Genetic, Neurobiological, and Social Determinants of Adolescent Behavior: Risk Pathways and Protective Mechanisms

1. Biological and Genetic Influences

Adolescence is a critical period, marked by heightened risk-taking and experimentation, which are significantly influenced by the interactions between genetic predisposition and environmental contexts [1]. Research has underscored the dynamic nature of genetic influences across this developmental stage, particularly in behaviors related to risk-taking and experimentation, such as alcohol use and misuse. Twin studies have illuminated several principles of genetic influence, demonstrating that genetic predispositions become more pronounced as adolescents gain more autonomy, allowing for the expression of these predispositions and the shaping of their social worlds. This highlights the existence of multiple genetic pathways to risk, with environmental factors moderating the importance of genetic predispositions [2].

Further, the development of problem behaviors, including substance use and delinquency, is partially mediated by individual differences in sensation-seeking, which increase genetic risks for problem behavior. These risks are exacerbated by involvement with deviant peers, suggesting a significant interplay between genetic predispositions and environmental influences [3]. The mediating role of parenting and personality in translating genetic risk into adolescent outcomes has also been explored, revealing that depressive symptoms’ genome-wide polygenic scores (DS_GPS) predict lower parental knowledge, which, in turn, is associated with greater rates of subsequent major depressive disorder and conduct disorder symptoms. This underscores the importance of evocative gene–environment correlation processes and intermediate phenotypes in the risk pathways from genetic predispositions to complex adolescent outcomes [4].

The intricate relationship between neurobiological development and epigenetic modifications during adolescence is increasingly recognized as a pivotal factor shaping behavior and mental health outcomes. Environmental changes, including stress, diet, and exposure to toxins, can lead to epigenetic modifications that significantly impact neurodevelopment and susceptibility to at-risk behaviors [5].

Boyce and Kobor [6] discussed the emerging revolution in developmental science regarding gene–environment interplay, emphasizing the role of epigenetic processes in mediating the effects of environmental factors on neurodevelopment. Epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation and histone modifications, offer a parsimonious explanation for the convergence of genetic and contextual variations in adaptive and maladaptive development. These processes are critical for understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of at-risk behaviors in adolescence [7,8,9].

The quality of adolescents’ peer relationships plays a crucial role in their susceptibility to risk-taking behaviors. Telzer et al. [10,11] conducted a longitudinal study that examined how chronic levels of peer conflict relate to risk-taking behavior, both behaviorally and neurally. The study found that high levels of peer support could buffer the association between peer conflict and risk-taking behavior, highlighting the importance of positive peer relationships in mitigating risky behaviors among adolescents.

The pressure exerted by peer culture can significantly influence adolescents’ materialistic values. A study surveying upper secondary school students found that peer culture and pressure positively predicts adolescents’ materialistic values, with self-esteem mediating this relationship [12]. This suggests that the social environment and peer interactions can profoundly impact adolescents’ values and behaviors.

Research has also explored the neural basis of peer influence on adolescent behavior. A study by van Hoorn et al. [13] investigated the neural correlates of prosocial peer influence on donation decisions in a public goods game. The presence of peers and receiving evaluative feedback from them was associated with increased activity in social brain regions, including the medial prefrontal cortex and temporal parietal junction. This neural evidence supports the significant role of peers in fostering prosocial behavior during adolescence. The impact of social media on adolescents’ mental health is also a growing concern. A systematic review by Keles et al. [14,15,16] synthesized evidence on the influence of social media use on depression, anxiety, and psychological distress in adolescents. The review found that time spent on social media, activity, investment, and addiction were all correlated with these mental health issues, highlighting the need for further research into the mechanisms underlying these associations.

The influence of peer pressure, social media, and cultural factors on adolescent behavior is complex and multifaceted. While peers can promote prosocial behavior and provide support, they can also contribute to risk-taking behavior and materialistic values. Social media use is associated with various mental health issues, underscoring the importance of understanding and mitigating its negative impacts. Future research should continue to explore these relationships to better support adolescents’ development and well-being.

The interplay between parenting styles, family dynamics, and peer relationships significantly influences adolescent behavior, impacting both their psychological well-being and social development. This section delves into how these relational and familial factors shape adolescent behavior, drawing on recent research findings.

A study by Llorca, Richaud, and Malonda [17,18,19] explored the relationship between authoritative and permissive parenting styles and adolescent peer relationships, including attachment, victimization, or aggression. The findings indicated that parenting styles are closely related to adolescents’ peer relationships and academic self-efficacy. Specifically, a permissive parenting style among mothers was positively associated with aggressive behavior and negatively associated with peer attachment, highlighting the critical role of parenting in shaping adolescent social behaviors and academic outcomes. Bi, Yang, Li, Wang, Zhang, and Deater-Deckard [20,21] explored the associations between parenting styles and parent–adolescent relationship factors, examining the mediating effects of adolescents’ expectations regarding behavioral autonomy and beliefs about parental authority. The study found that different parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive) are closely linked to various aspects of the parent–adolescent relationship, influencing adolescent behavior and development [22].

The developmental trajectories of emotional and behavioral dysregulation from childhood to adolescence have been a focal point of the research due to their implications for mental health [23,24]. Studies have delineated various pathways of dysregulation, highlighting the complexity and heterogeneity of these developmental processes.

Deutz et al. [25] explored the normative development of the Child Behavior Checklist Dysregulation Profile (DP) from early childhood to adolescence, revealing a nonlinear developmental course with a peak in early adolescence. The study found that both the initial level of DP at age 4 and the rate of change in DP over development predicted a range of personality pathology dimensions in late adolescence, suggesting that DP is a broad developmental precursor of personality pathologies.

Vogel et al. [26] examined the developmental trajectories of anger and sadness dysregulation in childhood, differentially predicting later borderline symptoms. The study identified linear trajectories of coping with sadness and anger, and quadratic trajectories of dysregulated expressions of sadness and anger, which were transdiagnostic but also exhibited independent relationships with borderline personality disorder (BPD) symptoms. This indicates the importance of examining separable components of emotion-processing across development as potential precursors to BPD.

Deutz et al. [25] investigated the factor structure of the Dysregulation Profile across multiple reports, obtaining a bifactor model with a general factor of dysregulation alongside three specific factors of anxious/depressed, aggressive behavior, and attention problems. This model explains the uniqueness and interrelatedness of these behavioral problems and can help explain the shared and non-shared etiology factors. The exclusive link between the general dysregulation factor and self-harm and suicidal ideation among adolescents further established the clinical relevance of the bifactor model.

Weller et al. [27] explored developmental trajectory classes in psychological dysregulation, predicting later decision-making competence. The study found that individuals in the high–increasing group demonstrated a lower decision-making performance than those in the moderate–stable and low–decreasing groups, highlighting the impact of early patterns suggesting the development of psychological dysregulation on later decision-making tendencies.

Wang et al. [28] examined whether certain dysregulation profile trajectories in childhood could predict an elevated risk for mental disorders in later adolescence. The study identified two developmental subgroups, namely the low-dysregulation profile trajectory and the high-dysregulation profile trajectory, with the high-dysregulation profile trajectory being predictive of later ADHD, anxiety, and depression [29].

2. Conclusions

Addressing the multifaceted determinants of at-risk behaviors in adolescence requires a coordinated effort across multiple sectors, including healthcare, education, and community organizations. By implementing comprehensive policies and practices that are grounded in evidence and tailored to the developmental needs of adolescents, it is possible to mitigate the risks and promote healthy development. Future research should continue to explore these determinants and the effectiveness of intervention strategies, informing policy development and clinical practice to better support adolescents during this critical developmental stage.