Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Eshana Patel
Table of Contents
Table of Contents………………..…………………………...……………...……..………..…… 1
Acknowledgements…..………………………………………………………..……..……..……. 2
Purpose………………………………………………………………………………………….... 3
Hypotheses……………………………………………………...…....…………...…………..….. 4
Review of Literature………………………………………………....………..….…….…...…… 7
Materials……………………………………………………...…… …………………………... 12
Variables……………………………………………………...…….…..……………………..…
13
Procedure……………………………………………………………………..……….…..……. 15
Data………………….………………………………………………………………………….. 16
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..…….. 20
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..……... 23
Error Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..……. 28
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..……..… 29
Reference List………………………………………………………………………..……….… 32
1
Patel
2018
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank Ms. Camel for encouraging me and helping me
throughout the stages of my project. I would also like to thank my parents for their continuous
2
Patel
2018
Purpose
The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether adolescents and adults perform
differently on pattern-based tests depending on the amount of incentive and punishment given.
3
Patel
2018
Hypotheses
I. If adolescents and adults are tested on pattern recognition using seven digital tests (1.
Test without any incentive or punishment, 2. Test with a digital incentive and no
punishment, 3. Test with a tangible incentive and no punishment, 4. Test with no digital
incentive and a digital punishment, 5. Test with no tangible incentive and a tangible
punishment, 6. Test with a digital incentive and a digital punishment, 7. Test with a
tangible incentive and a tangible punishment), then adolescents will have statistically
II. If adolescents and adults are tested on pattern recognition using seven digital tests (1.
Test without any incentive or punishment, 2. Test with a digital incentive and no
punishment, 3. Test with a tangible incentive and no punishment, 4. Test with no digital
incentive and a digital punishment, 5. Test with no tangible incentive and a tangible
punishment, 6. Test with a digital incentive and a digital punishment, 7. Test with a
tangible incentive and a tangible punishment), then adults will have statistically
III. If adolescents and adults are tested on pattern recognition using seven digital tests (1.
Test without any incentive or punishment, 2. Test with a digital incentive and no
punishment, 3. Test with a tangible incentive and no punishment, 4. Test with no digital
incentive and a digital punishment, 5. Test with no tangible incentive and a tangible
punishment, 6. Test with a digital incentive and a digital punishment, 7. Test with a
4
Patel
2018
tangible incentive and a tangible punishment), then adolescents and adults will
IV. If adolescents and adults are tested on pattern recognition using seven digital tests (1.
Test without any incentive or punishment, 2. Test with a digital incentive and no
punishment, 3. Test with a tangible incentive and no punishment, 4. Test with no digital
incentive and a digital punishment, 5. Test with no tangible incentive and a tangible
punishment, 6. Test with a digital incentive and a digital punishment, 7. Test with a
tangible incentive and a tangible punishment), then adults will have a higher average
score increase from Test 1 to Test 4 and from Test 4 to Test 5 compared to adolescents.
V. If adolescents and adults are tested on pattern recognition using seven digital tests (1.
Test without any incentive or punishment, 2. Test with a digital incentive and no
punishment, 3. Test with a tangible incentive and no punishment, 4. Test with no digital
incentive and a digital punishment, 5. Test with no tangible incentive and a tangible
punishment, 6. Test with a digital incentive and a digital punishment, 7. Test with a
tangible incentive and a tangible punishment), then adolescents will have a higher
average score increase from Test 1 to Test 2 and from Test 2 to Test 3 compared to
adolescents.
VI. If adolescents and adults are tested on pattern recognition using seven digital tests (1.
Test without any incentive or punishment, 2. Test with a digital incentive and no
punishment, 3. Test with a tangible incentive and no punishment, 4. Test with no digital
incentive and a digital punishment, 5. Test with no tangible incentive and a tangible
punishment, 6. Test with a digital incentive and a digital punishment, 7. Test with a
5
Patel
2018
tangible incentive and a tangible punishment), then adolescents and adults will have the
same or similar average score increase from Test 1 to Test 6 and from Test 6 to Test 7.
the presence of incentive, whether digital or tangible. Since adults do not have the
will better consider the effects of punishment on their outcome and therefore perform better with
the presence of punishment on tests. Adults will also learn at a quicker pace with the further
While both incentive and punishment are present, adolescents and adults will be affected
similarly and therefore perform similarly. This is because reward appeals more to adolescents
and punishment helps adults learn more than it does adolescents. When both parties are given
6
Patel
2018
Review of Literature
During adolescence, the brain’s reward-seeking center develops and is at its highest
potential. The striatum, which is the region in the brain implicated with reward-processing, is
One study suggests that the reason adolescents are more likely to respond to rewards compared
to adults is that the striatum is especially sensitive during these crucial developmental years, and
can tap directly into a brain region that is critical for learning and habit formation (Nauert, 2015).
their fully developed striatum and hippocampus allow for better decision-making and
risk-assessing skills (Palminteri, 2016). Understanding the effect variations of rewards and
learning content can result in more effective educational programs and therefore more successful
students.
During adolescence, the human brain is undergoing major developments that set the path
for their adulthood. This period of development in the brain lasts longer than adolescence,
usually until the age of 25 (Cox, 2011). A common result of this development is impulsive
behavior among adolescents and young adults. An area that is particularly important during this
stage is the cortex. The cortex, also known as the cerebrum, is the largest part of the brain. It is
divided into four sections, called “lobes.” They are called the frontal lobe, parietal lobe, occipital
7
Patel
2018
lobe, and temporal lobe. This majority of the brain is where most of thought, memory, and
perception of stimuli is based (Kinser, 2012). The amount of gray matter in the cortex increases
during early childhood and begins to decline during adolescence, which is a necessary part of
maturation. The increase in gray matter also means an increase in synapses at a young age, which
is then followed by a decrease in synapses as gray matter volume decreases. Synapses are how
neurons communicate with each other, creating the basis of productive circuitry in the brain (The
Teen Brain Still Under Reconstruction, 2011). The increase in synapses during adolescence is a
significant reason behind impulsive behaviour common among teenagers. One article states,
“Research during the past 10 years, powered by technology such as functional magnetic
resonance imaging, has revealed that young brains have both fast-growing synapses and sections
that remain unconnected. This leaves teens easily influenced by their environment and more
prone to impulsive behavior, even without the impact of souped-up hormones and any genetic or
family predispositions” (Ruder, 2008). The striatum, which is often considered to be the
adolescents ages 13 to 17 have been seen to display increased activity in the striatum when
confronted with a risky decision and/or reward. While the development of the cortex is related to
impulsive behavior among teens, it is the striatum that fuels a desire to partake in that behavior.
Due to this, the striatum is at a heightened sensitivity during crucial developmental years
(Mascarelli, 2012).
Although the striatum is most commonly regarded as the reward-center of the human
brain, research reports slight differences in the striatum’s function between adolescents and
adults. In adolescents, the neural processing within the striatum was generally more associated
8
Patel
2018
with reward processing. In adults, the neural processing was generally more associated with
learning compared to reward processing. Adolescents, more so than adults, had a larger
proportion of neurons in the striatum that were sensitive and therefore responded better to the
reward-seeking between adolescents and adults are evident in multiple areas, including social
situations. The research says, “These findings suggest that, during adolescence, peers influence
recruitment of reward-related regions even when they are engaged outside of the context of
risk-taking” (Smith, Steinberg, Strang, & Chein, 2014). When socially involved with peers,
adolescents have higher activity in their striatum compared to adults interacting with peers.
Adults’ striatal response to reward is not dependent on social context. Through these previous
studies, it is shown that the striatum’s sensitivity during adolescence not only acts as a catalyst
for impulsive behavior, but also is shown to display higher activity in social situations regarding
peers.
The hippocampus is a small region of the brain that is primarily associated with spatial
navigation and memory (Mandal, 2014). The striatum, however, is responsible for learning from
reward. The hippocampus and striatum work together to learn from award, especially in
adolescents when brain activity levels in these two regions are higher. In an experiment studying
adolescents’ and adults’ ability to memorize and recall neutral images shown during a
reward-based game, both adolescents and adults scored about equally. However, their aptitude
for memorization and learning were shown in different ways. Adolescents were more likely to
recall images shown when they were associated with a correct answer during the test compared
to adults (Ross, 2016). This study suggests that information associated with correctness or
9
Patel
2018
reward is more likely to be recalled later within a group of adolescents versus a group of adults.
The striatum’s sensitivity during adolescence aids in memorization and learning when rewards
are present. The susception to rewards and impulsive behavior common among teenagers also
shows an increase in motivation. Risk-taking is most prominent during adolescence and declines
with age because of changes in the brain’s cognitive control system. These changes that come
with age and further brain development improve an individual’s capacity for processing
consequences and self-regulation. These changes occur during this crucial developmental stage,
(Steinberg, 2008). When impulsive behavior is combined with sensitivity to reward, adolescents
tend to become more motivated when incentive is involved. Impulsive behavior causes an
adolescent to desire to act without thinking about consequence, while high activity in the
striatum causes an adolescent to desire to do what is needed to achieve the reward. These past
studies exemplify the positive effects a highly sensitized striatum can have on the learning,
punishments. In a recent study testing the differences in response to reward and punishment
between teenagers and adults, adolescent performance did not benefit from negative feedback.
Adults were more symmetrical in response to reward and punishment. While adults learned and
acted equally as well based on reward and punishment, adolescents learned from reward but
were not as likely to learn from punishment. This further proves the heightened sensitivity of the
striatum during adolescence, and its dominance over considering alternative consequences when
making decisions (Palminteri, Kilford, Coricelli, & Blakemore, 2016). This can also lead to
10
Patel
2018
further conclusions on why impulsive behavior is more prominent during adolescence, as the
shows the efficiency of having teenagers learn by reward rather than punishment. On the other
hand, adults were shown to respond to punishment more effectively than adolescents. The adult
brain is much more stable in its ability to process risk and to make practical decisions, resulting
in a more cautious response when given the opportunity to be punished compared to adolescents.
The heightened sensitivity of the striatum during adolescence due to brain development
and its relation to how adolescents learn and memorize can lead to improvements in academic
adults while learning can prove to be vital information for the improvement of educational
programs meant for adults. Therefore, it is critical for education institutions to consider the
benefit of accommodating reward-based systems of learning in middle schools and high schools.
education institutions. Teachers catering to adolescents’ enthusiasm and sensitivity to awards can
have a positive effect on the education of both adolescents and adults, which results in a better
11
Patel
2018
Materials
- 1 Chromebook
12
Patel
2018
Variables
I. Independent
A. Seven tests
chocolate)
(booing noise)
II. Dependent
A. Scores
13
Patel
2018
B. The same clapping noise was used for every correct answer in a test involving
digital incentive
C. The same booing noise was used for every incorrect answer in a test involving
digital incentive
D. The same types of chocolate were given to every participant for every 30 points
participant wins 30 points, they receive another piece of chocolate, and if the
14
Patel
2018
Procedure
b. The amount of time taken for each trial is dependent on the participant
c. For tests involving tangible incentive and punishment, every 30 points gained on
the test results in the participant receiving a piece of chocolate and every 30
d. For tests involving tangible punishment, place 5 Kit-Kats and 5 M&M’s next to
the participant taking the test and give or take away chocolate accordingly.
15
Patel
2018
Data
16
Patel
2018
17
Patel
2018
18
Patel
2018
19
Patel
2018
20
Patel
2018
Data Analysis
A total of 50 participants were tested in this experiment. As shown in Graph 1 and Graph
2, 25 of the participants were adolescents and the other 25 were adults. Test 1 involved
identifying patterns in a game with no incentive. Test 2 involved identifying patterns in a game
with digital incentive. Test 3 involved identifying patterns in a game with digital and physical
incentive. Test 4 involved identifying patterns in a game with digital punishment. Test 5
involved identifying patterns in a game with tangible punishment. Test 6 involved identifying
patterns in a game with digital incentive and punishment. Test 7 involved identifying patterns in
a game with tangible incentive and punishment. Each correct answer resulted in an addition of 10
points to the participant’s score (which was displayed at the top of the game screen). Each test
In general, adolescents performed better on the tests involving solely incentive (Tests 2
and 3) and adults performed better on the tests involving solely punishment (Tests 4 and 5).
When tests involved either no incentive or punishment at all or both incentive and punishment
In Graph 1, the tests scores for all seven tests for adolescents are shown. The trend shown
by the bars in the graph display that adolescents generally perform the best on tests involving
incentive, especially physical incentive. The opposite is shown of adults in Graph 2, where the
higher scores tend to come from tests involving punishment. While these patterns are not true for
every single participant, it is evident that the trend holds true for the majority of participants.
Graph 3 shows the test score averages for adolescents. The average for Test 1 was 170.8,
the average for Test 2 was 200.4, the average for Test 3 was 238.8, the average for Test 4 was
21
Patel
2018
164, the average for Test 5 was 166, the average for Test 6 was 200.8, and the average for Test 7
was 207.6. These results show significant improvement, on average, for adolescents as the
incentive per test increased. However, for the tests involving solely punishment, adolescents
tended to not perform as strongly as they had previously on tests involving incentive. The
averages for tests with both incentive and punishment, Tests 6 and 7, have high score averages,
but they are still lower than the test score average for Test 3, which involved only a tangible
incentive.
Graph 4 shows the test score averages for adults. The average for Test 1 was 170.4, the
average for Test 2 was 185.2, the average for Test 3 was 198.8, the average for Test 4 was 215.2,
the average for Test 5 was 223.6, the average for Test 6 was 199.6, and the average for Test 7
was 205.2. These results show improvement, on average, for adults as the incentive per test
increased. However, the improvement was not as drastic with adults as it was with adolescents.
Additionally, adults tended to improve significantly as punishment became a factor in the tests.
The increase in average test scores from Test 1 to Test 3 was not as significant as the increase
from Test 1 to Test 5. The highest score averages for adults come from tests involving solely
punishment, and the test score average of Tests 6 and 7, which involved both incentive and
punishment, are higher than the score averages of Tests 2 and 3, which had only incentive.
While there was only a 0.4 point difference in average Test 1 scores for adolescents and
adults, adolescents improve by 29.6 points from Test 1 to Test 2 and adults by only 14.8 points.
Adolescents improve by 38.4 points from Test 2 to Test 3 while adults improve by 13.6 points.
From Test 1 to Test 3, adolescents improve by 68 points while adults improve by 28.4 points.
From Test 1 to Test 4, adolescents decrease their average score by 6.8 points while adults
22
Patel
2018
improve it by 44.8 points. From Test 5 to Test 6, adolescents improve their average score by 2
points while adults improve it by 8.4 points. Adolescents and adults improve from Test 1 to Test
6 and Test 6 to Test 7 almost equally. Adolescents improved from Test 1 to Test 6 by 30 points
while adults improved by 29.2 points. The difference between the two is only 0.8 points.
Adolescents improved from Test 6 to Test 7 by 6.8 points while adults improved by 5.6 points.
While each participant performed differently on each test, it is clear that adolescents
performed better on tests involving incentive, while adults performed better on tests involving
punishment.
23
Patel
2018
Discussion
Although the hypotheses were fully supported within the sample of 50 participants, there
were slight differences when using statistics to prove the experiment’s significance when
applying to the general population of adolescents and adults. 2-sample t tests were used to
compare the data between tests. For all of the t tests, the data for each participant was
independent from each other. The data was not normal for any of the tests, therefore the statistics
For the first 2-sample t test, Test 1 scores for adolescents and adults were compared. The
p value was 0.9783, which was greater than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics fail to
reject the null hypothesis because enough evidence to show that the averages between
The second 2-sample t test compared Test 2 scores between adolescents and adults. The
alternative hypothesis was the average adolescent score being greater than the average adult
score. The p value was 0.2875, which was greater than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics
fail to reject the null hypothesis because enough evidence to show that the the average adolescent
score was higher than the average adult score was not present. This statistic disproved part of the
hypothesis, as the hypothesis predicted a higher average adolescent score on Test 2 compared to
adults.
The third 2-sample t test compared Test 3 scores between adolescents and adults. The
alternative hypothesis was the average adolescent score being greater than the average adult
score. The p value was 0.0104, which was less than the α value of 0.1. Therefore the statistics
24
Patel
2018
reject the null hypothesis because there was enough information to show that the average score
for adolescents was higher than the average score for adults.
The fourth 2-sample t test compared Test 4 scores between adolescents and adults. The
alternative hypothesis was the average adolescent score being less than the average adult score.
The p value was 0.00131, which was less than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics reject
the null hypothesis as there was enough information present to show that the average score for
The fifth 2-sample t test compared Test 5 scores between adolescents and adults. The
alternative hypothesis was the average adolescent score being less than the average adult score.
The p value was 3.48x10-7, which was less than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics reject
the null hypothesis as there was enough information present to show that the average score for
The sixth 2-sample t test compared Test 6 scores between adolescents and adults. The
alternative hypothesis was the average adolescent score not being equal to the average adult
score. The p value was 0.965, which was more than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics
fail to reject the null hypothesis as there wasn’t enough information present to show that the
The seventh 2-sample t test compared Test 7 scores between adolescents and adults. The
alternative hypothesis was the average adolescent score not being equal to the average adult
score. The p value was 0.458, which was more than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics
fail to reject the null hypothesis as there wasn’t enough information present to show that the
25
Patel
2018
2-sample t tests were used comparing Test 1 scores to Test 3 scores for both adolescents
and adults. Both had an alternative hypothesis of Test 1 scores being less than Test 3 scores. For
adolescents, the p value was 0.00021, which was less than the α value of 0.1, so the statistics
reject the null hypothesis because there was enough information to show that the average score
for adolescents for Test 1 was lower than the average score for Test 3. The p score for adults was
0.0099, which was less than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics reject the null hypothesis
because there was enough information to show that the average score for adults for Test 1 was
lower than the average score for Test 3. Although both groups improved with the addition of
incentive, the p value for adolescents was much smaller in comparison to the p value for adults.
Due to this, it was apparent that adolescents improved much more than adults with the addition
of incentive.
2-sample t tests were used comparing Test 1 scores to Test 5 scores for both adolescents
and adults. Both had an alternative hypothesis for Test 1 scores being less than Test 5 scores. For
adolescents, the p value was 0.6315, which was more than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the
statistics fail to reject the null hypothesis because there was not enough evidence to prove that
Test 1 scores were lower than Test 5 scores for adolescents. The p score for adults was
5.626x10-6, which was less than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics reject the null
hypothesis because there was enough information to show that the average score for adults for
Test 1 was lower than the average score for Test 3. In this case, only adults performed better on
26
Patel
2018
Test 5 compared to Test 1. Due to this, it is evident that adults perform better in the presence of
2-sample t tests were used comparing Test 1 scores to Test 7 scores for both adolescents
and adults. Both had an alternative hypothesis for Test 1 scores being less than Test 7 scores. For
adolescents, the p value was 0.00459, which was more than the α value of 0.1. Therefore, the
statistics reject the null hypothesis because there was enough evidence to show that adolescents
did better on Test 7 than on Test 1. The p score for adults was 0.02367, which was more than the
α value of 0.1. Therefore, the statistics reject the null hypothesis because there was enough
evidence to show that adults did better on Test 7 than on Test 1. Due to this, it is evident that
both adolescents and adults perform better in the presence of incentive and punishment than in
the absence of both. However, the p value for adolescents was significantly lower than the p
value for adults, indicating that adolescents respond to incentive and punishment better than
adults do.
27
Patel
2018
Error Analysis
In this experiment, error could be found in the method of physical incentive and/or a
participant’s inclination towards pattern recognition. If a participant does not like the physical
incentive provided (chocolate) then Tests 3 and 7 would be inaccurate tests to measure the
participant’s ability to identify and memorize patterns. Also, some participants may be able to
identify patterns easily before the experiment, and therefore was able to do well enough on the
first test where there was no room for improvement to be made with the addition of incentives
and punishments. The first error can be solved by including various types of incentives in the
experiment so that there is a higher chance of a participant finding at least one of the items
rewarding. The second error cannot be fixed due to the fact that participants were chosen based
off of age, not based off of ability. A participant’s ability can not be determined before the
experiment as the experiment involves testing the ability of a participant to recognize pattern.
28
Patel
2018
Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether adolescents perform better on
compared to adolescents. The first hypothesis was that adolescents would have a statistically
significant higher score on Tests 2 and 3 compared to adults. The second hypothesis was that
adults would have a statistically significant higher score on Tests 4 and 5 compared to
adolescents. The third hypothesis was that adolescents and adults would statistically have the
same test scores on Tests 1, 6, and 7. The fourth hypothesis was that adults would have a higher
average score increase from Test 1 to Test 4 and Test 4 to Test 5 compared to adolescents. The
fifth hypothesis was that adolescents would have a higher average score increase from Test 1 to
Test 2 and Test 2 to Test 3 compared to adults. The sixth hypothesis was that adolescents and
adults would have the same average score increase from Test 1 to Test 6 and Test 6 to Test 7.
The procedure for this experiment involved programming seven pattern-recognition and
memorization based tests using Scratch and administering the tests to 25 adolescents and 25
adults. Test 1 involved no incentive or punishment, Test 2 involved a digital incentive, Test 3
involved a tangible incentive, Test 4 involved a digital punishment, Test 5 involved a tangible
punishment, Test 6 involved a digital incentive and punishment, and Test 7 involved a tangible
incentive and punishment. Each test involved an animated fox and two distinct trees- one place
29
Patel
2018
on the upper right corner of the screen and the other on the bottom right corner. The objective
was to predict which tree the fox would want to approach. This tested pattern-recognition and
memorization as participants had to identify the unique pattern present in each of the seven tests,
as well as memorize the actions of the fox to accurately predict where it would want to go next.
Each correct answer resulted in the addition of 10 points to the score displayed on the top left
corner of the screen, while each incorrect answer resulted in the loss of 10 points. The digital
incentive was a clapping noise, and the digital punishment was a booing noise. The tangible
incentive was receiving chocolate, and the tangible punishment was losing chocolate. At the
beginning of each test involving tangible incentive, the participant was shown a pile of 10 pieces
of chocolate. For every 30 points lost in the test, the participant would see one piece of chocolate
being removed. If the participant gained 30 points in a test where they are rewarded with tangible
incentive, the participant would see a piece of chocolate added to their pile. After the tests were
administered, the scores were recorded and analyzed for their statistical significance.
Based on the results of the experiment, all six of the hypotheses were supported.
Adolescents performed better and improved at a higher rate on the tests with the addition of
incentives, while adults performed better and improved at a higher rate on the tests with the
addition of punishment. In the absence of both incentive and punishment, as well as in the
presence of both, adolescents and adults performed the same on the tests. Statistics from
2-sample t tests show that adolescents had a significant improvement with the addition of a
tangible incentive in Test 3 compared to no incentive in Test 1. A similar trend is evident among
adult participants in their improvement from Test 1 to Test 5. Trends in Graph 1 show that
adolescents typically perform best in the presence of incentives and not as well in the presence of
30
Patel
2018
punishment. The opposite is true of adults, as shown in Graph 2. These experimental results and
statistics prove that the hyperactive striatum during adolescence can be useful when incentive is
used in academic settings. Additionally, the fully developed hippocampus in adults leads to
better risk detection and decision making, which results in a heightened response to punishment.
While the statistics from 2-sample t tests discussed supported the hypotheses, a portion of
Hypothesis I was proven to be incorrect. The statistics indicate that there is significant and equal
growth from Test 1 to Test 2 between adolescents and adults. Despite this being true, the p value
for adolescents (0.00021) was significantly lower than that of adults (0.0099), showing that
adolescents improved much more than adults with the inclusion of incentive to the tests.
These results are significant because they show that adolescents are especially responsive
to incentive, and adults are more susceptible to punishment. With this information, middle school
and high school teachers can increase the use of incentive to both motivate their students and
improve their performance in academics. University professors, among other teachers who teach
adults, can increase the use of punishment to motivate their students and improve their
performance in academics. Being able to prove that adolescents improve significantly on tests
with the addition of incentives and that adults improve significantly on tests with the addition of
punishment will help in improving academic scores and achievements for current and future
31
Patel
2018
Reference List
Cox, T. (2011, October 10). Brain maturity extends well beyond teen years [Blog post].
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708
Galvan, A. (2010, February 12). Adolescent Development of the Reward System. Retrieved
October 27, 2016, from National Center for Biotechnology Information website:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826184/
Kinser, P. A. (2012, September 5). Brain Structures and their Functions. Retrieved November 3,
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Structure1.html
Mandal, A. (2014, October 8). What is the Hippocampus? Retrieved November 3, 2016, from
http://www.news-medical.net/health/Hippocampus-What-is-the-Hippocampus.aspx
Mascarelli, A. L. (2012, October 17). The teenage brain. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/teenage-brain
32
Patel
2018
Nauert, R. (2015). Rat Study Suggests Different Reward System in Teen Brain. Retrieved
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/01/19/rat-study-suggests-different-reward-system-in-t
een-brain/33799.html
Palminteri, S., Kilford, E. J., Coricelli, G., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2016, June 20). The
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004953
Ross, E. (2016, October 6). Teens’ Penchant For Risk-Taking May Help Them Learn Faster.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/10/06/496793162/teens-penchant-for-risk-
taking-may-help-them-learn-faster
Ruder, D. B. (2008, September). The Teen Brain. Retrieved November 2, 2016, from Harvard
Smith, A. R., Steinberg, L., Strang, N., & Chein, J. (2014). Age differences in the impact of
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929314000619
Retrieved November 3, 2016, from National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396566/
33
Patel
2018
Sturman, D. A., & Moghaddam, B. (2012, January 17). Striatum processes reward differently in
adolescents versus adults. Retrieved November 3, 2016, from National Center for
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277117/
The Teen Brain Still Under Construction. (2011). Retrieved November 2, 2016, from National
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-still-under-construction/ind
ex.shtml#pub3
34