When do peers influence adolescent males' risk taking? Examining decision making under conditions of risk and ambiguity

Abstract

Risk taking is highly prevalent among adolescent males, and a range of studies have shown that decisions become riskier if a peer is present. However, previous studies have typically provided participants with explicit probabilities of risk in each situation. This does not accurately reflect adolescents' real‐world risk taking, where decisions are made in ambiguous situations alongside their peers. Aiming for a more ecologically valid design, the present experiment manipulated situational ambiguity and examined its interplay with group decision making and developmental factors. Adolescent males (N = 202) aged 12–15 completed a “Wheel of Fortune” task and then self‐reported their score, presenting an opportunity to cheat as a measure of antisocial risk taking. As predicted, adolescents were more likely to take risks when probabilities were ambiguous rather than explicit. Further, higher levels of gambling choices were made by groups in ambiguous, but not risk situations. Age significantly predicted gambling in ambiguous conditions, whereas developmental dispositions (risk perception, reward sensitivity, and inhibitory control) did not play a role. Findings provide an insight into the social and situational conditions under which adolescent males engage in reckless behavior.

Explore with Me: Peer Observation Decreases Risk-Taking but Increases Exploration Tendencies across Adolescence

“…Using similar dynamic approaches, recent findings indicate that adolescents readily increase risky choices as opposed to situations under known risks (Defoe et al, 2019;Lorenz & Kray, 2019), also known as ambiguity tolerance. Such as heightened ambiguity tolerance in youth, peer presence effects interact with adolescent decision-making only in situations where the probabilities of outcomes are ambiguous instead of explicit (Lloyd & Döring, 2019; but see Smith et al, 2014). However, peer presence effects do not fully explain adolescent decision making, leading to an increase of risky choices in experience based tasks (e.g., Chein et al, 2011), decrease of risky choices in tasks with dynamically changing risk probabilities (Kessler et al, 2017) or having no effect on risky choice altogether (Reynolds et al, 2014).…”

La Percepción de Apego con la Escuela Como un Factor Protector Para Conductas Antisociales en Escolares Chilenos

“…Según esta teoría, estas conductas aparecen en la infancia y adolescencia, pero su mantención se explica por la disponibilidad de sustancias en el medio cercano y creencias favorables hacia ellas, no solo del individuo, sino también de sus pares, quienes también influyen en la selección de amistades (Henneberger, Mushonga & Preston, 2020). Estudios más recientes indican que también se asocian al autocontrol y la toma de riesgos (Lloyd & Döring, 2019). Por su parte, en el caso de la influencia de pares, estudios como los de Vitaro et al (2015) muestran cómo los otros significativos pueden moderar la CA, relacionada con una actitud favorable hacia ella, incluso cuando existen factores genéticos o de socialización primaria.…”

The Nexus between Uncertainty Avoidance Culture and Risk-taking Behaviour in Entrepreneurial Firms’ Decision Making

“…Regarding personality traits, males who show interest to decide for the group score more on "openness" and less on "agreeableness" traits compared to males who do not show such interest (Ertac & Gurdal, 2012;Lloyd & Döring, 2019). The influence of age in risk-taking is explained by the level of exposure of decision-makers to peer pressure.…”

“…Generally, adolescent males are more risk-takers if there is peer pressure and if the probability of the outcome is explicit. On the contrary, Lloyd & Döring (2019) argue that if peer pressure exists, adolescents are more likely to take risks even though the possible outcomes are not explicit.…”

“…In addition, the literature reveals plenty of triggering factors that affect risk-taking tendency in decision-making, such as the characteristics of decision-makers, the state of mind of decision-makers, motivation for decision making, and area of influence of decision: deciding for oneself or others. Some of the characteristics related to decision-makers are age, gender, and personality traits (Ertac & Gurdal, 2012;Nieboer, 2015;Lloyd & Döring, 2019). The state of mind of decision-makers includes the affective reaction towards the subject of decision (Moreno, Kida, & Smith 2002;Se, Goldfarb & Barret, 2010), emotional differentiation of feelings (Li & Ashkanasy, 2019;Se, Goldfarb, & Barret, 2010), burnout (Michailidis & Banks, 2016) and boredom (Kiliç, van Tilburg, & Igou, 2020).…”