Search

Risk behavior has substantial consequences for health, well-being, and general behavior. The association between real-world risk behavior and risk behavior on experimental tasks is well documented, but their modeling is challenging for several reasons. First, many experimental risk tasks may end prematurely leading to censored observations. Second, certain outcome values can be more attractive than others. Third, a priori unknown groups of participants can react differently to certain risk-levels. Here, we propose the censored mixture model which models risk taking while dealing with censoring, attractiveness to certain outcomes, and unobserved individual risk preferences, next to experimental conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Only very recently has research demonstrated that experimentally inducedemotion regulationstrategies (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression) affect risky choice (e.g., Heilman et al., 2010). However, it is unknown whether this effect also operates viahabitualuse of emotion regulation strategies in risky choice involving deliberative decision making. We investigated the role of habitual use of emotion regulation strategies in risky choice using the “cold” deliberative version of the Columbia Card Task (CCT; Figner et al., 2009). Fifty-three participants completed the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003) and—one month later—the CCT and the PANAS. Greater habitual cognitive reappraisal use was related to increased risk taking, accompanied by decreased sensitivity to changes in probability and loss amount. Greater habitual expressive suppression use was related to decreased risk taking. The results show that habitual use of reappraisal and suppression strategies predict risk taking when decisions involve predominantly cognitive-deliberative processes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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 decision-making 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 (I2 = 82.63% and τ2 = 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 Statement: Adolescents 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Life is full of risky decisions, from the mundane to matters of life or death. Individuals differ in the risks they accept (or even deliberately embrace). However, risk taking is not a single trait but is a behavior influenced by characteristics of the situation (what the decision is about and to what extent it engages affect vs. deliberation), the decision maker (age and gender), and interactions between situation and decision maker. Understanding the mechanisms behind risk taking--or who takes risks when and why--is particularly important when the goal is to influence and modify the behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors investigated risk taking and underlying information use in 13- to 16- and 17- to 19-year-old adolescents and in adults in 4 experiments, using a novel dynamic risk-taking task, the Columbia Card Task (CCT). The authors investigated risk taking under differential involvement of affective versus deliberative processes with 2 versions of the CCT, constituting the most direct test of a dual-system explanation of adolescent risk taking in the literature so far. The "hot" CCT was designed to trigger more affective decision making, whereas the "cold" CCT was designed to trigger more deliberative decision making. Differential involvement of affective versus deliberative processes in the 2 CCT versions was established by self-reports and assessment of electrodermal activity. Increased adolescent risk taking, coupled with simplified information use, was found in the hot but not the cold condition. Need-for- arousal predicted risk taking only in the hot condition, whereas executive functions predicted information use in the cold condition. Results are consistent with recent dual-system explanations of risk taking as the result of competition between affective processes and deliberative cognitive-control processes, with adolescents' affective system tending to override the deliberative system in states of heightened emotional arousal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite evident heightened adolescent risk-taking in real-life situations, not all experimental studies demonstrate that adolescents take more risks than children and adults on risky decision-making tasks. In the current 4 independent meta-analyses, neurodevelopmental imbalance models and fuzzy trace theory were used as conceptual frameworks to examine whether adolescents engage in more risk-taking than children and adults and whether early adolescents take more risks than children and mid-late adolescents on behavioral risk-taking tasks. Studies with at least 1 of the aforementioned age comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Consistent with imbalance models and fuzzy trace theory, results from a random effects model showed that adolescents take more risks (g = .37) than adults, and early adolescents take more risks (g = .15) than mid-late adolescents. However, inconsistent with both perspectives, adolescents and children take equal levels of risk (g = -.00), and early adolescents and children also take equal levels of risk (g = .04). Meta-regression analyses revealed that, consistent with imbalance models, (a) adolescents take more risks than adults on hot tasks with immediate outcome feedback on rewards and losses; however, contrary to imbalance models but consistent with fuzzy trace theory, (b) adolescents take fewer risks than children on tasks with a sure/safe option. Shortcomings related to studies using behavioral risk-taking tasks are discussed. We suggest a hybrid developmental neuroecological model of risk-taking that includes a risk opportunity component to explain why adolescents take more risks than children in the real world but equal levels of risks as children in the laboratory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]