Adolescence, a period covering approximately 10-18 years of age, has long been characterized as a time of “storm and stress.” This characterization has influenced popular opinion, research, policy, and practice relevant to adolescents for over a century, despite reasons to believe that such a characterization is not accurate or helpful. Arnett (1999) described three domains of the storm and stress approach to adolescence: parent-adolescent conflict, mood disruption, and risk behavior, all of which can pose challenges for youth and the adults around them. However, the “typicality” of these phenomena has been questioned (Buchanan & Hughes, 2016; Hollenstein & Lougheed, 2013). In this Research Topic, we aim to evaluate the premises and the impact of the
“storm and stress” characterization.

We seek articles that present new or review existing data relevant to the theory (themes listed below). We also welcome articles addressing the pervasiveness of the storm and stress characterization, as well as its impact on adolescent development. Data on emerging adults (18-25 years of age) might also be considered with strong developmental justification. Ultimately, we aim to evaluate whether (and in what ways) adolescence should be reconceptualized in the 21st century, and how a modified conceptualization of adolescence can most effectively be communicated to researchers, practitioners, parents, and others.

Specifically, we seek articles presenting literature reviews or new empirical data addressing:

The “typicality” of negative and positive behaviors:
• The extent to which there are age differences in “storm and stress” behaviors (i.e., compare adolescence to pre- and post-adolescence) while also emphasizing the absolute levels of such behaviors (e.g., are rates of “storm and stress” behaviors common or typical);
• Age differences and absolute levels of positive behaviors (e.g., civic behavior, empathy, idealism) that might have been overlooked given the influence of a storm and stress paradigm.

The role of biology in “typical” adolescent behavior:
• Evaluating the role of genetics, hormonal change, or brain development;
• Given what we know about epigenetics and plasticity, what is the best characterization of the role of biology in “typical” adolescent behavior?

The role of environment in “typical” adolescent behavior:
• The role of context and experiences (e.g., parenting, schools, neighborhoods, race/ethnicity, culture), in order to address the extent to which “storm and stress” during adolescence is modifiable;
• Using an intersectional lens to understand the impact of lived experiences of adolescents (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, social class, disability, & sexual orientation).

The experiential impact of storm and stress characterization on adolescents:
• How storm and stress assumptions influence the opportunities and experiences provided to adolescents;
• The impact of stereotypes or expectations directly, and the extent to which current levels of storm and stress might result from this potential form of ageism;
• How might the impact of storm and stress stereotypes differ by or intersect with other experiences (e.g., racism, sexism, heterosexism).

Whether and when storm and stress behaviors are adaptive:
• Whether (and in what sense) developments consistent with “storm and stress” promote healthy longer-term development or are a barrier to healthy longer-term development;
• Is there a constellation of negative and positive developmental changes that can be characterized not only as “typical,” but healthy?

Conceptualizing and communicating data on adolescence:
• Arguments for the most appropriate way(s) to conceptualize adolescence, and/or how this conceptualization can best be promoted to those who work with or influence policies for adolescents, as well as adolescents themselves.

Submit your idea

Impact

Frontiers in Psychology

Participating Journals

Impact