RESEARCH PAPER
Many face(t)s of young people’s risk-taking: Individual and situational determinants
Submission date: 2017-05-01
Final revision date: 2017-08-08
Acceptance date: 2017-08-21
Online publication date: 2017-12-29
Publication date: 2018-04-18
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2018;6(2):112–121
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Adolescence and young adulthood are frequently characterised by a strong propensity to take risks. Yet, empirical data shows that personality traits, type and features of risk measures, or presence of additional incentives can significantly influence one’s risk-taking tendency. Our aim was to investigate young people’s risk-taking and point out when and how individual and situational factors may increase or decrease their risk-taking propensity.
Participants and procedure:
Participants were adolescents and emerging adults (N = 173, age range: 13-30). Each completed two behavioural risk measures (“hot” and “cold” decision tasks) in two conditions, with or without financial incentives. Questionnaires assessing self-declared risk-taking, sensation seeking, and impulsivity were also used. Statistical analyses were conducted with gender and age as additional factors.
Results:
In “hot” risk tasks all participants risked the same, while the tendency to take risks in “cold” tasks was higher for older participants, especially in the presence of incentives. Males risked more than females, apart from “hot” incentivised tasks where no gender differences were found. Sensation seeking and impulsivity were significant predictors of risk-taking in “hot” incentivised tasks, while performance in “cold” non-incentivised tasks depended on sensation seeking only.
Conclusions:
Our results show that risk-taking is not a unitary phenomenon, and young people are not universal risk-takers. Certain personality traits seem to predispose this group to taking risks, but only in some circumstances (e.g. “hot” decisions). Factors such as task context or additional incentives can not only increase but also decrease risk-taking in young people, resulting in more caution on their behalf.
Adolescence and young adulthood are frequently characterised by a strong propensity to take risks. Yet, empirical data shows that personality traits, type and features of risk measures, or presence of additional incentives can significantly influence one’s risk-taking tendency. Our aim was to investigate young people’s risk-taking and point out when and how individual and situational factors may increase or decrease their risk-taking propensity.
Participants and procedure:
Participants were adolescents and emerging adults (N = 173, age range: 13-30). Each completed two behavioural risk measures (“hot” and “cold” decision tasks) in two conditions, with or without financial incentives. Questionnaires assessing self-declared risk-taking, sensation seeking, and impulsivity were also used. Statistical analyses were conducted with gender and age as additional factors.
Results:
In “hot” risk tasks all participants risked the same, while the tendency to take risks in “cold” tasks was higher for older participants, especially in the presence of incentives. Males risked more than females, apart from “hot” incentivised tasks where no gender differences were found. Sensation seeking and impulsivity were significant predictors of risk-taking in “hot” incentivised tasks, while performance in “cold” non-incentivised tasks depended on sensation seeking only.
Conclusions:
Our results show that risk-taking is not a unitary phenomenon, and young people are not universal risk-takers. Certain personality traits seem to predispose this group to taking risks, but only in some circumstances (e.g. “hot” decisions). Factors such as task context or additional incentives can not only increase but also decrease risk-taking in young people, resulting in more caution on their behalf.
REFERENCES (39)
1.
Apicella, C. L., Dreber, A., & Mollerstrom, A. (2014). Salivary testosterone change following monetary wins and losses predicts future financial risk-taking. Psychoneuroendocrynology, 19, 58–64.
2.
Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and a new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 289–296.
3.
Aven, T. (2012). The risk concept – historical and recent development trends. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 99, 33–44.
4.
Barkley-Levenson, E. E., Van Leijenhorst, L., & Galván, A. (2013). Behavioral and neural correlates of loss aversion and risk avoidance in adolescents and adults. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 72–83.
5.
Blais, A-R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgement and Decision Making, 1, 33–47.
6.
Blum, R. W., & Qureshi, F. (2011). Morbidity and mortality among adolescents and young adults in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
7.
Buelow, M. T., & Blaine, A. L. (2015). The assessment of risky decision making: a factor analysis of performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task and Columbia Card Task. Psychological Assessment, 27, 777–785.
8.
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk-taking: a metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383.
9.
Cascio, C. N., Carp, J., O’Donnell, M. B., Tinney, F. J., Bingham, C. R., Shope, J. T., …Falk, E. B. (2015). Buffering social influence: neural correlates of response inhibition predict driving safety in the presence of a peer. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 83–95.
10.
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2013). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 83, 50–58.
11.
Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14, F1–F10.
12.
Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. (2010). Sex differences in impulsivity: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 97–130.
13.
Cross, C. P., Cyrenne, D.-L. M., & Brown, G. R. (2013). Sex differences in sensation seeking: a meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 3, 2486.
14.
Dzielska, A., & Kowalewska, A. (2014). Zachowania ryzykowne młodzieży – współczesne podejście do problemu [Risky behavior in adolescence]. Studia BAS, 2, 139–168.
15.
Figner, B., & Weber, E. U. (2011). Who takes risks when and why?: determinants of risk taking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 211–216.
16.
Figner, B., Mackinlay, R. J., Wilkening, F., & Weber, E. U. (2009). Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: age differences in risk taking in the Columbia Card Task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 709–730.
17.
Fryt, J., Smolen, T., Czernecka, K., La Torre, A., & Szczygieł, M. (2017). Risk, cognitive control and adolescence. Challenging the Dual Systems Model. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2037–2042.
18.
Gullone, E., Moore, S., Moss, S., & Boyd, C. (2000). The Adolescent Risk-Taking Questionnaire: development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 231–250.
19.
Hanoch, Y., Johnson, J. G., & Wilke, A. (2006). Domain specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment. Psychological Science, 17, 300–304.
20.
Harden, K. P., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2011). Individual differences in the development of sensation seeking and impulsivity during adolescence: further evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 47, 739–746.
21.
Harris, C. R., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgement and Decision Making, 1, 48–63.
22.
Huang, Y., Wood, S., Berger, D., & Hanoch, Y. (2013). Risky choice in younger versus older adults: affective context matters. Judgement and Decision Making, 8, 179–187.
23.
Janssen, T., Larsen, H., Peeters, M., Boendermaker, W. J., Vollebergh, W. A. M., & Wiers, R. W. (2015). Do online assessed self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity-related constructs predict onset of substance use in adolescents? Addictive Behaviors Reports, 1, 12–18.
24.
Jaworowska, A. (2011). Kwestionariusz Impulsywności IVE – impulsywność, skłonność do ryzyka, empatia: polska normalizacja [IVE impulsivity questionnaire – impulsivity, risk-taking and empathy: polish normalization]. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
25.
Josef, A. K., Richter, D., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., Wagner, G. G., Hertwig, R., & Mata, R. (2016). Stability and change in risk-taking propensity across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 430–450.
26.
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 75–84.
27.
Lönnqvist, J.-A., Verkasalo, M., Walkowitz, G., & Wichardt, P. C. (2014). Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: task or ask? An empirical comparison. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 119, 254–266.
28.
Mahalik, J. R., Coley, R. L., Lombardi, C. M., Lynch, A. D., Markowitz, A., & Jaffee, S. R. (2013). Changes in health risk behaviors for males and females from early adolescence through early adulthood. Health Psychology, 32, 685–694.
29.
Mamerow, L., Frey, R., & Mata, R. (2016). Risk taking across the life span: a comparison of self-report and behavioral measures of risk taking. Psychology and Aging, 31, 711–723.
30.
Markiewicz, Ł., & Kubińska, E. (2015). Information use differences in hot and cold risk processing: when does information about probability count in the Columbia Card Task? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1727.
31.
Ostaszewski, K., Bobrowski, K., Borucka, A., Okulicz-Kozaryn, K., Pisarska, A., Raduj, J., & Biechowska, D. (2013). Monitorowanie zachowań ryzykownych i problemów zdrowia psychicznego młodzieży. Badania mokotowskie 2012 [Monitoring risk-taking tendencies and mental health problem in adolescents. The Mokotów study 2012]. Warszawa: Instytut Psychiatrii i Neurologii.
32.
Rolison, J. J., & Pachur, T. (2016). How well do we know our inner daredevil? probing the relationship between self-report and behavioral measures of risk taking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 647–657.
33.
Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Deciding in the dark: age differences in intuitive risk judgment. Developmental Psychology, 50, 167–177.
34.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78–106.
35.
Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764–1778.
36.
Tymula, A., Rosenberg Belmaker, L. A., Ruderman, L., Glimcher, P. W., & Levy, I. (2013). Like cognitive function, decision making across the life span shows profound age-related changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 17143–17148.
37.
Van Leijenhorst, L., Westenberg, P. M., & Crone, E. A. (2008). A developmental study of risky decisions on the cake gambling task: age and gender analyses of probability estimation and reward evaluation. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 179–196.
38.
Willoughby, T., Good, M., Adachi, P. J. C., & Tavernier, R. (2011). Examining the link between adolescent brain development and risk taking from a social-developmental perspective. Brain and Cognition, 83, 315–323.
39.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68, 999–1029.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.