How 17 to 19 year olds make decisions, and what that means for First Move

Key facts

• In a study of 5,227 people aged 10 to 30 in 11 countries, reasoning ability reached adult levels around age 16, but self-control in emotional or exciting situations reached adult levels only after 18.^[1]
• In more than 5,000 people aged 10 to 30 across 11 countries, sensation seeking peaked at 19, while self-regulation kept growing until it levelled off between 23 and 26.^[2]
• In an experiment with 306 people, deciding with two same-age peers present led to riskier decisions, and the effect was stronger for 13 to 16 and 18 to 22 year olds than for adults.^[3]
• In groups of four young men aged 18 to 22, swapping one member for a 25 to 30 year old made the group's decisions as careful as those of young people deciding alone.^[4]
• A 2024 meta-analysis of 49 studies found that positive peer influence goes with more empathy and more helpful, prosocial behaviour.^[5]

Why this brief matters

First Move learners are 17 to 19. They can reason well, and they are still developing in ways that matter when a big choice is made in a group, in an exciting moment or under pressure. This brief sums up well-established research on how young people decide, and what it means for facilitators running three intense days and for parents talking with their child afterwards. It describes averages across many young people. It says nothing about any one learner.

What the research shows

Reasoning matures before self-control under pressure. In the 11-country study, logical reasoning reached adult levels around 16, while psychosocial maturity (holding back when a situation is emotional, exciting or risky) got there only after 18.^[1] The authors call this a "maturity gap": young people can decide carefully when calm, and even young adults may decide less maturely in arousing situations.^[1]

Sensation seeking peaks around 19. Across countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas, the urge for new and exciting experiences rose through adolescence and peaked at 19, while self-regulation grew steadily into the twenties. The patterns were largely similar across countries,^[2] which matters because much older research came only from the US and Western Europe.

Peers change decisions. People tested with two same-aged peers took more risks, paid more attention to benefits than costs and made riskier decisions than people tested alone, and the effect was stronger in the teens and early twenties than in adults.^[3]

A slightly older adult in the group helps. Groups of four 18 to 22 year olds took more risks and preferred quicker rewards than individuals alone. With one member replaced by someone aged 25 to 30, the group decided like young people on their own.^[4] The study involved only young men, so treat it as suggestive.

Planning ahead is still developing. In a study of 935 people aged 10 to 30, younger adolescents looked less far ahead than people aged 16 and over, and planning kept developing into young adulthood.^[6] Our learners can think about the future; many still need a structure to turn that into a plan.

Peers can pull in good directions too. The 2024 meta-analysis found positive peer influence linked to more empathy and prosocial behaviour, with empathy part of the pathway.^[5] Peer influence is a force to direct, as well as a risk to manage.

Respect works better than lectures. Yeager, Dahl and Dweck argue that programmes often fail with adolescents when they ignore a strong wish to be respected and given status, and that approaches which treat young people with respect can motivate lasting change.^[7] This is a reasoned hypothesis drawn mainly from younger teenagers, not a settled law.

The teenage years are a sensitive time for social learning. Reviews describe the "social brain" as still reorganising through the second decade of life, possibly a sensitive period for adapting to the social world.^[8] UNICEF calls adolescence a "second window of opportunity", shaped by experience and by supportive adults.^[9]

Limits of this evidence

Most studies use laboratory tasks or self-reports, often with Western samples. The 11-country studies widen this, but they compare different people at different ages rather than following the same people. Effects are averages with wide individual differences, and none of these studies tested a career programme. We found no Malaysian study of adolescent decision-making or of family influence on career choice. Use this brief for design principles, not predictions about a particular young person.

What this means for you

1. Give no verdicts. Do not tell learners what they "are" or what they "should" become. Ask for evidence instead, as in the Day 1 strengths activity: replace "you're a natural leader" with "what did you actually do?". Verdicts threaten status and invite either push-back or passive agreement.^[7]
2. Go for small experiments, not big decisions. Day 3 ends with two options and three dated actions, not a final choice. A small, reversible test, such as shadowing a technician for a morning, suits an age when self-regulation is still maturing.
3. Let excitement cool before deciding. The tasters are exciting, which is when decisions are least mature.^[1] Ask learners to note what excited them on Day 2, then look at it again calmly in the Day 3 plan clinic and at the 30-day check-in.
4. Put an adult in every group. Facilitators and practitioners should sit with groups at the moments when choices are made, not just walk around the room.^[4]
5. Use peers on purpose. Pod reviews, where each learner explains one decision in two minutes, turn peer attention towards reasoning rather than performance.^[5]

For parents: talking about choices at home

• Ask, don't announce. "What surprised you?" and "What would you try next?" work better than "So you'll do engineering?"
• Separate excitement from the decision. It is normal for your child to come home sure about something new. Agree on one small next step and a date to talk again.
• Your view counts, labelled as yours. Share limits such as cost and distance honestly, as facts to plan around rather than verdicts on your child.
• Expect a change of mind. A changed plan after new evidence is the programme working, not a failure.

Your next step

1. Facilitators: before the cohort, mark the moments in the timetable where learners make a choice (the end of each taster, the plan clinic, the three actions) and put an adult with each group at those moments.
2. Parents: after Day 3, ask your child to show you their three dated actions, and agree when you will talk about them again.