Adolescence doesn’t end until you’re 28?!

How the media got it wrong--again.

© 2010 Gwen Dewar, Ph.D., all rights reserved

As I’ve noted elsewhere, sometimes the media misreports research because reporters fail to read the studies that they are reporting on.

In other cases, the media doesn’t even bother to confirm that the studies exist.

Since the beginning of April, 2010, a story has circulated about a new concept of adolescent development. Allegedly, researchers are re-defining "adolescence" to include adults in their late twenties.

In one version--reported on Foxnews.com--the reader is told:

"Parents wondering how long their children will act like teenagers can expect it to last up to the age of 28."

Understandably, people are snickering. But the story is very misleading.

Contrary to some headlines--like the one on Foxnews.com--this story isn't based on a newly-released "study."

Instead, we have a few comments attributed to an Australian psychologist, Darryl Cross.

It appears that Cross hasn’t conducted any studies on adults who act like teenagers. Nor does he seem to specialize in adolescent psychology. On his website, he describes himself as a “leadership and careers coach.”

So what exactly is this story based on? The author of the article makes vague reference to "research”:

"Dr. Cross said U.K. research found in many cases adolescence started at the younger age of eight and extended to 28, instead of the previously believed age range of 12 to 21."

What "U.K. research"? I don't know. The article doesn’t tell us, and I haven’t seen any recent studies that make such claims.

That doesn't mean they don't exist. I assume Cross is referring to real research. But given the implication that this is breaking news, it's strange that I can't find anything in the recently published scientific literature.

And what does Cross mean by “adolescence”? Are we talking about a state of psychological immaturity? Unemployment? Selfishness? Laziness? A tendency to engage in petty crime? The story doesn't say.

It’s not even clear where this "previously believed age range" comes from. There is no official, universally-accepted age range for adolescence--even among psychologists. Most studies I've seen use the term "adolescent" to refer to someone between the ages of 11 and 17.

Sloppy stories undermine the public's confidence in science

For instance, it’s possible that Cross was referring to the fact that the brain continues to grow and change after the teen years (Sowell et al 2003). Perhaps he was thinking of research suggesting that adults display less aggression as they get older (Birditt and Fingerman 2005).

Or maybe he just meant that there are different conceptions of the transition to adulthood, and that some criteria--like financial independence--aren't being met by many young adults today (Arnett 2001).

But as it stands, the story makes psychology look silly. It makes anti-intellectuals roll their eyes and complain that--yet again--researchers are wasting money and time on ridiculous projects.

I may not like everything that gets published in psychology journals. I'm not a psychologist myself. But there are plenty of psychologists who do sober, useful, rigorous--and even groundbreaking--work.

So, editors and reporters, let's try to be a bit more grown-up. If you're going to refer to research, you need--at the very least--to cite the studies involved.

For another discussion of responsible research and our folk ideas about adolescence, see my blog post "Are you expecting a disrespectful teen?"

Google advertisements

References

Birditt KS and Fingerman KL. 2005. Do we get better at picking our battles? Age group differences in descriptions of behavioral reactions to interpersonal tensions. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 60(3):P121-8.

Sowell ER, Peterson BS, Thompson PM, Welcome SE, Henkenius AL, and Toga AW. 2003. Mapping cortical change across the human life span.Nat Neurosci. 6(3):309-15.

Content last modified 4/10