Chapter 2: Emotions, Decisions, and Self-Regulation

Chapter Introduction

In Chapter 1, you learned how attention works — the neurological system that decides what gets through the filter and what gets ignored. You learned that attention is trainable, not fixed, and that stress can enhance or impair it depending on dose and duration.

This chapter goes deeper into the brain systems that shape your daily life: emotions, decisions, and the capacity to regulate both.

You will learn that emotions are not the opposite of rationality — they are biological signals that inform every decision you make. You will discover why the gap between impulse and action is one of the most important developmental achievements of your teenage years. You will understand why your brain is wired to take certain kinds of risks right now, and why that wiring is not a defect but a feature with a specific evolutionary purpose. And you will learn practical tools for widening the space between stimulus and response — the space where self-regulation lives.

Coach Brain does not teach you to suppress your emotions. Coach Brain teaches you to understand them — because understanding is the only path to genuine self-regulation.

---

Lesson 2.1: The Emotional Brain

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

• Describe the limbic system and its role in emotional processing
• Explain why emotions are biological signals, not character weaknesses
• Understand the relationship between the amygdala (fast, emotional processing) and the prefrontal cortex (slow, rational processing)
• Recognize that emotional intensity during adolescence has a neurological basis — it is developmental, not dramatic
• Distinguish between experiencing an emotion and being controlled by an emotion

Key Terms

Emotions Are Data, Not Noise

Your culture probably taught you that emotions and rationality are opposites — that being emotional means being irrational, and being rational means suppressing emotions. Neuroscience says otherwise.

Emotions are biological signals. They are information. They evolved over hundreds of millions of years to help organisms survive — signaling danger (fear), social violation (anger), loss (sadness), opportunity (excitement), and connection (love). They are not noise in your rational system. They are inputs to it [1].

The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio demonstrated this through his research on patients with damage to emotional processing areas of the brain. These patients could reason perfectly well in theory — they could analyze options, weigh probabilities, and articulate logical arguments. But they could not make decisions. Without emotional input to signal what mattered, every option felt equally weighted. They would spend hours deciding what color pen to use [2].

The lesson: you do not make decisions despite your emotions. You make decisions with them. The goal is not to eliminate emotional input — it is to understand what your emotions are telling you and factor that information into your reasoning.

The Amygdala and the PFC — Fast Brain, Slow Brain

Your emotional processing runs on two systems operating at different speeds:

The amygdala processes emotional information in milliseconds — before conscious awareness. It receives sensory input directly from the thalamus via a fast pathway that bypasses the cortex entirely. This is why you flinch at a loud noise before you know what caused it. This is why you feel angry before you understand why. The amygdala is fully developed during adolescence [3].

The prefrontal cortex processes information slowly, deliberately, and rationally. It evaluates context, considers consequences, weighs options, and regulates impulses. As you learned in Chapter 1, the PFC does not finish developing until the mid-twenties.

During adolescence, the amygdala is fully online while the PFC is still under construction. This means your emotional responses are adult-strength, but your capacity to regulate them is still developing. This is not a character flaw — it is a developmental stage. The emotional intensity you experience right now is neurologically real, and it will gradually come under greater executive control as your PFC matures [4].

Affect Labeling — The Simplest Regulation Tool

One of the most replicated findings in emotion neuroscience is that naming an emotion reduces its intensity.

Research using fMRI brain imaging shows that when people label their emotional state — "I am feeling anxious" — activity in the amygdala decreases and activity in the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex increases. The simple act of putting words to feelings engages the PFC, which begins to modulate the emotional response [5].

This is not about analyzing your emotions or journaling for 30 minutes. It is about the moment of labeling — noticing "I feel frustrated" rather than being consumed by frustration. That moment creates a gap between the emotion and your response to it, and in that gap, choice becomes possible.

The practice is simple: when you notice a strong emotion, name it silently. "This is anger." "This is anxiety." "This is excitement." The naming does not make the emotion disappear. It moves your processing from the amygdala's fast, reactive system toward the PFC's slower, more regulated system.

Lesson Check

1. Why did Damasio's brain-damaged patients struggle with decisions despite having intact reasoning abilities?
2. Explain the speed difference between amygdala processing and PFC processing. Why does this matter during adolescence?
3. What is affect labeling, and how does it change brain activity according to fMRI research?
4. Why is emotional suppression a poor strategy compared to emotional understanding?

---

Lesson 2.2: How Decisions Actually Happen

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

• Describe the dual-process model of decision-making (System 1 and System 2)
• Explain why adolescent risk-taking is driven by neurodevelopment, not irresponsibility
• Understand how social context changes the adolescent brain's reward processing
• Recognize the role of dopamine in reward, motivation, and risk evaluation
• Apply the concept of "pre-commitment" as a decision-making strategy

Key Terms

System 1 and System 2

The psychologist Daniel Kahneman described human cognition as operating in two modes:

System 1 is fast, automatic, and effortless. It handles the decisions you make without thinking: reading words, recognizing faces, catching a ball, navigating a familiar route. System 1 relies on pattern recognition and emotional cues. It is right most of the time — but when it is wrong, it can be confidently wrong [6].

System 2 is slow, deliberate, and effortful. It handles novel problems, complex calculations, and situations that require you to override your first instinct. System 2 is what you engage when you solve a math problem, plan a schedule, or talk yourself out of doing something impulsive.

Every decision involves some blend of both systems. The question is which system dominates — and whether the dominant system is appropriate for the situation. System 1 is perfect for catching a ball. It is terrible for evaluating a complex social decision while emotional.

Why Teenagers Take More Risks (And Why It Is Not Stupidity)

Adolescents do not take risks because they are unable to assess danger. Research consistently shows that teenagers evaluate risk as accurately as adults do — they know that driving fast, using substances, and unprotected sex carry risks. They take risks anyway [7].

Why? Because the adolescent brain processes reward differently.

During adolescence, the dopamine system — which signals reward, pleasure, and motivation — is hypersensitive. Rewards feel more rewarding to a teenager than to an adult. The same experience that produces a moderate dopamine response in a 30-year-old produces an intense response in a 16-year-old. This heightened reward sensitivity peaks around ages 14-17 [8].

At the same time, the PFC (which evaluates long-term consequences and overrides impulses) is still developing. The result is a mismatch: the reward system is running at full power while the braking system is still being installed.

This mismatch is not a design error. It evolved for a reason. Adolescence is the developmental period when humans leave the safety of childhood and explore the world — testing boundaries, seeking novelty, building independence. The heightened reward sensitivity that drives risk-taking also drives exploration, learning, and social bonding. It is the same neurological system; the question is what it is applied to [9].

Peers Change Your Brain — Literally

One of the most robust findings in adolescent neuroscience: teenagers take significantly more risks when peers are present than when alone. Adults do not show this effect.

Functional brain imaging studies by Laurence Steinberg's lab found that the mere presence of peers activates reward-related brain regions in adolescents — regions that remain quiet when the same teens make decisions alone. The peers do not need to say anything. They do not need to pressure anyone. Their presence alone shifts the brain's reward processing toward risk [10].

This is not peer pressure in the traditional sense. It is a neurological phenomenon: social context changes how the adolescent brain evaluates risk and reward. Understanding this does not make you immune to it — but it does give you information you can use. When you notice yourself making a decision differently because friends are watching, you can recognize what is happening neurologically and engage System 2 intentionally.

Pre-Commitment — Deciding Before the Moment

Willpower is a limited resource. Research on ego depletion — while debated in some specifics — has consistently shown that self-control is harder when you are tired, stressed, hungry, or emotionally depleted [11].

Pre-commitment is a strategy that avoids relying on in-the-moment willpower altogether. Instead of deciding what to do when temptation arrives, you make the decision in advance — and design your environment to support it.

Examples:

• Leaving your phone in another room before studying (removes the temptation to check it)
• Packing your gym bag the night before (reduces the decision cost in the morning)
• Telling a friend your plan out loud (social accountability adds a cost to backing out)
• Using website blockers during study time (makes distraction harder to access)

Pre-commitment works because it shifts the decision from System 2 (which may be depleted or overridden by System 1 in the moment) to an earlier, calmer context where System 2 is fully available.

Lesson Check

1. Describe System 1 and System 2 thinking. Give one example of a decision best suited for each.
2. Why do teenagers evaluate risk accurately but still take more risks than adults?
3. How does peer presence change adolescent decision-making at the neurological level?
4. What is pre-commitment, and why is it more reliable than willpower in the moment?

---

Lesson 2.3: The Regulation Toolkit

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

• Differentiate between emotional suppression (harmful) and emotional regulation (healthy)
• Apply three evidence-based regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal, affect labeling, and the physiological sigh
• Understand the window of tolerance — the zone where your nervous system processes emotions effectively
• Recognize when you are outside your window of tolerance and apply a strategy to return

Key Terms

Suppression Is Not Regulation

Many people confuse emotional suppression with emotional regulation. They are opposites.

Suppression means trying to block or hide what you are feeling — pushing anger down, pretending sadness does not exist, masking anxiety with forced calm. Research by James Gross at Stanford found that suppression increases physiological stress (heart rate, cortisol), impairs memory encoding (you remember less of what happened while suppressing), and creates social distance (others sense inauthenticity and feel less connected to you) [12].

Regulation means influencing which emotions you have, when you have them, and how you experience and express them. It does not eliminate emotions. It modulates their intensity and duration so they inform your behavior rather than control it.

Three strategies with strong research support:

1. Cognitive Reappraisal — Changing the story you tell yourself about a situation. Not denying reality — reinterpreting it. "This presentation is terrifying" becomes "This presentation is an opportunity to practice." Research shows reappraisal reduces negative emotion at its source — the amygdala generates a weaker signal because the PFC has already reframed the interpretation [13].

2. Affect Labeling — Naming the emotion (from Lesson 2.1). "I am feeling anxious." Shifts processing from amygdala to PFC. Works in seconds.

3. Physiological Sigh — The double-inhale, long-exhale technique from Chapter 1, Lesson 1.4. Activates the parasympathetic nervous system in under 30 seconds. Works even when cognitive strategies feel inaccessible because it uses a bottom-up (body-to-brain) pathway rather than a top-down (thought-based) approach.

The Window of Tolerance

Psychiatrist Dan Siegel introduced the concept of the "window of tolerance" — the zone of nervous system arousal within which you can process emotions, think clearly, and respond effectively.

When you are inside your window: you feel present, engaged, and able to handle what is happening — even if what is happening is difficult or emotional.

When you are above your window (hyperarousal): heart racing, shallow breathing, racing thoughts, anger, panic. Your amygdala is driving, and the PFC has been partially sidelined.

When you are below your window (hypoarousal): numbness, disconnection, brain fog, emotional shutdown. This is the nervous system's "freeze" response — a last-resort defense when fight or flight is not possible [14].

The width of your window is not fixed. It expands with sleep, exercise, social support, and regulation practice. It shrinks with chronic stress, sleep deprivation, isolation, and trauma.

The goal of self-regulation is not to prevent yourself from ever leaving the window. It is to recognize when you have left it and have tools to return.

When Regulation Is Not Enough

Self-regulation tools work within the normal range of emotional experience. They are not designed to handle:

• Persistent anxiety that interferes with daily functioning
• Ongoing sadness or hopelessness lasting more than two weeks
• Thoughts of harming yourself or others
• Emotional responses so intense they feel uncontrollable despite effort
• Experiences of trauma that continue to affect your daily life

If any of these apply, the most important regulation skill is recognizing that you need support beyond what self-management can provide. Talking to a parent, school counselor, or healthcare provider is not a failure of regulation — it is its highest form: accurately assessing your needs and acting on that assessment.

Lesson Check

1. What is the difference between emotional suppression and emotional regulation? Why does suppression backfire?
2. Describe cognitive reappraisal and give an original example.
3. What is the "window of tolerance" and what happens when you are above or below it?
4. When is self-regulation not enough, and what is the appropriate response?

---

Lesson 2.4: Cognitive Biases — How Your Brain Tricks You

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

• Define cognitive bias as a systematic pattern of deviation from rational judgment
• Identify five common cognitive biases and describe how each distorts thinking
• Understand that biases are features of normal cognition, not signs of low intelligence
• Apply de-biasing strategies to improve decision quality
• Recognize that awareness of bias does not automatically eliminate it — but it helps

Key Terms

Your Brain Is Not a Camera — It Is a Story Machine

Your brain does not record reality and play it back. It constructs a narrative from incomplete data, fills in gaps with assumptions, and presents that narrative to your conscious mind as if it were fact. Most of the time, this construction is good enough. Sometimes, it is systematically wrong in predictable ways [15].

Cognitive biases are not bugs — they are features. They evolved because they work well enough in most situations and save the brain enormous amounts of processing power. Pattern recognition is faster than careful analysis. First impressions are usually good enough. Past experience is usually a reliable guide. But "usually" is not "always" — and the exceptions are where biases cause problems.

Five Biases You Will Encounter This Week

1. Confirmation Bias — You will read a social media post that confirms something you already believe, and it will feel more convincing than it is. You will dismiss a piece of evidence that contradicts your view without carefully evaluating it. This is not because you are closed-minded — it is because your brain is designed to maintain consistent beliefs, and contradictory information threatens consistency [16].

2. Availability Heuristic — You will judge the likelihood of something based on whether you can easily think of an example. After watching a news story about a school shooting, schools feel more dangerous — even though school violence has not statistically increased. After hearing about a friend's car accident, driving feels more dangerous — even though the statistics have not changed [17].

3. Dunning-Kruger Effect — In a subject you know little about, you will feel more confident in your opinions than someone who has studied it for years. In a subject you know well, you will feel less confident — because you understand how much complexity you are still missing. The pattern: competence breeds humility; incompetence breeds overconfidence [18].

4. Anchoring Bias — The first piece of information you receive will disproportionately influence your judgment. If a store shows a jacket "marked down from $200 to $99," the $200 anchor makes $99 feel like a good deal — even if the jacket was never worth $200.

5. Sunk Cost Fallacy — You will continue doing something you do not enjoy or benefit from because you have already invested time, money, or effort. Staying in a bad relationship, finishing a book you hate, sticking with a sport you no longer want to play — all because "I've already put so much into it."

De-Biasing — Imperfect but Useful

Knowing about biases does not eliminate them. But it helps — especially when you build specific practices:

• Actively seek disconfirming evidence. When you believe something strongly, ask: "What would change my mind?" Then look for that.
• Consider the base rate. Before judging likelihood, ask: "How common is this actually?" Not how dramatic, memorable, or frightening — how common.
• Sleep on important decisions. The anchoring effect weakens with time and deliberation. Decisions made immediately are more anchor-dependent than decisions made after reflection.
• Ask: "Would I start this today?" The sunk cost fallacy only works because you frame the question as "should I continue?" Reframing as "would I start this today, knowing what I know?" breaks the sunk-cost anchor.

Lesson Check

1. What is a cognitive bias, and why are biases described as "features" rather than "bugs"?
2. Describe confirmation bias and give an example from social media.
3. Explain the Dunning-Kruger effect. Why does greater competence lead to less confidence?
4. Choose one de-biasing strategy and describe how you would apply it to a decision you are currently facing.

---

End-of-Chapter Activity: The Decision Autopsy

Instructions:

1. Think of one decision you made in the past month that you would now make differently. It does not need to be dramatic — it can be a small choice (what you said in a conversation, how you spent a Saturday, whether you studied for a test).

2. Analyze the decision using concepts from this chapter:

   • Was the decision driven primarily by System 1 or System 2?
   • Was an emotion involved? If so, did the emotion inform the decision (data) or control it (hijack)?
   • Were any cognitive biases at play? Which ones?
   • Were peers present? If so, did social facilitation affect the decision?
   • Were you inside or outside your window of tolerance at the time?

3. Write a one-page reflection answering:

   • What would you do differently, and why?
   • Which concept from this chapter most changes how you think about decision-making?
   • What is one pre-commitment strategy you could use to make a similar decision better in the future?

---

Vocabulary Review

---

Chapter Quiz

Multiple Choice (select the best answer):

1. According to Damasio's research, patients with damage to emotional processing areas: A) Made faster and better decisions B) Could reason perfectly but struggled to make decisions because they lacked emotional input C) Became more rational and logical D) Lost the ability to speak

2. During adolescence, the amygdala is: A) Not yet developed B) Fully developed while the prefrontal cortex is still maturing C) Less active than in adulthood D) Developing at the same rate as the PFC

3. Affect labeling works by: A) Suppressing the emotion entirely B) Engaging the PFC, which modulates amygdala reactivity C) Increasing amygdala activity D) Replacing negative emotions with positive ones

4. The Dunning-Kruger effect describes: A) How experts always know more than beginners B) How low competence leads to overconfidence and high competence leads to humility C) Why some people are smarter than others D) How memory improves with age

5. Adolescent risk-taking is primarily driven by: A) Inability to assess danger B) Hypersensitive dopamine/reward system combined with a still-developing PFC C) Lack of education about risks D) Deliberate rebellion against authority

6. Emotional suppression, compared to emotional regulation: A) Produces better outcomes B) Increases physiological stress, impairs memory, and damages social connection C) Is the recommended approach for teenagers D) Reduces cortisol levels

7. Pre-commitment is more reliable than in-the-moment willpower because: A) It does not require any effort B) It shifts the decision to a calmer context where System 2 is fully available C) It eliminates all temptation permanently D) It only works for adults

8. The "window of tolerance" describes: A) How much pain you can endure B) The zone of arousal where you can process emotions and function effectively C) How long you can concentrate D) Your tolerance for other people's behavior

9. Confirmation bias is: A) Confirming facts before sharing them B) Seeking, interpreting, and remembering information that supports existing beliefs C) Being open to all viewpoints equally D) A bias that only affects unintelligent people

10. Peer presence affects adolescent decision-making by: A) Always improving decision quality through collaboration B) Activating reward-related brain regions, increasing risk-taking even without verbal pressure C) Having no measurable effect D) Reducing dopamine activity

Short Answer (write 2-4 sentences each):

1. Explain why emotions are described as "data, not noise" in Lesson 2.1. Use Damasio's research as support.

2. A friend made an impulsive decision they regret. Analyze it using System 1/System 2 and suggest one strategy they could use next time.

3. You catch yourself dismissing an article because it contradicts your opinion on nutrition. Which cognitive bias is at work? Describe one de-biasing strategy you could apply.

4. Describe the window of tolerance. What happens when someone is in hyperarousal versus hypoarousal?

5. Explain why adolescent risk-taking is considered a developmental feature rather than a defect. What evolutionary purpose does heightened reward sensitivity serve?

---

Teacher's Guide

Pacing Recommendations

Quiz Answer Key

1. B, 2. B, 3. B, 4. B, 5. B, 6. B, 7. B, 8. B, 9. B, 10. B

2. Damasio's patients with emotional processing damage could analyze options rationally but could not make decisions — because without emotional signals marking what matters, every option felt equally weighted. Emotions are not the opposite of rationality; they are inputs to rational decision-making. They signal what is relevant, dangerous, valuable, or aligned with your goals.

3. Accept any well-analyzed example. The impulsive decision was likely System 1-dominated — fast, automatic, and emotional. System 2 (deliberate evaluation of consequences) was not engaged, perhaps due to emotional arousal, fatigue, or social pressure. Strategy: pre-commitment — making the decision in advance during a calm moment, or designing the environment to make the impulsive choice harder to access.

4. Confirmation bias — seeking and accepting information that supports existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence. De-biasing: actively seek disconfirming evidence by asking "What would change my mind?" and then genuinely looking for that evidence rather than dismissing it.

5. The window of tolerance is the zone of nervous system arousal where emotions can be processed effectively. In hyperarousal (above the window): racing heart, shallow breathing, panic, rage — the amygdala dominates and the PFC is sidelined. In hypoarousal (below the window): numbness, disconnection, brain fog — the nervous system's freeze response.

6. Heightened reward sensitivity during adolescence drives exploration, novelty-seeking, social bonding, and independence — essential developmental tasks for transitioning from childhood to adulthood. The same dopamine system that drives risk-taking also drives learning, social connection, and skill acquisition. It is not a defect — it is the biological mechanism that pushes adolescents out of the nest.

Common Student Questions

Q: If emotions are data, does that mean I should always follow my feelings? A: No. Emotions are information, not instructions. They tell you something is happening — a threat, an opportunity, a social signal — but they do not always accurately represent reality. Fear before a presentation is real data (your body is preparing for a challenge) but following it by avoiding the presentation would miss the opportunity. The skill is reading the data, evaluating it with your PFC, and deciding what action serves you best.

Q: Is it bad that I take risks? A: Not inherently. Risk-taking during adolescence is developmentally normal and serves important functions — building independence, testing boundaries, and learning from experience. The question is not whether you take risks but whether the risks are proportionate and informed. Understanding that peers amplify your reward sensitivity, and that System 1 sometimes overrides System 2, helps you distinguish between productive risk-taking and impulsive choices.

Q: How do I know if I need more help than self-regulation tools can provide? A: If your emotional experiences are persistent (lasting weeks, not hours), pervasive (affecting multiple areas of your life), and impairing (interfering with school, relationships, sleep, or daily function) — those are signals that professional support would help. Self-regulation tools are for normal-range emotional challenges. Persistent, impairing distress is a different category. Asking for help is the most sophisticated form of self-regulation.

Parent Communication Template

Dear Parent/Guardian,

Your student is working through Chapter 2: Emotions, Decisions, and Self-Regulation. This chapter covers:

• How emotions function as biological information, not character weaknesses
• Why adolescent risk-taking is driven by neurodevelopment (dopamine sensitivity + developing PFC), not irresponsibility
• Three evidence-based emotional regulation tools: cognitive reappraisal, affect labeling, and the physiological sigh
• Common cognitive biases and strategies for improving decision quality

Key things to know:

• We explicitly distinguish emotional regulation from emotional suppression — suppression is harmful and not what we teach
• We address peer influence on decision-making through neuroscience, not moralizing
• We discuss when self-regulation is not enough and direct students to seek adult support
• The end-of-chapter activity asks students to analyze a past decision — no sensitive disclosure required

Thank you for supporting your student's learning.

---

Illustration Briefs

Illustration 1: Lesson 2.1 — The Two Gauges

• Placement: After "Emotions Are Data"
• Scene: Coach Brain beside a dashboard with two gauges — "Amygdala" (fast, running hot) and "PFC" (slow, steady). Turtle calmly reading both.
• Mood: Balanced, wise, accessible
• Aspect ratio: 16:9 web, 4:3 print

Illustration 2: Lesson 2.2 — Fast Brain, Slow Brain

• Placement: After System 1/System 2 description
• Scene: Split scene — left side: a lightning bolt (System 1, fast, automatic). Right side: a chess player thinking (System 2, slow, deliberate). Coach Brain in the middle, connected to both.
• Mood: Contrasting, educational
• Aspect ratio: 16:9 web, 4:3 print

Illustration 3: Lesson 2.3 — The Window of Tolerance

• Placement: After window of tolerance explanation
• Scene: A horizontal band labeled "Window of Tolerance" in the middle. Above: "Hyperarousal" (agitated figure). Below: "Hypoarousal" (collapsed figure). Inside: Coach Brain in calm, present posture.
• Mood: Clear, instructive, compassionate
• Aspect ratio: 16:9 web, 4:3 print

---

Citations

1. Damasio, A.R. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putnam.

2. Bechara, A. et al. (2000). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 295-307. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/10.3.295

3. Tottenham, N. & Galván, A. (2016). Stress and the adolescent brain. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 217-227. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.030

4. Casey, B.J. et al. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003

5. Lieberman, M.D. et al. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421-428. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x

6. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

7. Reyna, V.F. & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1), 1-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x

8. Galván, A. (2010). Adolescent development of the reward system. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 6. DOI: 10.3389/neuro.09.006.2010

9. Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002

10. Chein, J. et al. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain's reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14(2), F1-F10. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x

11. Baumeister, R.F. et al. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252

12. Gross, J.J. & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

13. Buhle, J.T. et al. (2014). Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: A meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 24(11), 2981-2990. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht154

14. Siegel, D.J. (2012). The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

15. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

16. Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

17. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9

18. Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

19. Balban, M.Y. et al. (2023). Brief structured respiration practices enhance mood and reduce physiological arousal. Cell Reports Medicine, 4(1), 100895. DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100895

20. Posner, M.I. & Rothbart, M.K. (2007). Research on attention networks as a model for the integration of psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 1-23. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085516

21. Arnsten, A.F.T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410-422. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2648

22. Hölzel, B.K. et al. (2011). Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 191(1), 36-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.006

23. McEwen, B.S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation. Physiological Reviews, 87(3), 873-904. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00041.2006

24. Lupien, S.J. et al. (2009). Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 434-445. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2639