Introduction: Risk behaviors in young people can affect their physical and mental health to a different degree, in addition to becoming social and public health problems. Among other characteristics, these behaviors present a differential by sex reflected in different statistics, that is, depending on whether they are men or women, manifestations of specialized risk behaviors may occur, regardless of the context or environment in which they are developed. It is necessary to reflect on the extent to which this differential responds to the human biology of each of the sexes, and how much it reflects socialization and gender learning in human environments. Aim: The purpose of this work is to reflect on the link between cognitive, neurobiological and psychosocial variables with behaviors considered risky for the health of young women and men. Scope: It is debated theoretically and methodologically on the study of risk behaviors and gender differentials. Findings: The analysis of the factors that influence risk behaviors and the use of multidisciplinary approaches have profound implications in the causal explanation of biopsychosocial processes, such as the control of aggression and violence, as well as determining risk planning and the prevention strategies of the associated public health problems. The Executive Functions have a relatively late development pattern, since the anatomical structures on which these cognitive processes are based, have not yet been consolidated until approximately 20 years of age, which would explain the susceptibility of young people to committing risk behaviors. In the case of the greater predisposition of men to commit risk behaviors, in comparison with women, the neurobiological perspective centers its analysis on some organic variables: the anatomical and functional differences of the brain, and the role of hormones. From a psychosocial perspective, the construction of the identity of young subjects through the process of socialization and the pressure to fulfill stereotyped gender roles for men and women, is frequently related to the presence of risk behaviors with specific patterns by sex. From the field of public health, being part of the processes of health-disease-care, gender becomes a social determinant of health and disease of people, however, it is men who have greater behaviors of this in almost all age groups, and especially, for young men. In this case, dominant cultural ideas about manhood are identified as one of the main causes of risk behaviors. Conclusion: To address the causality of risk behaviors as an object of study, at least two human dimensions should be considered: the neurobiological causes of individuals and the psycho-social environments in which subjects develop. It is very important to assess in its proper measure and form the influence of each of the factors or processes involved, whether they are biological, psychological or social. In this way, in the construction of the objects of study or in their interpretation, biologistic, psychological or sociological views that offer partial and excluding explanations of other dimensions of human experience will be avoided. A research approach that contemplates biopsychosocial subjects, unlike one-dimensional individuals, allows approaches that describe and analyze the objects of study with a greater scientific scope. The production of this type of knowledge allows a better understanding of health problems and facilitates the decision making of policies for the design, implementation and evaluation of public actions. In this case, those aimed at the prevention of problems linked to the risk behaviors of young people and for each gender.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Risk behaviors, young people, psycho social factors, psychobiology, multicausality.