Sex Differences in Children's Risk-taking Behavior

Ginsburg, Harvey J.; Miller, Shirley M.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1982.tb01332.x

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This inconsistency in findings is similar to findings observed in nonacademic risk-taking studies: Some demonstrate that males take greater risks (Crandall & Rabson, 1960;Ginsburg & Miller, 1982;Kass, 1964); others document negligible sex differences or none at all (Jamieson, 1969;Kogan & Dorros, 1978;Kopfstein, 1973;Montgomery & Landers, 1974;Pankove & Kogan, 1968). Explanations for such inconsistencies might best be advanced by research that focuses on situational, cultural, and personality variables thought to mediate the presence and absence of sex differences.…”

Section: Sex Diffe~ences In Academic Risk Takingsupporting

confidence: 59%

Academic Risk Taking, Development, and External Constraint

Clifford

Chou

Mao

et al. 1990

The Journal of Experimental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sex Diffe~ences In Academic Risk Takingsupporting

confidence: 59%

Academic Risk Taking, Development, and External Constraint

Clifford

Chou

Mao

et al. 1990

The Journal of Experimental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Females are also more prone to most anxiety disorders, including agoraphobia and panic disorder (e.g., APA, 1994;Weissman, 1985). It is also noteworthy that girls report being more fearful and timid in uncertain situations than boys and are more cautious and take fewer risks than boys (Christopherson, 1989;Ginsburg & Miller, 1982). Girls are also more compliant than boys beginning in the toddler period and throughout childhood (Kochanska & Aksan, in press; Minton, Kagan, & Levine, 1971;Peder-son & Bell, 1970;Smith & Dagliesh, 1977), and girls are more prone to anxiety disorders (Weissman, 1985).…”

Section: An Adaptationist Perspective On Conscientiousnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution, the Five‐Factor Model, and Levels of Personality

MacDonald

1995

Journal of Personality

267

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article interprets the five-factor model as subsuming variation in normative, species-typical systems with adaptive functions in the human environment of evolutionary adaptedness. It is argued that the evolutionary logic of personality systems is apparent in the patteming of mean sex differences in personality. Personality systems are conceptualized as evolved motivational systems with an affective core. The evolved motive dispositions at the core of personality anchor a hierarchy of levels of cognitive and behavioral functioning aimed at attaining or avoiding the affective states central to these personality systems. Personality systems are seen as often in dynamic conflict within individuals and as highly compartmentalized in their functioning between settings. While variation iti personality consists of a range of viable strategies for humans, extremes on these systems tend to be maladaptive, although in at least some cases individuals who approach the maladaptive extremes of individual variation may be viewed as engagitig in high-risk evolutionary strategies. Within this wide range of viable strategies, personality variation functions as a resource environment for individuals in the sense that personality variation is evaluated according to the interests of the evaluator.The five-factor model (FFM) emerges from the English lexicon and can be understood as reflecting independent dimensions of human functioning from the point of view of an observer (Goldberg, 1981). The proposal is that the factors identified by the FFM denote variation in a set of semantically linked subsystems which evolved in order to solve adaptive I wish to acknowledge the very useful comments on previous versions of this manuscript made by

show abstract

“…Research has revealed that boys suffer a higher injury rate across a vast number of different injury situations, including falls, which might conceivably constitute the major cause of injury in early childhood settings (Rosen & Peterson, 1990). When coupled with boys' greater likelihood of engaging in risktaking behaviours (Ginsberg & Miller, 1982;Morrongiello & Rennie, 1998) and a greater tendency towards optimism bias , this fact has considerable implications for early childhood teaching practice if teachers are to ensure the safety and well-being of the children in their care. A related issue is that of socialization practices.…”

Section: Implications For Early Childhood Teaching Practice and Direcmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Early studies of gender differences in children's risk-taking behaviour provided some evidence that overall more boys than girls engage in risk-taking behaviour (Ginsberg & Miller, 1982). More recent research has investigated gender differences in how boys and girls perceive risk.…”

Section: Age and Gendermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, the negative consequences of risk-taking behaviour have received increasing attention over that past two decades. Current research into the risk-taking behaviour of children and injury proneness has investigated the contribution of factors such as gender (Ginsberg & Miller, 1982;, age (Plumert, 1995;Schwebel & Plumert, 1999), temperament (Plumert & Schwebel, 1997;Rothbart et al, 1994;Rothbart & Jones, 1998), and parent socialization practices (Morrongiello & Dawber, 2000;Morrongiello & Hogg, 2004). In addition, individual differences in personality factors such as sensation seeking-the desire for stimulating and novel experiences (Zuckerman, 1994), and the tendency to underestimate negative outcomes of behaviour, referred to as optimistic bias (Price et al, 2002), have also been examined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation