For better or for worse: Social influences on risk-taking

McCoy, Shelly Sadek; Natsuaki, Misaki N.

doi:10.1080/00224545.2017.1294139

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in a driving context peers might explicitly instruct the participant to, “Go faster!,” or state that, “It’s boring when you go slow” (e.g., Shepherd et al, 2011). When completing the BART task, participants encouraged riskier choices using verbal expression (Wagemaker et al, 2020) such as, “If you stop now you are chicken,” (Bexkens et al, 2019; Cavalca et al, 2013) or, “I wonder how big this balloon can get; you should keep pumping it” (McCoy & Natsuaki, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior work has pointed to both direct (e.g., encouragement, reinforcement, approval or disapproval about choices) and indirect (e.g., modeling, observation) mechanisms through which communicated norms may operate during peer observation to shape adolescent risk taking (Borsari & Carey, 2001; Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Dishion & Tipsord, 2011; McCoy & Natsuaki, 2018; Reynolds et al, 2014). This moderator was included to evaluate whether peers who display pro-risk norms and peers who display antirisk norms had differential influence on the effect size relative to contexts involving neutral and no commentary from peers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of peer observation on risky decision-making in adolescence: A meta-analytic review.

Powers¹,

Schaefer²,

Figner³

et al. 2022

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Real-world health and crime statistics indicate that adolescents are prone to engage in risks in the presence of peers. Although this effect has been documented in several lab studies, existing evidence varies and the psychological mechanisms that give rise to peer observation-induced shifts in adolescent risky decisionmaking remain poorly understood. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of the effect of direct peer observation on risky decision-making in adolescents. Across 186 effect sizes, representing data from 53 distinct research reports and over 5,000 participants, we found evidence that during adolescence, observation by peers increases decisions to take risks relative to decisions made while unobserved, with a small mean effect size (Hedges' g = 0.16). We also found high effect size heterogeneity (I 2 = 82.63% and τ 2 = 0.078), motivating analysis of moderation. We evaluated whether variables hypothesized by theory and prior research to amplify or reduce risk taking in the presence of peers systematically moderated the size of this effect, including factors related to the decision context, the peer context, and the experimental design. The overall effect was moderated by peers' expression of risk-seeking preferences, such that the effect of peer observation was only significant when peers were also expressing pro-risk attitudes. Evidence for publication bias was not consistently observed. Taken together, this work supports the notion that mere peer observation increases adolescent risky decision-making, but this effect is extremely small unless the peers are additionally expressing pro-risk preferences. Moreover, this work provokes questions regarding whether the field's approach to studying peer influence is optimal at conceptual and practical levels, and whether it is maximally translatable to real-world contexts. We offer suggestions for future work that could lead to a clearer understanding of peer observation effects during adolescence. Public Significance StatementAdolescents are conceptualized as risk-takers in the presence of peers, as evident in real-world health statistics, laws, and policies such as graduated licensing procedures that restrict the number of nonfamily passengers for adolescent drivers. The present meta-analytic review found that peer observation increased adolescents' tendency to make risky decisions, but the effect is small in magnitude and was much greater when peers were expressing pro-risk preferences. We discuss the practical relevance of an effect of this size, provide recommendations to the field for conducting research toward a robust, translatable understanding of the nature of how peers influence preference for risk during adolescence, and discuss implications for policies involving youth decision-making in social contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of peer observation on risky decision-making in adolescence: A meta-analytic review.

Powers¹,

Schaefer²,

Figner³

et al. 2022

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A common criticism of trait approaches is that they neglect the contextual, relational, and social influences on risk-taking and offending behaviour. Environmental factors such as social modelling, peer and contextual influences on actions, and future-discounting all influence behaviour (Centifanti, Modecki, MacLellan, & Gowling, 2018;McCoy, & Natsuaki, 2018). Cullen (1994) suggests social support serves as a protective factor to stop someone engaging in criminal or deviant behaviour.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social support does not moderate the relationship between personality and risk-taking/antisocial behaviour

Egan

Bull

2020

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In line with previous research (Fernie et al, 2010;Rose et al, 2014), the average number of pumps for successful trials were recorded, with more pumps indicating riskier behaviour. The BART has found to be sensitive to an alcohol dose of 0.6g/kg, 20 minutes post-consumption , and has been successfully utilised in a number of studies examining the impact of social context on risk-taking behaviour (McCoy & Natsuaki, 2017;Reniers, Beavan, et al, 2016).…”

Section: Behavioural Measures Of Risk-takingmentioning

confidence: 99%