No Guts, No Glory: The Influence of Risk-taking on Adolescent Popularity

ABSTRACT

Existing research finds adolescent popularity to be correlated with risk-taking. While a subset of this research uses longitudinal methods to examine whether part of this correlation may reflect the influence of popularity on risk-taking, research has paid insufficient attention to examining the reverse relation. Drawing on literature from a range of disciplines, we argue that a portion of the correlation reflects the positive influence of risk-taking on popularity. Using longitudinal data from a northeastern sample of adolescents, we test this argument. Net of statistical controls, we find that risk-taking among males, but not females, is associated with higher popularity, but that this relation is curvilinear, such that progressively higher levels of risk-taking yield diminishing returns in male popularity. Results provide one explanation for why male adolescents tend to take more risks in the presence of peers. Likewise, they suggest that attempts to prevent adolescent risk-taking, particularly among males, may require practitioners to move beyond conceiving of adolescent risk-taking as purely irrational behavior reflecting an ostensible inability to perceive potential consequences. Instead, results suggest that male risk-taking should be understood in the context of the salient social rewards that may make it rational from an adolescent perspective.

View correction statement:

Correction

Notes

¹ There remains debate about what constitutes a reasonable threshold-correlation for diagnosing collinearity problems. While some have argued that collinearity is a problem only when the absolute value of a correlation exceeds .90, others have claimed that the appropriate threshold is in the range of .50 to .70 (Booth, Niccolucci, and Schuster 1994; Dorman et al. 2012). Given this ambiguity, it remains an open question as to whether collinearity presented a problem in Mayeux, Sandstrom, and Cillessen (2008) study, but this possibility is one reason that we have opted to construct an overall risk-taking scale for our multivariate analyses rather than including multiple indicators of risk-taking as separate predictors.

² After eliminating one masculinity item concerning risk-taking, a factor analysis of our remaining masculinity and risk-taking items (available upon request) generated two clear factors, with all items loading higher than .60 on their intended factor and lower than .10 on the alternative factor. Our risk-taking and masculinity scales are comprised of items included in the factor analysis (these items are listed in the Appendix).

³ While we have included masculinity and femininity measures in order to provide as stringent a test as we are able of the relationship that risk-taking bears with popularity independent of masculinity or femininity, we note that supplemental analyses (available upon request) found substantively identical results for all multivariate analyses regardless of whether we included masculinity and femininity in our equations.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cesar J. Rebellon

Dr. Cesar J. Rebellon is Professor and Chair in the Department of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire, where he is also a faculty fellow in the Carsey School of Public Policy. He received his doctorate from the Department of Sociology at Emory University in 2002, and his primary research interests focus on family and peer correlates of juvenile crime and delinquency. He is particularly interested in how delinquency and other forms of risk-taking behavior may yield reinforcing social rewards among adolescents. His work has appeared in such journals as Social Psychology Quarterly, Deviant Behavior, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Rural Sociology, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Criminology, and Journal of Quantitative Criminology. His current work, in collaboration with Ellen S. Cohn and Karen T. Van Gundy, is funded by the National Science Foundation.

Rick Trinkner

Rick Trinkner is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. He has a PhD in social psychology from the University of New Hampshire. Broadly speaking, his research seeks to understand why people follow rules and defer to authority and how regulatory agencies can best foster support from those they serve. Much of this work focuses on how people, particularly young adults, are socialized into rule-based institutions and how this process shapes their views on the legitimacy of authority, their acquisition of legal values and attitudes, and their engagement in behavior governed by formal codes of conduct.

Karen T. Van Gundy

Karen T. Van Gundy is professor of Sociology, core faculty in Justice Studies, and a faculty fellow at the Casey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Funded by the National Science Foundation and the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, her research examines how social contexts shape physical, emotional, and behavioral health among youth and emerging adults. Her work appears in scholarly journals such as the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Rural Sociology, and Substance Use and Misuse, as well as her recently published book, Marijuana: Examining the Facts.

Ellen S. Cohn

Ellen S. Cohn is Professor of Psychology and Coordinator of the Justice Studies Program at the University of New Hampshire. She received her doctorate from the Department of Psychology at Temple University in 1978 and her primary research interests focus on legal socialization, predictors of peer delinquency, and jury decision-making. Her work has appeared in such journals as American Psychologist, Law and Human Behavior, Journal of Adolescence, Social Psychology Quarterly, Sex Roles, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Psychology, Crime and Law. Her current work, in collaboration with Cesar J. Rebellon and Karen T. Van Gundy, is funded by the National Science Foundation.​