International Journal of Psychological Studies; Vol. 11, No. 2; 2019 ISSN 1918-7211 E-ISSN 1918-722X Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 42 Delayed Response Improves Inhibitory Control in Low- and High-Impulsivity Adolescents: Effects of Emotional Contexts Almitra Vázquez-Moreno 1 , Andrés A. González-Garrido 1 & Julieta Ramos-Loyo 1 1 Instituto de Neurociencias, Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico Correspondence: Julieta Ramos Loyo, Instituto de Neurociencias, Universidad de Guadalajara. Francisco de Quevedo 180, Col. Arcos Vallarta, Guadalajara, Jalisco, México C.P. 44130. E-mail: jramos@cencar.udg.mx Received: January 15, 2019 Accepted: March 25, 2019 Online Published: March 26, 2019 doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n2p42 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v11n2p42 Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of delayed response on inhibitory control in low- and high-impulsivity adolescents in the presence of an emotional context. Participants performed a Go/No-Go task in 4 conditions: a control context with and without delayed response, and a pleasant context with and without delayed response. The amplitudes and latencies of the N2 and P3 components were evaluated. The delay increased the number of correct inhibitions and omissions but decreased the number of correct responses and N2 and P3 amplitudes during inhibition. The high-impulsivity adolescents showed larger amplitudes in P3NoGo but shorter N2 latencies during the NoGo trials, and the opposite during the Go trials, as they required more processing time than the low-impulsivity adolescents to restart their motor responses. In conclusion, the delayed response did improve inhibitory control and, the beneficial effects of the delay were less pronounced in the high-impulsivity adolescents when the distraction of the pleasant stimuli was present. Keywords: delayed response, impulsivity, inhibition, emotion, adolescence, ERP 1. Introduction Adolescence is a transitional developmental stage from childhood-to-adulthood marked by major changes that include sexual maturation, cognitive improvement, emotional instability and greater social involvement with peers. It is also characterized by increased impulsivity and risk-taking behavior, more pronounced responses to rewarding and emotional stimuli, higher novel sensation-seeking, and poor judgment in goal-directed behaviors, though these traits are by no means expressed homogeneously in all teenagers (Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008; Chambers & Potenza, 2003; Romer, 2010). This lack of homogeneity may reflect individual differences in top-down control (prefrontal striatal circuit) and bottom-up (ventral striatal circuit) systems imbalance, which can exacerbate emotional reactivity and so increase poor outcomes in some adolescents (Casey et al., 2008; Hare et al., 2008). Impulsivity is a significant feature of adolescence that is defined as a predisposition to perform rapid, unplanned reactions to internal or external stimuli with little regard for the potential negative consequences of these reactions that might affect the impulsive individual or others (Moeller, Barratt, Dougherty, Schmitz, & Swann, 2001). Impulsivity also implies difficulty in inhibiting a behavioral or cognitive response and in delaying gratification (Dimoska & Johnstone, 2007). Behavioral regulation is linked to the executive functions in general and, specifically, to inhibition (Barkley, 1997), a core process that includes cognitive and motor inhibition, as well as interference control (Nigg, 2000). Inhibiting motor behavior entails suppressing unwanted, prepotent or reflexive actions, while interference control implies the ability to resist interference from irrelevant or misleading information in order to solve a task properly. Although everyday life events suggest that adolescents have lower inhibitory control, particularly in the presence of emotional stimuli, few studies have evaluated this cognitive function in this population. Inhibitory abilities tend to improve from childhood to adulthood, but when emotional information is involved some shortcomings are observed during adolescence. Somerville, Hare and Casey (2011), for example, reported that in the presence of positive emotional stimuli adolescents commit more false responses than children or adults. Cohen-Gilbert and Thomas (2013), meanwhile, observed that response inhibition is more easily disrupted by negative emotional distractions in early adolescence compared to late adolescence or early adulthood. Other authors (Tottenham, Hare, & Casey, 2011) have found that while response times to negative emotional stimuli