Risk Perception and Reasoning Performance in High and Low Risk Adolescents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Risk Perception and Reasoning Performance in High and Low Risk Adolescents Maria P. Gmnewald A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Docîor of Education Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto O Copywrite by Maria P. Grunewald (2001) National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1+1 ,canada du Canada . .. .. and et -K: -K: Services miographiques 395 WelRngîon Street 395, MWeUiigton Ottawa ON KIA ON4 OttawaON K1AW cana& Canada The author has grrmted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence dowing the exclusive permettant ii la Natiod Lhraty of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sen reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conseme la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantid extracts fiom t Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permissiun. autorisation. Abstract Risk Perception and Reasoning Performance in High and Low Risk Adolescents Doctor of Education, 2001 Maria Grunewald Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto The goal of this exploratory research was to examine whether high and low risk male adolescents differed on a group of measures associated with risk perception and risk behaviour. Based on previous research, it was expected that high risk rdolescents would consistently report and display more risk related behavioua than low risk adolescents. Cognitive ability and thinking dispositions were examined as correlates of performance on these tasks. A sample of ninety male adolescents were subdivided into two groups - a high or low risk group based on the frequency of school suspensions. Tasks included: rwo self- report measures consisting of a risk perception questionnaire and a future life events inventory; two reasoning tasks consisting of a gambling task and a marble task; a cognitive ability rneasure; and a thinking dispositions questionnaire. The high nsk students reported les fear of the dangers associated with high nsk activities, displayed lower optirnism, and these students were alx, the high risk choosers on the gambling task of cost-benefit reasoning. No differences were found on the marble reasoning task. Some evidence was found for a "syndrome of problem behaviour", as students who engaged in one high nsk activity were more likely to engage in other high risk activities. High and low nsk students did not differ in cognitive ability and some trends were found which suggest that thinking dispositions may explain differences between the two groups of students. The implications of these fmdings are discussed in te= of a somatic marker hypothesis (Bechara et al., 1994) and a genenc dual process fiamework for reasoning (Stanovich & West, 2000). This body of work is dedicated to my mother and late father. As immigrants to Canada, Dornenica and Luigi D'Addona paved the way for me to achieve my dreams. They Wled in me the love of learning?a social conscience, and the need to challenge the status quo. For these gifts and many others, 1 am eternally grateful. Throughout this endeavour, 1 had the support of my brothers John and Anthony DIAddona. John solved rny computer "giitches" at all hours of the day or night and Anthony provided me with quiet enmuragernent Whüe strivhg to achieve this goal, my ffiend Aldona Skrupskas was witness to the emotional roller coaster as 1 stniggled to maintain a balance in my Me. Nevertheless, her steadfast support never wavered and her belief in my abüity provided additional motivation to persevere. Aldona's sensitivity to the demands of the work 1 had undertaken is gratefully acknowledged. There were other wimesses to my labours inciuding Cam Chenton, Lorraine White, Val McAlpine, Susan Menary, and Carm Burzotta. 1 thank these fiiends and colieagues for their support and their kind enquiries about my weil being. My most heartfelt appreciation is extended to Dr. Keith Stanovich, my thesis advisor, who sparked my intellechial curiosity and fostered my professional growth. Keith's guidance was invaluable, his knowledge extensive, and his patience immeasurable. But more -, Keith "kept the faithnand disptayed an nnparatfeted sense of humanity which nourished my personal joumey. It has been both an honour and privilege to have worked with Keith. I also wish tu acknowledge and thank Dr. Maggie Toplak for her generous gift of time and attention required to complete this thesis. Maggie's guidance, mentoriog, and fnendship will always be remembered and appreciated. As well, 1 offer my thanks to the students ia the Stanovich lab for their input and on-going support. 1 wish to take this opporhmity to thank the membea of my thesis committee for their genuine interest in my shidy. Their constructive commentary has enxiched this thesis. A personal thanks goes to Dr. Judith Wiener who initially encouraged me to enter the doctoral programme and who has beea a constant support and inspiration throughout my studies at OISE. Thanks to Dr. Mary Lou Arnold for joining my committee and offering helpfid advice. Dr. Richard West was the extemal evaluator on the thesis committee. 1 appreciated his flattering feedback on my thesis and enjoyed the thought-provoking dialogues he initiated during the final defence. Finally, 1 wish to express my utmost respect for the students who pmicipated in this exploratory research. Their involvement and enthusiasm exemplified their willingness to be heard as coatributing mernbers of our society. Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................... 1 Risk Taking in Adolescence .................................................... 4 Adolescent Invulnerability ......................................................... 4 Risk Behaviour Perception ....................................................... 7 Future Oriented Optimism ......................................................... 9 Decision Making Perspective ..................................................... 11 Syndrome of Problem Behaviour ................................................ 15 Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability. Risk Perception. and Reasoning About Risk ........................................................ 17 Cognitive Capacities and Thinking Styles....................................... 20 Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................. 23 Chapter II Method ...................................................................................... 25 Participants.......................................................................... 25 Tasks and Measures .............. ,. ......, ....................................... 27 Risk Perception Questionnaire ................................................. 27 Risk Behaviours and Activities .......... ,.., .......... ................ 27 Risk Perception Subscales............................................... 28 Future Life Events Inventory ............................. .. ...................... 30 The Gambling Task of Cost-benefit reasoning ................................. 31 Materials .................................................................... 32 Playing the Game ......................................................... 33 Data Collection ................ ...,,..... ..,,. ............................... 35 The Marble Task of Base Rate Reasoning ..................................... Materials .................................................................... Playing the Game .......................................................... Data Collection ............................................................. Thinking Dispositions Questionnaire ............................................ Actively Open-minded Thinking ......................................... Counterfactual Thinking .................................................. Paranormal Beliefs ........................................................ NE0 Scale N5: Impulsiveness*......... .. ............................ NE0 Scale C6: Deliberation .............................................. NE0 Taxonomy Scale 05: Ideas......................................... Social Desirability Response .............................. .. ............. Consideration of Future Consequences........................ ... ...... New Personal Fable Scale................................................ Cognitive Abili ty Measures ....................................................... Procedure ............................................................................ 46 Chapter III Results ....................................................................................... 50 Group Comparisons on Self-report Measures .................................. 50 Risk Perception Questionnaire ......................................... 50 Future Life Events Inventory ............................................ 53 Group Cornparisons on Reasoning Task ............... .. .................. 54 The Gambling Task of Cost-benefit Reasoning