analysis recogni-ed and
included uncertainties in its theori-ing since its conception in 781.
[citation needed!
9 ma$or part of decision-making involves the analysis of a finite set of alternatives described in terms
of evaluative criteria. +nformation overload occurs when there is a substantial gap between the
capacity of information and the ways in which people may or can adapt. 2he overload of information
can be related to problem: processing and tasking, which effects decision-making.
[;!
2hese criteria
may be benefit or cost in nature. 2hen the problem might be to rank these alternatives in terms of
how attractive they are to the decision-maker<s= when all the criteria are considered simultaneously.
9nother goal might be to $ust find the best alternative or to determine the relative total priority of each
alternative <for instance, if alternatives represent pro$ects competing for funds= when all the criteria
are considered simultaneously. Solving such problems is the focus of multi-criteria decision
analysis <>("9=, also known as multi-criteria decision-making <>(">=. 2his area of decision-
making, although very old, has attracted the interest of many researchers and practitioners and is
still highly debated as there are many >("9?>("> methods which may yield very different results
when they are applied on e'actly the same data.
[8!
2his leads to the formulation of a decision-making
parado'.
+n regards to management and decision-making, each level of management is responsible for
different things. 2op level managers look at and create strategic plans where the organi-ation3s
vision, goals, and values are taken into account to create a plan that is cohesive with the mission
statement. For mid-level managers, tactical plans are created with specific steps with actions that
need to be e'ecuted to meet the strategic ob$ective. Finally, the front-line managers are responsible
for creating and e'ecuting operational plans. 2hese plans include the policies, processes, and
procedures of the organi-ation. Each must take into account the overall goals and processes of the
organi-ation.
Rational and irrational decision-making[edit]
+n economics, it is thought that if humans are rational and free to make their own decisions, then
they would behave according to rational choice theory.
[@!
2his theory states that people make
decisions by determining the likelihood of a potential outcome, the value of the outcome and then
multiplying the two. For e'ample, with a ;AB chance of winning C*A or a AAB chance of winning
CA, people more likely to choose the first option.
[@!
+n reality, however, there are some factors that affect decision-making abilities and cause people to
make irrational decisions, one of them being availability bias. 9vailability bias is the tendency for
some items that are more readily available in memory to be $udged as more fre4uently occurring.
[@!
For e'ample, someone who watches a lot of movies about terrorist attacks may think the
fre4uency of terrorism to be higher than it actually is.
Information overload[edit]
+nformation overload is 0a gap between the volume of information and the tools we need to
assimilate it.0
[D!
+t is proven in some studies
[which?!
that the more information overload, the worse the
4uality of decisions made. 2here are five factors%
&ersonal +nformation Factors% personal 4ualifications, e'periences, attitudes etc.
+nformation (haracteristics% information 4uality, 4uantity and fre4uency
2asks and &rocess% standardi-ed procedures or methods
Ergani-ational "esign% organi-ations3 cooperation, processing capacity and organi-ation
relationship
+nformation 2echnology% +2 management, and general technology
#all, 9riss F 2odorov with an assistant ,ashar phinyor <*AA@= described an illusion of knowledge,
meaning that as individuals encounter too much knowledge it actually interferes with their ability to
make rational decisions.
[7!
Problem analysis vs. decision-making[edit]
+t is important to differentiate between problem analysis and decision-making. 2he concepts are
completely separate from one another. 2raditionally, it is argued that problem analysis must be done
first, so that the information gathered in that process may be used towards decision-making.
[A!
Problem analysis
9naly-e performance, what should the results be against what they actually are
&roblems are merely deviations from performance standards
&roblem must be precisely identified and described
&roblems are caused by a change from a distinctive feature
Something can always be used to distinguish between what has and hasn3t been affected by
a cause
(auses to problems can be deducted from relevant changes found in analy-ing the problem
>ost likely cause to a problem is the one that e'actly e'plains all the facts
Decision-making
Eb$ectives must first be established
Eb$ectives must be classified and placed in order of importance
9lternative actions must be developed
2he alternative must be evaluated against all the ob$ectives
2he alternative that is able to achieve all the ob$ectives is the tentative decision
2he tentative decision is evaluated for more possible conse4uences
2he decisive actions are taken, and additional actions are taken to prevent any adverse
conse4uences from becoming problems and starting both systems <problem analysis and
decision-making= all over again
2here are steps that are generally followed that result in a decision model that can be used
to determine an optimal production plan.
[!
+n a situation featuring conflict, role-playing may be helpful for predicting decisions to be
made by involved parties.
[*!
Decision planning[edit]
>aking a decision without planning is fairly common, but does not often end well. &lanning allows for
decisions to be made comfortably and in a smart way. &lanning makes decision-making a lot more
simple than it is.
"ecision will get four benefits out of planning% . &lanning give chance to the establishment of
independent goals. +t is a conscious and directed series of choices. *. &lanning provides a standard
of measurement. +t is a measurement of whether you are going towards or further away from your
goal. .. &lanning converts values to action. Gou think twice about the plan and decide what will help
advance your plan best. 1. &lanning allows for limited resources to be committed in an orderly way.
9lways govern the use of what is limited to you. <e.g. money, time, etc.=
[.!
Analysis paralysis[edit]
9nalysis paralysis is the state of over-analy-ing <or over-thinking= a situation, or citing sources, so
that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paraly-ing the outcome.
Everyday techniques[edit]
"ecision-making techni4ues can be separated into two broad categories% Hroup decision-
making and individual decision-making techni4ues.
Group decision-making techniques[edit]
(onsensus decision-making tries to avoid 0winners0 and 0losers0. (onsensus re4uires that a
ma$ority approve a given course of action, but that the minority agree to go along with the course
of action. +n other words, if the minority opposes the course of action, consensus re4uires that
the course of action be modified to remove ob$ectionable features.
Ioting-based methods .
,ange voting lets each member score one or more of the available options. 2he
option with the highest average is chosen. 2his method has e'perimentally been shown to
produce the lowest Jayesian regret among common voting methods, even when voters are
strategic.
[citation needed!
>a$ority re4uires support from more than ;AB of the members of the group. 2hus,
the bar for action is lower than with unanimity and a group of 0losers0 is implicit to this rule.
[citation needed!
&lurality , where the largest block in a group decides, even if it falls short of a ma$ority.
"elphi method is structured communication techni4ue for groups, originally developed for
collaborative forecasting but has also been used for policy making.
"otmocracy is a facilitation method that relies on the use of special forms called "otmocracy
Sheets to allow large groups to collectively brainstorm and recogni-e agreement on an unlimited
number of ideas they have authored.
Individual decision-making techniques[edit]
&ros and cons% listing the advantages and disadvantages of each option, populari-ed
by &lato and Jen$amin Franklin.
[1![;!
(ontrast the costs and benefits of all alternatives. 9lso
called 0rational decision-making0.
Simple prioriti-ation % choosing the alternative with the highest probability-weighted utility for
each alternative <see "ecision analysis=.
Satisficing % e'amining alternatives only until an acceptable one is found.
Elimination by aspects% choosing between alternatives using >athematical psychology
[8!
2he
techni4ue was introduced by 9mos 2versky in 7@*. +t is a covert elimination process that
involves comparing all available alternatives by aspects. 2he decision-maker chooses an
aspectK any alternatives without that aspect are then eliminated. 2he decision-maker repeats this
process with as many aspects as needed until there remains only one alternative
[@!
&reference trees% +n 7@7, 2versky and Shmuel Sattach updated the elimination by aspects
techni4ue by presenting a more ordered and structured way of comparing the available
alternatives. 2his techni4ue compared the alternatives by presenting the aspects in a decided
and se4uential order. +t became a more hierarchical system in which the aspects are ordered
from general to specific
[D!
9c4uiesce to a person in authority or an 0e'pert0K 0$ust following orders0.
Flipism % flipping a coin, cutting a deck of playing cards, and other random or coincidence
methods
[7!
&rayer , tarot cards, astrology, augurs, revelation, or other forms of divination.
2aking the most opposite action compared to the advice of mistrusted authorities <parents,
police officers, partners...=
Epportunity cost % calculating the opportunity cost of each options and decide the decision.
Jureaucratic% set up criteria for automated decisions.
&olitical% negotiate choices among interest groups.
&articipative decision-making <&">=% a methodology in which a single decision-maker, in
order to take advantage of additional input, opens up the decision-making process to a group for
a collaborative effort.
Lse of a structured decision-making method.
[*A!
+ndividual decision-making techni4ues can often be applied by a group as part of a group decision-
making techni4ue.
9 need to use software for a decision-making process is emerging for individuals and businesses.
2his is due to increasing decision comple'ity and an increase in the need to consider additional
stakeholders, categories, elements or other factors that effect decisions.
Stages of grou decision-making[edit]
9ccording to J. 9ubrey Fisher, there are four stages or phases that should be involved in all group
decision-making%
[*!
Erientation. >embers meet for the first time and start to get to know each other.
(onflict. Ence group members become familiar with each other, disputes, little fights and
arguments occur. Hroup members eventually work it out.
Emergence. 2he group begins to clear up vague opinions by talking about them.
,einforcement. >embers finally make a decision and provide $ustification for it.
+t is said that critical norms in a group improves the 4uality of decisions, while the ma$ority of
opinions <called consensus norms= do not. 2his is due to collaboration between one another, and
when group members get used to, and familiar with, each other, they will tend to argue and create
more of a dispute to agree upon one decision. 2his does not mean that all group members fully
agreeK they may not want argue further $ust to be liked by other group members or to 0fit in0.
[**!
!ecision-making stes[edit]
Each step in the decision-making process may include social, cognitive and cultural obstacles to
successfully negotiating dilemmas. +t has been suggested that becoming more aware of these
obstacles allows one to better anticipate and overcome them.
[*.!
2he 9rkansas program presents
eight stages of moral decision-making based on the work of/ames ,est%
. Establishing community% creating and nurturing the relationships, norms, and procedures
that will influence how problems are understood and communicated. 2his stage takes place
prior to and during a moral dilemma.
*. &erception% recogni-ing that a problem e'ists.
.. +nterpretation% identifying competing e'planations for the problem, and evaluating the drivers
behind those interpretations.
1. /udgment% sifting through various possible actions or responses and determining which is
more $ustifiable.
;. >otivation% e'amining the competing commitments which may distract from a more moral
course of action and then prioriti-ing and committing to moral values over other personal,
institutional or social values.
8. 9ction% following through with action that supports the more $ustified decision. +ntegrity is
supported by the ability to overcome distractions and obstacles, developing implementing
skills, and ego strength.
@. ,eflection in action.
D. ,eflection on action.
Ether decision-making processes have also been proposed. Ene such process, proposed by &am
Jrown of Singleton #ospital in Swansea, Wales, breaks decision-making down into seven steps%
[*1!
1. Outline your goal and outcome.
2. Gather data.
3. Develop alternatives (i.e. !rainstorming"
#. $ist pros and cons o% each alternative.
&. 'a(e the decision.
). *mmediately ta(e action to implement it.
+. $earn %rom and re%lect on the decision.
"ognitive and ersonal biases[edit]
Jiases usually creep into decision-making processes. >any different people have made a decision
about the same 4uestion <e.g. 0Should + have a doctor look at this troubling breast cancer symptom
+3ve discoveredM0 0Why did + ignore the evidence that the pro$ect was going over budgetM0= and then
craft potential cognitive interventions aimed at improving the outcome of decision-making.
#ere is a list of commonly debated biases in $udgment and decision-making.
Selective search for evidence <aka confirmation biasK Scott &lous, 77.=. &eople tend to be
willing to gather facts that support certain conclusions but disregard other facts that support
different conclusions. +ndividuals who are highly defensive in this manner show significantly
greater left prefrontal corte' activity as measured by EEH than do less defensive individuals.
[*;!
&remature termination of search for evidence. &eople tend to accept the first alternative that
looks like it might work.
(ognitive inertia . Lnwillingness to change e'isting thought patterns in the face of new
circumstances.
Selective perception. We actively screen out information that we do not think is important
<see also pre$udice=. +n one demonstration of this effect, discounting of arguments with which
one disagrees <by $udging them as untrue or irrelevant= was decreased by selective activation of
right prefrontal corte'.
[*8!
Wishful thinking . 9 tendency to want to see things in a certain 6 usually positive 6 light, which
can distort perception and thinking.
[*@!
(hoice-supportive bias occurs when people distort their memories of chosen and re$ected
options to make the chosen options seem more attractive.
,ecency. &eople tend to place more attention on more recent information and either ignore
or forget more distant information <see semantic priming=. 2he opposite effect in the first set of
data or other information is termed primacy e%%ect.
[*D!
,epetition bias. 9 willingness to believe what one has been told most often and by the
greatest number of different sources.
9nchoring and ad$ustment . "ecisions are unduly influenced by initial information that shapes
our view of subse4uent information.
Hroup think . &eer pressure to conform to the opinions held by the group.
Source credibility bias. 9 tendency to re$ect a person3s statement on the basis of a bias
against the person, organi-ation, or group to which the person belongs. &eople preferentially
accept statement by others that they like <see pre$udice=.
+ncremental decision-making and escalating commitment. We look at a decision as a small
step in a process and this tends to perpetuate a series of similar decisions. 2his can be
contrasted with 0-ero-based decision-making0 <see slippery slope=.
9ttribution asymmetry . &eople tend to attribute their own success to internal factors,
including abilities and talents, but e'plain their failures in terms of e'ternal factors such as bad
luck. 2he reverse bias is shown when people e'plain others3 success or failure.
,ole fulfillment. 9 tendency to conform to others3 decision-making e'pectations.
Lnderestimating uncertainty and the illusion of control. &eople tend to underestimate future
uncertainty because of a tendency to believe they have more control over events than they
really do.
Framing bias . 2his is best avoided by using numeracy with absolute measures of efficacy.
[*7!
Sunk-cost fallacy . 9 specific type of framing effect that affects decision-making. +t
involves an individual making a decision about a current situation based on what they have
previously invested in the situation.
[.A!
9 possible e'ample to this would be an individual that
is refraining from dropping a class that that they are most likely to fail, due to the fact that
they feel as though they have done so much work in the course thus far.
&rospect theory . +nvolves the idea that when faced with a decision-making event, an
individual is more likely to take on a risk when evaluating potential losses, and are more likely to
avoid risks when evaluating potential gains. 2his can influence one3s decision-making depending
if the situation entails a threat, or opportunity.
[.!
,eference class forecasting was developed to eliminate or reduce cognitive biases in decision-
making.
Post-decision analysis[edit]
Evaluation and analysis of past decisions is complementary to decision-makingK see also mental
accounting and postmortem documentation.
"ognitive styles[edit]
Influence of yers-!riggs type[edit]
9ccording to behavioralist +sabel Jriggs >yers, a person3s decision-making process depends to a
significant degree on their cognitive style.
[.*!
>yers developed a set of four bi-polar dimensions,
called the >yers-Jriggs 2ype +ndicator <>J2+=. 2he terminal points on these dimensions
are% thin(ing and %eelingK e,troversion and introversionK -udgment andperceptionK
and sensing and intuition. She claimed that a person3s decision-making style correlates well with
how they score on these four dimensions. For e'ample, someone who scored near the thinking,
e'troversion, sensing, and $udgment ends of the dimensions would tend to have a logical, analytical,
ob$ective, critical, and empirical decision-making style. #owever, some
[who?!
psychologists say that
the >J2+ lacks reliability and validity and is poorly constructed.
Ether studies suggest that these national or cross-cultural differences e'ist across entire societies.
For e'ample, >aris >artinsons has found that 9merican, /apanese and (hinese business leaders
each e'hibit a distinctive national style of decision-making.
[..!
"ptimi#ing vs$ satisficing[edit]
#erbert 9. Simon coined the phrase 0bounded rationality0 to e'press the idea that human decision-
making is limited by available information, available time and the mind3s information-processing
ability. Simon also defined two cognitive styles% ma,imi.ers try to make an optimal decision,
whereas satis%icers simply try to find a solution that is 0good enough0. >a'imi-ers tend to take longer
making decisions due to the need to ma'imi-e performance across all variables and make tradeoffs
carefullyK they also tend to more often regret their decisions <perhaps because they are more able
than satisficers to recognise that a decision turned out to be sub-optimal=.
[.1!
%ombinatorial vs$ positional[edit]
Styles and methods of decision-making were elaborated by 9ron Natsenelinboigen, the founder
of predispositioning theory. +n his analysis on styles and methods, Natsenelinboigen referred to the
game of chess, saying that Ochess does disclose various methods of operation, notably the creation
of predisposition 6 methods which may be applicable to other, more comple' systems.P
[.;!
+n his book, Natsenelinboigen states that apart from the methods <reactive and selective= and sub-
methods <randomi-ation, predispositioning, programming=, there are two ma$or styles% positional and
combinational. Joth styles are utili-ed in the game of chess. 9ccording to Natsenelinboigen, the two
styles reflect two basic approaches to the uncertainty% deterministic <combinational style= and
indeterministic <positional style=. NatsenelinboigenQs definition of the two styles are the following.
2his article contains embedded lists that may be poorly
defined& unverified or indiscriminate. &lease help to clean it up to meet
Wikipedia3s 4uality standards. Where appropriate, incorporate items into
the main body of the article. (/e!ruary 2001"
2he combinational style is characteri-ed by%
a very narrow, clearly defined, primarily material goalK and
a program that links the initial position with the final outcome.
+n defining the combinational style in chess, Natsenelinboigen writes%
2he combinational style features a clearly formulated limited ob$ective, namely the capture of
material <the main constituent element of a chess position=. 2he ob$ective is implemented via a well-
defined, and in some cases, uni4ue se4uence of moves aimed at reaching the set goal. 9s a rule,
this se4uence leaves no options for the opponent. Finding a combinational ob$ective allows the
player to focus all his energies on efficient e'ecution, that is, the playerQs analysis may be limited to
the pieces directly partaking in the combination. 2his approach is the cru' of the combination and
the combinational style of play.
[.;!
2he positional style is distinguished by%
a positional goalK and
a formation of semi-complete linkages between the initial step and final outcome.
OLnlike the combinational player, the positional player is occupied, first and foremost, with the
elaboration of the position that will allow him to develop in the unknown future. +n playing the
positional style, the player must evaluate relational and material parameters as independent
variables. ... 2he positional style gives the player the opportunity to develop a position until it
becomes pregnant with a combination. #owever, the combination is not the final goal of the
positional playerRit helps him to achieve the desirable, keeping in mind a predisposition for the
future development. 2he pyrrhic victory is the best e'ample of oneQs inability to think positionally.0
[.8!
2he positional style serves to%
create a predisposition to the future development of the positionK
induce the environment in a certain wayK
absorb an une'pected outcome in oneQs favorK
avoid the negative aspects of une'pected outcomes.
Natsenelinboigen writes%
09s the game progressed and defense became more sophisticated the combinational style of
play declined. ... 2he positional style of chess does not eliminate the combinational one with
its attempt to see the entire program of action in advance. 2he positional style merely
prepares the transformation to a combination when the latter becomes feasible.P
[.@!
#euroscience[edit]
"ecision-making is a region of intense study in the fields of systems neuroscience, and cognitive
neuroscience. Several brain structures, including the anterior cingulate
corte'<9((=, orbitofrontal corte' and the overlapping ventromedial prefrontal corte' are believed
to be involved in decision-making processes. 9 recent neuroimaging study
[.D!
found distinctive
patterns of neural activation in these regions depending on whether decisions were made on the
basis of perceived personal volition or following directions from someone else. &atients with
damage to the ventromedial prefrontal corte' have difficulty making advantageous decisions.
[.7!
9 common laboratory paradigm for studying neural decision-making is the two-alternative forced
choice task <29F(=, in which a sub$ect has to choose between two alternatives within a certain
time. 9 study of a two-alternative forced choice task involving rhesus monkeys found that
neurons in the parietal corte' not only represent the formation of a decision but also signal the
degree of certainty <or 0confidence0= associated with the decision.
[1A!
9nother recent study found
that lesions to the 9(( in the maca4ue resulted in impaired decision-making in the long run of
reinforcement guided tasks suggesting that the 9(( may be involved in evaluating past
reinforcement information and guiding future action.
[1!
9 *A* study found that rats and humans
can optimally accumulate incoming sensory evidence, to make statistically optimal decisions.
[1*!
Emotion appears able to aid the decision-making process. "ecision-making often occurs in the
face of uncertainty about whether one3s choices will lead to benefit or harm <see also risk=.
2he somatic-marker hypothesis is a neurobiological theory of how decisions are made in the
face of uncertain outcome. 2his theory holds that such decisions are aided by emotions, in the
form of bodily states, that are elicited during the deliberation of future conse4uences and that
mark different options for behavior as being advantageous or disadvantageous. 2his process
involves an interplay between neural systems that elicit emotional?bodily states and neural
systems that map these emotional?bodily states.
[1.!
9lthough it is unclear whether the studies generali-e to all processing, subconscious processes
have been implicated in the initiation of conscious volitional movements. See the)euroscience
of free will.
!ecision-making in adolescents vs. adults[edit]
2his section needs additional citations for verification. &lease
help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Lnsourced material may be challenged and removed. ('ay 201#"
"uring their adolescent years, teens are known for their high-risk behaviors and rash decisions.
2here has not, however, been that much research in this area. ,ecent research
[citation needed!
has
shown, though, that there are some differences in cognitive processes between adolescents and
adults during decision-making. ,esearchers have concluded that differences in decision-making
are not due to a lack of logic or reasoning, but more due to the immaturity
of psychosocial capacities, capacities that influence decision-making. E'amples would be
impulse control, emotion regulation, delayed gratification and resistance to peer pressure. +n the
past, researchers have thought that adolescent behavior was simply due to incompetency
regarding decision-making. (urrently, researchers have concluded that adults and adolescents
are both competent decision-makers, not $ust adults. #owever, adolescentsQ competent
decision-making skills decrease when psychosocial capacities become present.
,ecent research
[citation needed!
has shown that risk-taking behaviors in adolescents may be the
product of interactions between the socioemotional brain network and its cognitive-control
network. 2he socioemotional part of the brain processes social and emotional stimuli and has
been shown to be important in reward processing. 2he cognitive-control network assists in
planning and self-regulation. Joth of these sections of the brain change over the course
of puberty. #owever, the socioemotional network changes 4uickly and abruptly, while the
cognitive-control network changes more gradually. Jecause of this difference in change the
cognitive-control network, which usually regulates the socioemotional network, [the adolescentM!
struggles to control the socioemotional network when psychosocial capacities are present.
[clari%ication needed!
When adolescents are e'posed to social and emotional stimuli, their socioemotional network is
activated as well as areas of the brain involved in reward processing. Jecause teens often gain
a sense of reward from risk-taking behaviors, their repetition becomes ever more probable due
to the reward e'perienced. +n this, the process mirrors addiction. 2eens can become addicted to
risky behavior because they are in a high state of arousal and are rewarded for it not only by
their own internal functions but also by their peers around them.
2his is why adults are generally better able to control their risk-taking because their cognitive-
control system has matured enough to the point where it can control the socioemotional
network, even in the conte't of high arousal or when psychosocial capacities are present. 9lso,
adults are less likely to find themselves in situations that push them to do risky things. For
e'ample, teens are more likely to be around peers who peer pressure them into doing things,
while adults are not as e'posed to this sort of social setting.
[11![1;!