Abstract Risk-taking in young people is often attributed to a mismatch between slowly maturing cognitive control networks and overactive reward networks, leading to impulsive actions. However, evidence is inconsistent, and these models do not account for individual differences or differentiate between adaptive and maladaptive risk-taking. More recent theories seek to address these limitations; yet most evidence relies on self-report rather than neural measures of control and reward systems. This study explores cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between cognitive control and adaptive and maladaptive risk-taking in 15–35-year-olds assessed 2 to 4 years apart (n = 73). Cognitive control was assessed with behavioural and EEG (i.e., switch positivity) measures derived from a cued-trials task-switching paradigm. Risk Adjustment (i.e., adaptive risk-taking) and Impulsivity (i.e. maladaptive risk-taking) were measured using the Cambridge Gambling Task and Information Sampling Task, respectively. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine relationships between these measures, how they change over time, and the impact of age. Cognitive control and Impulsivity peaked in young adulthood. Risk Adjustment increased slightly over time, but not significantly, and not significantly differ by age. An increase Switch Positivity amplitude from Time 1 to Time 2 was associated with a decrease in Impulsivity, regardless of age. Initial cognitive control did not predict changes in Risk Adjustment or Impulsivity. These findings support models that emphasise individual variability in cognitive control as more accurate predictors of impulsive behaviour than age alone. They also highlight the need for consistent definitions of constructs, such as cognitive control, impulsivity, and risk-taking, across different measurement levels.
Hunter et al. (Fri,) studied this question.