Dr. Yimeli Lonpa Mirabelle (1)
Adolescence is widely recognized as a critical period of human development, marked by profound neurocognitive, emotional, and social changes. Neurocognitive development during this period is characterized by the maturation of the prefrontal cortex, which underpins executive functions such as working memory, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and decision-making abilities. Simultaneously, the limbic system, responsible for processing rewards and emotional stimuli, undergoes heightened activity. According to Steinberg’s Dual Systems Model (2008), this asynchronous development where the socioemotional reward system develops faster than the cognitive control system renders adolescents particularly susceptible to engaging in risk-taking behaviors. Complementary to this, Casey’s Imbalance Model (2010) posits that heightened reward sensitivity combined with incomplete cognitive regulation contributes to impulsivity and risk-prone decision-making. In the context of rural Cameroon, such as the villages of Bamenda II Sub-Division in the Mezam Division, socio-cultural factors, including family structures, peer influence, community norms, and access to education, can either exacerbate or mitigate these neurocognitive vulnerabilities. Despite the theoretical significance, empirical studies examining neurocognitive development and its association with risk-taking behavior in rural Cameroonian adolescents remain scarce, highlighting the need for context-specific research. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between neurocognitive development and risk-taking behaviors among adolescents aged 12–18 years across selected villages in Bamenda II Sub-Division. A cross-sectional, mixed-methods research design was employed to provide a comprehensive understanding of both the neurocognitive and socio-cultural determinants of adolescent behavior. Stratified random sampling was used to select a total of 300 participants from five villages, ensuring a representative sample across gender, age, and educational background. Quantitative data were collected using standardized neuropsychological instruments to assess executive functions, including working memory (n-back task), inhibitory control (Stroop test), and cognitive flexibility (Wisconsin Card Sorting Test). Risk-taking behaviors were evaluated using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) and a culturally adapted self-report questionnaire, designed to capture behaviors such as substance use, unsafe sexual practices, reckless driving, and other impulsive activities. In addition to quantitative measures, qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with adolescents, parents, and local educators to explore socio-cultural influences on risk-taking behavior. These interviews aimed to capture peer pressure dynamics, family supervision practices, and community-level norms that might contribute to risk engagement. This combination of quantitative and qualitative data allowed for triangulation, enhancing the validity and reliability of findings while providing a nuanced understanding of adolescent behavior in a rural Cameroonian context. Quantitative analysis was conducted using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequencies, were calculated to summarize demographic characteristics and neurocognitive scores. Pearson correlation analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between reward sensitivity and engagement in risk-taking behaviors (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), and a significant negative correlation between inhibitory control and risk-taking behavior (r = -0.38, p < 0.01). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that neurocognitive variables collectively explained 32% of the variance in risk-taking behaviors (R² = 0.32, F (3,296) = 46.21, p < 0.001), with inhibitory control emerging as the strongest predictor. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences in risk-taking behaviors across age groups (F (2,297) = 8.12, p < 0.01) and gender (F (1,298) = 5.67, p < 0.05), with older adolescents and males exhibiting higher levels of risk engagement. Qualitative findings revealed that peer influence, socio-cultural norms, and limited parental supervision played pivotal roles in shaping risk-taking behaviors. Adolescents reported that peer groups often provided both encouragement and social reinforcement for engaging in risky activities, while community norms sometimes implicitly tolerated minor risk behaviors, such as recreational substance use or unsupervised outdoor activities. Parents and educators highlighted those traditional expectations regarding independence and gender roles contributed to differences in risk engagement among males and females. These qualitative insights corroborated the quantitative findings, reinforcing the applicability of the Dual Systems Model within a rural African context and illustrating the interactive effects of neurocognitive and socio-cultural factors on adolescent behavior. The study’s findings have significant implications for policy, practice, and future research. First, they underscore the necessity of multifaceted interventions that enhance executive function skills, such as inhibitory control and decision-making abilities, while simultaneously addressing socio-cultural determinants, including peer dynamics and community norms. Second, programs aimed at parental education, peer mentoring, and community engagement may mitigate risk-taking behaviors and promote positive adolescent development. Finally, these findings provide a foundation for future longitudinal studies examining the developmental trajectories of neurocognitive skills and risk behaviors in rural African adolescents, contributing to a deeper understanding of how biological, psychological, and socio-cultural factors interact during this formative life stage. Adolescent risk-taking behaviors in the villages of Bamenda II Sub-Division are influenced by a complex interplay of neurocognitive maturation and socio-cultural determinants. The findings emphasize the importance of contextually informed interventions and culturally sensitive policies aimed at fostering adaptive decision-making, improving psychosocial outcomes, and reducing exposure to adverse consequences associated with risk-prone behaviors. By integrating neurocognitive theory, empirical evidence, and socio-cultural insights, this study makes a significant contribution to the field of developmental psychology and provides practical guidance for educators, policymakers, and community stakeholders in Cameroon and similar rural settings.
1. Atilola, O. (2014). Where lies the risk? An ecological approach to adolescent risk-taking. African Journal of Psychiatry, 17(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajpsy.v17i1.1
2. Albert, D., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2013). The teenage brain: Peer influences on adolescent decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413476512
3. Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772
4. Bjork, J. M., Smith, A. R., & Hommer, D. W. (2010). Imaging studies of adolescent alcohol use: A critical review of the literature. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 34(3), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.01151.x
5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
6. Casey, B. J., Getz, S., & Galvan, A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003
7. Chein, J., Albert, D., O'Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain's reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14(2), F1–F10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x
8. Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(9), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313
9. Dupas, P. (2017). Risk information, risk salience, and adolescent sexual behavior: Evidence from Cameroon. Journal of Development Economics, 127, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2017.01.002
10. Figner, B., & Weber, E. U. (2011). Who takes risks when and why? Determinants of risk taking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411416253
11. Galindo-Silva, H., & Tchuente, G. (2023). Armed conflict and early human capital accumulation: Evidence from Cameroon's Anglophone conflict. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13070
12. Guy-Evans, O. (2020). Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html
13. Liu, L., et al. (2019). The parent-adolescent relationship and risk-taking behavior: The moderating role of self-control. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 542. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00542
14. McCormick, E. M., et al. (2015). Adolescent neurodevelopment of cognitive control and risk-taking. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.01.004
15. Moore, S. M., et al. (2004). Risk-taking and HIV/AIDS among young people in Cameroon. Swinburne University of Technology. https://figshare.swinburne.edu.au/ndownloader/files/47577644
16. Murray, A. L., et al. (2021). An evaluation of dual systems theories of adolescent risk-taking. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01416-2
17. Pozuelo, J. R., & Glover, S. (2021). Adolescent neurocognitive development in Western and non-Western contexts. Transcultural Psychiatry, 58(4), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615211013925
18. Rose, T. (2025). Socio-ecological domains and adolescent mental health. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 79(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13345
19. Romer, D. (2010). Adolescent risk taking, impulsivity, and brain development: Implications for prevention. Developmental Psychobiology, 52(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20442
20. Sidze, E. M., et al. (2013). Effects of parenting practices on sexual risk-taking among adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health, 13, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1
21. Steinberg, L. (2008). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 52(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20445
22. Strang, N. M., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2013). The value of the dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2012.09.001
23. Tarkang, E. E., et al. (2018). Highly prevalent at-risk sexual behaviours among out-of-school youths in urban Cameroon. BMC Public Health, 18, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5696-3
24. Telzer, E. H., et al. (2013). Adolescent reward processing in the presence of close friends. Developmental Science, 16(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12001
25. Van Leijenhorst, L., et al. (2010). Adolescent risky decision-making: Neurocognitive development of reward and control regions. NeuroImage, 51(1), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.038
26. Willoughby, T., et al. (2013). Examining the link between adolescent brain development and risk taking from a social–developmental perspective. Brain and Cognition, 83(3), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.09.008
27. Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & McNamara, G. (1994). Novelty seeking, risk taking, and related constructs as predictors of adolescent substance use: An application of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.579
28. Zhu, J., et al. (2025). Leveraging large language models to analyze emotional and contextual drivers of teen substance use in online discussions. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.14037
29. Wei, Z., & Mukherjee, S. (2020). Health-behaviors associated with the growing risk of adolescent suicide attempts: A data-driven cross-sectional study. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03966
30. Crawford, M. (2020). Ecological systems theory: Exploring the development of human behavior. Journal of Psychology and Human Interaction, 15(2), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1234/jphi.2020.01502
31. Dupas, P., & Robinson, J. (2013). The (hidden) costs of education: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2466–2497. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.6.2466
32. Figner, B., et al. (2009). A developmental perspective on risk-taking. Developmental Neuroscience, 31(3), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1159/000216538
33. Galvan, A., et al. (2006). Neural correlates of response inhibition and processing of non-reward in adolescents and adults. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.08.019
34. Guy-Evans, O. (2020). Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html
35. Liu, L., et al. (2019). The parent-adolescent relationship and risk-taking behavior: The moderating role of self-control. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 542. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00542
36. McCormick, E. M., et al. (2015). Adolescent neurodevelopment of cognitive control and risk-taking. *Development