Personality, Sensation Seeking, and Risk- Taking Behavior in a College Population

ALISSA C. HUTH-BOCKS This study investigated the relationship between personality characteristics and sensation seeking, as well as sex differences in risk-taking behaviors such as sub- University of Michigan stance abuse and unsafe sex. The sample consisted of 47 undergraduate students (22 men and 25 women) at a public, midwestern university. The Sensation Seek- ing Scale (SSS)–Form V and a personality questionnaire that yields the Big Five personality traits were administered to all participants. Results indicated Extro- version predicted sensation seeking in females only, whereas low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness predicted sensation seeking in the entire sample. Furthermore, men appeared to be significantly more willing to and interested in taking risks than women. These findings help explain who is most likely to engage in risky behaviors in an undergraduate population, which ultimately could be used to develop more efficacious prevention programs for this population.

HE TRAIT OF SENSATION SEEKING HAS BEST correlated with levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO), been defined as “the need for varied, novel an enzyme that is found in brain systems involved in Tand complex sensations and experiences and the regulation of pleasure, rewards and punishments, the willingness to take physical and social risks for and emotional arousal (Arque, Unzeta, & Torrubia, the sake of such experience” (Zuckerman, 1979a, 1988; Schooler, Zahn, Murphy, & Buchsbaum, 1978; p. 10). Although a person’s preference for such ex- Zuckerman, 1983). High sensation seekers have lower periences may fluctuate over time, it is generally ac- amounts of MAO, which may lead them to require cepted that individuals differ on their “optimal” level more stimulation to feel adequate levels of pleasure of stimulation, and each person’s preferred level will or arousal. be consistent across many behaviors and activities with Since sensation seekers need novel and exciting some long-range stability (Hebb, 1955; Kish & Busse, experiences, they often engage in physically risky 1968; Zuckerman, 1971). For example, individuals behaviors. The first studies of sensation seeking (e.g., with a higher optimal level of stimulation will consis- Zuckerman, 1964) tended to focus on sporting ac- tently seek out more stimulation and excitation than tivities and hobbies. For example, it was shown that those with a lower optimal level. sky divers (Hymbaugh & Garrett, 1974) and scuba Researchers have attempted to explain the dif- divers (Heyman & Rose, 1980) scored significantly ferences between high sensation seekers and low sen- higher on sensation seeking than controls. With the sation seekers in numerous ways. Several possible bio- serious threat of AIDS and other sexually transmit- logical explanations for sensation seeking may be that ted diseases, there has been an increasing number of high sensation seekers (a) have a low base level of arousal which leads them to seek intense stimuli; (b) Author’s Note. This paper was presented at the 103rd Annual Con- have a low level of reactivity requiring more intense vention of the American Psychological Association, August 1995. The author wishes to thank Dr. Albert Cain for continued guid- stimuli to excite them; or (c) habituate to stimuli at a ance throughout the stages of this project and Dr. Lisa Thomson much quicker rate which results in a need for novel Ross and the Coping Study group for valuable comments and as- stimuli to avoid boredom (Smith, Davidson, Perlstein, sistance with the final manuscript preparation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed Oster, & Gonzalez, 1989; Zuckerman, 1991). Sensa- to Alissa C. Huth-Bocks, Michigan State University, 129 Psychol- tion seeking also has been shown to be negatively ogy Research Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1117.

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 53 Copyright 1996 by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 1, No. 3–4, 53– 61 / ISSN 1089-4136). RISKY BEHAVIOR Huth-Bocks studies addressing risky sexual behaviors as well. focuses on feelings of fear and anxiety, and Intellect, Zuckerman, Tushup, and Finner (1976) reported a the fifth factor, measures a person’s capacity to be significant relationship between more accepting atti- insightful and imaginative as well as willingness to be tudes towards risky sexual behaviors and sensation intellectually curious. seeking among college students. Other researchers Not surprisingly, numerous studies have reported (Carpenter, Volpe, & Faith, 1993) also found certain significant correlations between sensation seeking aspects of sensation seeking to be significant predic- and the broader trait Surgency, or Extroversion tors of risky sexual behaviors among college students. (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Farley & Farley, 1967; Although individuals may recognize and under- Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, 1988). Extroversion stand the general risks of AIDS and other diseases, has been particularly correlated with physically risky they do not behave any more safely; that is, by using sporting activities (Eysenck & McGuirk, 1980). Ex- condoms (Horvath & Zuckerman, 1993; Trocki, 1992; troverts, like sensation seekers, also have been shown Wulfert & Wan, 1993). Williams et al. (1992) reported to have lower levels of arousability and reactivity in 72% of college students had been sexually active dur- the nervous system (Zuckerman, 1991). ing the previous year and of those who had been sexu- Researchers have also found that sensation seek- ally active, 75% had not always used condoms. Other ing is strongly correlated with psychoticism, as mea- reported risky behaviors included the setting for the sured by Eysenck’s P factor (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; sexual activity, the number of sexual partners, and Zuckerman et al., 1988). This factor is described by the types of sexual relationships. aggressive, impersonal, antisocial, and egocentric Substance abuse has also been repeatedly linked characteristics. Several researchers have noted the to the trait sensation seeking. Carrol and Zuckerman opposite of P is similar to the third factor in the Big (1977), for example, found an association between Five model, Conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, drug use and certain types of sensation-seeking pref- 1985; Zuckerman, 1991). Indeed, it has been reported erences such as the tendency to become bored quickly that high sensation seekers score significantly lower with stimuli and the tendency to behave without in- on Conscientiousness (Hogan, 1982) and lower on hibition. Other researchers have found a positive re- Orderliness (Zuckerman & Link, 1968). The oppo- lationship between the amount of alcohol consump- site of P may have an even stronger relationship with tion (Pederson, 1991) and the frequency of alcohol Agreeableness, the second factor in the Big Five use (Hill & Thomson Ross, 1995) and other types of model, than with the Conscientiousness factor, even sensation seeking. Furthermore, several studies have though both have been shown to correlate negatively shown sexually risky behavior is more frequently ac- with P (McCrae & Costa, 1985; Zuckerman, 1991). It companied by alcohol and drug usage (Biglan, follows then that less agreeable people should also Metzler, Wirt, & Ary, 1990; Williams et al., 1992), score higher on sensation seeking. Surprisingly, the which is understandable since risk takers tend to en- literature on Agreeableness and sensation seeking is gage in risky behaviors over a wide variety of situa- sparse. tions (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Osgood, Johnston, Finally, it has been argued that someone with O’Malley, & Bachman, 1988). Clearly, unsafe sexual abnormally low levels of anxiety has more of a ten- behaviors and substance abuse, both linked to sensa- dency to engage in risk-taking behavior (Gray, 1981). tion seeking, are prevalent problems among college As such, it follows that anxiety should be negatively students that need to be addressed. correlated with sensation seeking. However, most Researchers have tried to link sensation seeking studies have found no correlation between sensation and risk-taking tendencies with other traits using seeking and neuroticism or anxiety scores (Zucker- Eysenck’s three-factor model (1947) and the Big Five man, 1971; Zuckerman, 1979b; Zuckerman, 1983). factor model (Norman, 1963). Norman’s model pro- Perhaps anxiety, or its corresponding Big Five factor poses there are five broad personality traits that ac- Emotional Stability, is simply unrelated to sensation count for English-language trait descriptors. These seeking. That is, sensation seekers may be high or five factors have consistently been found across a va- low on Emotional Stability (Zuckerman, 1991). It is riety of studies using different factor-analytic proce- also possible that Emotional Stability lacks validity as dures. The first factor, Surgency, measures sociability an anxiety measure. and activity. The second factor, Agreeableness, mea- Since sensation seeking and risky behavior have sures trustworthiness, ability to sympathize, and co- been linked to certain biological variables and per- operativeness. The third factor, Conscientiousness, sonality characteristics, it is not surprising investiga- measures organization, dependability, and similar tors have also attempted to discover if and how men constructs. Emotional Stability, the fourth factor, and women differ on certain types of sensation seek-

54 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 RISKY BEHAVIOR Huth-Bocks ing and risk-taking behavior. Zuckerman (1983) re- 88% of women had some type of religious affiliation ported women scored lower than men on sensation- compared to only 50% for men, !2(1, N = 47) = 7.62, seeking scales, possibly because they have higher p < .01. amounts of MAO, which is negatively correlated with sensation seeking. Women also tend to have higher Measures arousal and reactivity levels, making them less likely In addition to basic demographic information, to seek out high stimulation (Zuckerman, 1991). several questionnaires were administered. The first Furnam and Saipe (1993) also reported a sex differ- questionnaire administered was the Sensation- ence, with men scoring higher on certain types of Seeking Scale–Form V (SSS; Zuckerman, Eysenck, & sensation seeking. Persky et al. (1978) have shown a Eysenck, 1978) which is a 40-item, forced-choice, self- positive relationship between sensation seeking and report questionnaire used to measure a variety of sen- levels of testosterone, adding another possible expla- sation-seeking attitudes and activity preferences. nation for this sex difference. Aside from biological Using rotational methods, Zuckerman et al. found reasons, women may tend to score lower on risky be- four subfactors with substantial factor reliability. The haviors because of different socialization experiences first is Thrill and Adventure Seeking (TAS) which (Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978). That is, it measures risky and adventurous sports, exemplified has been shown that women tend to perceive situa- by the item “I would like to try parachute jumping.” tions as more threatening, have less exaggerated views The second is Experience Seeking (ES) which asks of their abilities (e.g., in risky driving situations; Dejoy, about seeking stimulation through the mind and 1992), and are more likely to delay gratification (Witt, senses, including alcohol and drug usage. An example 1990). is “I would like to try some of the new drugs that pro- In summary, it appears that individual differences duce hallucinations.” The third subscale is Disinhibi- in sensation seeking and risk-taking behaviors are at tion (Dis) which measures several social activities, in- least partly due to certain personality traits and sex cluding sexual experiences, for example “A person differences. The present study attempts to further should have considerable sexual experience before understand these relationships among college stu- marriage.” The final subscale, Boredom Susceptibil- dents, who have been shown to engage in risky be- ity (BS), measures a person’s tendency to avoid re- haviors at an alarming rate. This study was particu- petitive experiences, and is exemplified by the item larly interested in physically risky sports, unsafe sexual “I have no patience with dull or boring persons.” The behaviors, and drug and alcohol usage. It was hypoth- first three subscales (TAS, ES, Dis) are most relevant esized that: (a) Surgency (or Extroversion) would be to the present study’s focus. A total sensation-seeking a significant predictor of sensation-seeking scores for score can be obtained by summing the 10 items on both men and women; (b) sensation-seeking scores each of the four subscales. would be negatively correlated with Agreeableness In the original study, Zuckerman et al. (1978) and Conscientiousness scores; (c) there would be no reported the four subscales in the SSS were all corre- relation between sensation seeking and the fourth lated with each other except for the TAS and Dis and and fifth factors of the Big Five model, Emotional for the TAS and BS in men only. Internal consistency Stability and Intellect; and (d) men would score sig- coefficients ranged from .56 on BS to .85 on the total nificantly higher than women on all types of sensa- score, indicating fairly good reliability. In the current tion seeking. study, 15 items, which were worded in more current terms and were more appropriate to the present Method study’s goals, were added to the end of the original Participants ES and Dis subscales. Because the items added in the The participants in this study were 47 under- present study asked exclusively about sexual and drug- graduate students (22 men and 25 women) attend- related attitudes and behaviors, it was hoped they ing a large, public university. The mean age of the would help capture those specific domains of behav- entire sample was 20.89 years old (SD = .91), and the ior. The additional items also asked about actual be- mean years in college was 3.51 years (SD = .88). On haviors, not simply preferences or attitudes. Separate average, women were 20.68 years old (SD = .95) and ES and Dis scores were then calculated including the had 3.56 years of college (SD = .87). On average, men additional items, so there was a total of seven scores: were 21.13 years old (SD = .83) and had 3.45 years of TAS, ES, Dis, BS (each out of 10), Total SSS (out of college (SD = .91). All 47 participants were single. 40), New ES (out of 17), New Dis (out of 18). Men and women did not differ significantly on any Cronbach’s alpha was .59 for the New ES subscale demographic variables except for religion, in which and .78 for the New Dis subscale, indicating adequate

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 55 RISKY BEHAVIOR Huth-Bocks

TABLE 1 Big Five Scores for Entire Sample, Men, and Women

Sample (N = 47) Men (n = 22) Women (n = 25) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Surgency 5.5(6.5) 5.0(6.8) 6.0(6.4) Agreeableness 12.9(6.2) 11.2(5.8) 14.4(6.3) Conscientiousness 9.9(6.6) 7.1(7.2) 12.4(5.0)** Emotional Stability –14.1(7.3) –13.1(8.4) –15.0(6.2) Intellect 10.9(4.9) 10.6(5.6) 11.2(4.4)

**p < .005

inter-item reliability. pants were recruited in upper-level English and psy- The second measure used in this study consists chology classes, and the other half were recruited of 100 unipolar personality characteristics that form from the student union in the eating commons. Nei- scale scores of the factors in the Big Five factor model. ther setting was very private, and the student union These “Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure” was quite noisy and crowded. Participants were in- were developed by Goldberg (1992). There are 20 formed verbally and in writing before they began that characteristics for each factor, including ones that are their participation was voluntary, that they could stop synonymous with a factor and ones that are opposite at any time, and that they could omit any items if they to a factor; each is given equal weighting. There is an did not want to respond to them. Written instructions equal number of positives and negatives for each fac- were provided to explain how to respond to the items. tor except Emotional Stability, which has 6 positives Each participant filled out the packet in its entirety and 14 negatives. Each factor’s score equals the sum in 20 min or less. No one who was approached de- of the positives minus the sum of the negatives. Par- clined participation, and thus the participation rate ticipants are asked to rate themselves on each of the was 100%. characteristics as follows: 1 (inaccurate in general), 2 (sometimes is true for me), and 3 (accurate in general). Results The significance level was set at .05 for all analy- Procedure ses. An independent t test revealed that men and The participants were partly chosen out of con- women differed significantly on only one personality venience in common university locations during vari- trait, Conscientiousness, t(45) = –2.95, p < .005; see ous times of the day: about one half of the partici- Table 1. To measure the relationships between per-

TABLE 2 Relation Between Surgency and Sensation-Seeking Variables

Variable Sample Men Women ß B ß B ß B TAS .04a 7.36 –.17b –8.53 .23c 6.11 ES –.04d –6.24 –.40e –7.21 .30c 5.17 Dis .22d 5.30 .22e 6.13 .29c 4.43 BS .15a 3.28 .09b 4.00 .25c 2.52 Total SS .13d 22.18 –.14e –25.86 .41c * 18.23 New ES –.02d –9.43 –.22e –10.76 .22c 8.01 New Dis .16d 8.06 .13e 9.91 .30c 6.13

aN = 47. bn = 22. cn = 25. dn = 46. en = 21. *p < .05

56 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 RISKY BEHAVIOR Huth-Bocks

TABLE 3 Relation Between Agreeableness and Sensation-Seeking Variables

Variable Sample Men Women ß B ß B ß B TAS .01a 7.38 –.15b –8.81 .25c 5.15 ES .09d 5.83 .18e 6.11 .16c 5.00 Dis –.28d –7.05 –.30e –7.55 –.17c –6.08 BS –.36a* –4.89 –.52b* –5.58 –.18c –3.85 Total SS –.20d –25.08 –.32e –28.01 .03c 20.08 New ES –.02d –9.50 .05e 10.17 .10c 8.00 New Dis –.34d* –11.07 –.42e –12.18 –.19c –8.83

aN = 47. bn = 22. cn = 25. dn = 46. en = 21. *p < .05 sonality and the sensation-seeking scales, simple re- sensation seeking and risk-taking behaviors in the gressions were performed on the entire sample and sample as a whole and in men only. In both groups, on men and women separately. One participant was the less agreeable one was, the higher one scored on excluded from several analyses due to incomplete the BS subscale, r = .36, p < .05 and r = .52, p < .05, data. It was hypothesized high scores on Surgency respectively. Further, for the entire sample, low Agree- would predict sensation seeking, especially on the ableness predicted sexual risk-taking behaviors on the Thrill and Adventure Seeking subscale of the SSS. New Dis subscale, r = .34, p < .05. That is, the less Unexpectedly, Surgency was not related significantly agreeable a person was, the more likely he or she to any type of sensation seeking in the sample as a would engage in risky behaviors such as having mul- whole or in men only. However, Surgency scores pre- tiple sex partners and/or unprotected sex. Consci- dicted the total sensation-seeking score in women, entiousness was not significantly related to men’s or r = .41, p < .05. In other words, the more extroverted women’s scores, but was negatively correlated to the a woman was, the more tendency she had to engage BS subscale of the SSS in the sample as a whole, r = in risky behaviors. See Table 2 for these results. .36, p < .05. That is, the less conscientious a person It was also hypothesized low Agreeableness and was, the more likely he or she was to get bored very low Conscientiousness would predict sensation seek- easily with repetitive experiences (see Tables 3 and ing and risk-taking behavior. As hypothesized, Agree- 4). As predicted, there was no relationship between ableness was significantly related to certain types of Emotional Stability (or anxiety) or Intellect and sen-

TABLE 4 Relation Between Conscientiousness and Sensation-Seeking Variables

Variable Sample Men Women ß B ß B ß B TAS –.13a –7.91 –.19b –8.64 .18c 5.53 ES –.18d –6.68 .13e 6.49 –.31c –7.22 Dis –.07d –5.97 .11e 6.22 –.00c –5.12 BS –.36a* –4.51 –.32b –4.57 –.26c –4.31 Total SS –.27d –25.03 –.11e –25.89 –.11c –22.19 New ES –.23d –10.30 –.03e –10.45 –.19c –9.79 New Dis –.20d –9.60 .07e 9.98 –.12c –8.34

aN = 47. bn = 22. cn = 25. dn = 46. en = 21. *p < .05

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 57 RISKY BEHAVIOR Huth-Bocks

TABLE 5 Gender Differences on Sensation Seeking

Men (n = 22) Women (n = 25) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Statistic TAS 8.3(1.7) 6.7(2.6) t(45) = 2.5* ES 6.7(1.8) 5.7(1.9) t(44) = 1.8 Dis 6.4(2.0) 5.1(2.5) t(44) = 1.9 BS 4.1(1.5) 3.0(2.1) t(45) = 2.1* Total SS 25.5(4.1) 20.1(6.0) t(44) = 3.2** New ES 10.4(2.4) 8.6(2.7) t(44) = 2.4* New Dis 10.1(2.6) 7.2(3.8) t(44) = 3.0** *p < .05 **p < .005 sation seeking. Also, as predicted, men reported sig- who cannot stand repetitive experiences have a low nificantly more sensation seeking and risk-taking be- frustration tolerance which causes them to be impa- havior than women on the following scales: Thrill and tient, irritable, and “unagreeable.” Interestingly, Adventure Seeking, Boredom Susceptibility, total Agreeableness also was negatively correlated to the Sensation Seeking, New Experience Seeking and New New Dis subscale, which measures a wider range of Disinhibition (see Table 5). risky sexual behaviors than the original Dis subscale. It can be argued that impatient, hostile, unsympa- Discussion thetic people do not concern themselves with the The present results are consistent with other stud- safety or welfare of others or do not care to maintain ies that find relationships among Big Five personal- monogamous relationships. ity traits, sex, and sensation seeking. This study ex- Conscientiousness was negatively correlated to tends these findings to a college population, where the BS subscale only in the entire sample of men and risk-taking behaviors, particularly substance abuse and women. This result makes intuitive sense because unsafe sex, are prevalent and often dangerous. Many being conscientious usually requires a person to go universities provide some educational or preventative over and over the same details to stay organized. This programs for its students that address these behav- result also differs from previous studies that found iors, but these programs often do not reach the Conscientiousness was negatively correlated with the people who need them most or are not targeted prop- ES and TAS subscales, but not to BS (e.g., Hogan, erly to the individuals “at risk” for these behaviors. 1982). It is very possible these inconsistent findings Studies such as this one should be able to help im- may be due to varying samples and methodologies. prove current programs so they are more effective in However, all of these results taken together suggest preventing the numerous negative consequences that that students who are not doing well academically occur as a result of these behaviors. (due to a lack of conscientiousness) may be more The finding that Surgency was positively corre- likely to behave in risky ways. lated with the total sensation-seeking score only in As hypothesized, men reported significantly more women may be attributed to the fact that extrover- risk-taking behavior than women on all subscales ex- sion is not as related to risky behavior in men simply cept the original ES and Dis. However, because the because they are brought up to actively engage with New ES and the New Dis asked more explicitly about their environment. That is, introverted men may still drug/alcohol usage and sexual behaviors, whereas engage in sensation-seeking behaviors without con- the original scales did not, there is still reason to be- sidering them to be social or extroverted in nature. lieve that men will engage in more risky behavior than This finding suggests women who are more involved women in their drug usage and sexual activities. These in social organizations, such as sororities, may be more sex differences suggest that universities may wish to likely to engage in risky behaviors. If so, universities direct more educational and preventative programs may want to tailor educational/preventative programs on risky behaviors to male organizations, groups, or to these specific subpopulations. all-male floors in dormitories. Agreeableness also was found to be negatively re- There may be additional explanations for the sex lated to the BS subscale, potentially indicating those differences in the present study as well. Women were

58 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 RISKY BEHAVIOR Huth-Bocks on average under the legal drinking age, whereas men and intelligence and also decreases with age. The were not, so age may have been an important vari- present participants were both young and highly edu- able that accounted for the sex difference on drug/ cated, potentially making them much more sensation alcohol usage instead of sex itself. However, this ex- seeking and risky compared to the general popula- planation is not likely because college students usu- tion. Furthermore, all participants were single, which ally tend to get alcohol and drugs relatively easily even could contribute to inflated scores compared to other, if they are under the legal drinking age. Also, since more heterogeneous, samples. men were significantly less conscientious than women The present sample was chosen out of conve- and conscientiousness was negatively correlated with nience, was very homogeneous (i.e., all single), and BS, it follows that men would score significantly may not represent this university’s undergraduate higher on BS than women. Finally, women were sig- population. Therefore, the results of this study can- nificantly more religious than men, possibly account- not readily be generalized to other samples, limiting ing for the differences in drug and sexual behaviors, the study’s external validity. This study included a instead of their sex per se. However, it was not explic- large number of statistical analyses with a relatively itly asked if and how much people observed their small sample size, increasing the possibility of a Type religions, only if they had a religious affiliation. If I error. Readers should be cautioned that some of religion did not guide their behaviors or play a role the findings here could be due to chance based on in decision making, it would not account for this the large number of analyses. Still, this study provides difference. a good start from which future research may draw. There are several additional limitations to the Additional studies in this area should attempt to present study. The New ES and New Dis have little replicate these findings with a larger, more diverse reliability and no validity data, and only the New Dis sample and should collect data in a more controlled, had very good inter-item reliability. Caution is needed focused manner. Future investigators also may wish when interpreting the results involving these scores. to use more than one measure to assess personality The SSS–Form V (Zuckerman et al., 1978) was the characteristics and risk-taking behavior. For example, closest standardized measure for the focus of this investigators might ask not only about people’s pref- study, but this measure included many items of no erences or attitudes, but also about their explicit special interest. In the future, researchers should behaviors. In addition to questionnaires, investigators construct a measure similar to the SSS, but with items may wish to use unobtrusive measures such as obser- focusing exclusively on physically risky behaviors. vations in bars or beaches or amusement parks. Using the 100 unipolar markers for the Big Five fac- Finally, other variables should be examined in rela- tors also has its limitations. These items are only short tion to sensation seeking and risky behaviors such as utility markers for the factors and may not accurately membership in certain campus organizations and measure these traits. Goldberg and Kilkowski (1985) academic performance. also note when bipolar scales are transformed to uni- polar scales, antonyms are not always treated as op- References posites. For example, “moody” and “steady” both Arque, J. M., Unzeta, M., & Torrubia, R. (1988). Neurotransmitter systems and personality variables. Neuropsychology, 19, 149–157. should be considered part of the Emotional Stability Biglan, A., Metzler, C. W., Wirt, R., & Ary, D. V. (1990). Social and factor, but moody is associated with ES and steady is behavioral factors associated with high risk sexual behavior associated with Conscientiousness in unipolar forms. among adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13, 245–261. Carpenter, K. M., Volpe, J., & Faith, M. (1993, August). The deter- Whenever self-reports are used there is the pos- minants of risky sexual behavior in college students. Paper presented sibility of a social desirability bias. That is, participants at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, may respond how they believe they should respond Toronto. Carrol, E. N., & Zuckerman, M. (1977). Psychopathology and instead of how they really feel or behave. It is pos- sensation seeking in ‘downers’, ‘speeders’, and ‘trippers’: A sible risky sexual behaviors were under-reported due study of the relationship between personality and drug choice. to the recent hype about “safe sex.” It is also possible International Journal of the Addictions, 12, 581–601. Dejoy, D. M. (1992). An examination of gender differences in participants thought it was socially desirable to en- traffic accident risk perception. Accident Analysis & Prevention, dorse items on physically risky sports and alcohol us- 24, 237–246. age, making these scores inflated. Further, being a Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem behav- ior in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Consulting participant in an experiment is often perceived to be and Clinical Psychology, 53, 890–904. a risky behavior, so participants may have felt like Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. New York: Praeger. more of a risk taker than usual after agreeing to par- Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press. ticipate. As Kish and Busse (1968) reported, sensa- Eysenck, H. J., & McGuirk, B. J. (1980). Impulsiveness and ven- tion seeking increases with higher levels of education turesomeness in a detention center population. Personality and

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 59 RISKY BEHAVIOR Huth-Bocks

Individual Differences, 6, 21–29. Persky, H., Charney, N., Lief, H. I., O’Brien, C. P., Mitler W. R., & Farley, F., & Farley, S. V. (1967). Extroversion and stimulus-seek- Strauss, D. (1978). The relationship of plasma estradiol level ing motivation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 215–216. to sexual behavior in young women. Psychosomatic Medicine, 40, Furnam, A., & Saipe, J. (1993). Personality correlates and con- 523–535. victed drivers. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 329– Schooler, C., Zahn, T. P., Murphy, D. L., & Buchsbaum, M. S. 336. (1978). Psychological correlates of monoamine oxidase in Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big- normals. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 166, 177–186. Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. Smith, B. D., Davidson, R. A., Perlstein, W., Oster, U., & Gonzalez, Goldberg, L. R., & Kilkowski, J. M. (1985). The prediction of se- F. (1989). Sensation seeking and arousal: Effects of strong mantic consistency in self-descriptions: Characteristics of per- stimulation on electrodermal activation and memory task per- sons and of terms that affect the consistency of responses to formance. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 671–679. synonym and antonym pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Trocki, K. (1992). Patterns of sexuality and risky sexuality in the Psychology, 48, 82–98. general population of a California county. Journal of Sex Re- Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In search, 29, 85–94. H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model of personality. New York: Springer- Williams, S. S., Kimble, D. L., Covell, N. H., Weiss, L. H., Newton, Verlag. K. J., Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). College students use Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the C. N. S. (conceptual nervous implicit personality instead of safer sex. Journal of Applied system). Psychological Review, 62, 243–254. Social Psychology, 22, 921–923. Heyman, S. R., & Rose, K. G. (1980). Psychological variables af- Witt, L. A. (1990). Delay of gratification and locus of control as fecting SCUBA performance. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R. Halliwell, predictors of organizational satisfaction and commitment: Sex K. M. Newell, & G. C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor behav- differences. Journal of General Psychology, 117, 437–446. ior and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press. Wulfert, E., & Wan, C. K. (1993). Condom use: A self-efficacy Hill, E. M., & Thomson Ross, L. (1995, June). Relationships of prob- model. Health Psychology, 12, 346–353. lem drinking to risk-taking propensity and behavior. Poster presented Zuckerman, M. (1964). Development of a sensation-seeking scale. at the meetings of the Research Society on Alcoholism, Steam- Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 477–482. boat Springs, CO. Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 45–52. Page (Ed.), Personality: Current theory and research. Nebraska Zuckerman, M. (1979a). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Press. Zuckerman, M. (1979b). Traits, states, situations, and uncertainty. Horvath, P., & Zuckerman, M. (1993). Sensation seeking, risk Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 1, 43–55. appraisal, and risky behavior. Personality and Individual Differ- Zuckerman, M. (1983). Sensation seeking and sports. Personality ences, 14, 41–52. and Individual Differences, 4, 285–293. Hymbaugh, K., & Garrett, J. (1974). Sensation seeking among Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. Cambridge: skydivers. Perceptual Motor Skills, 38, 118. Cambridge University Press. Kish, G. B., & Busse, W. (1968). Correlates of stimulus-seeking: Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation Age, education, intelligence, and aptitudes. Journal of Consult- seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex ing and Clinical Psychology, 32, 633–637. comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Comparisons of EPI and 139–149. Psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587–597. beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of person- basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social ality attributes: Replicated factor structure. Journal of Abnor- Psychology, 54, 96–107. mal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583. Zuckerman, M., & Link, K. (1968). Construct validity for the sen- Osgood, D. W., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. sation seeking scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 32, 420– (1988). The generality of deviance in late adolescence and 426. early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 53, 81–93. Zuckerman, M., Tushup, R., & Finner, S. (1976). Sexual attitudes Pederson, W. (1991). Mental health, sensation seeking and drug and experience: Attitude and personality correlates and use patterns: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Addiction, changes produced by a course in sexuality. Journal of Consult- 86, 195–204. ing and Clinical Psychology, 44, 7–19.

60 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 RISKY BEHAVIOR Huth-Bocks

APPENDIX Items Added to the Experience Seeking and Disinhibition Subscales

1. A. I have received a ticket for MIP, DUI, or for another alcohol/substance–related reason. B. I have not received one such ticket.

2. A. I consider my alcohol/substance use behavior to be risky or harmful. B. My alcohol/substance use is not dangerous at all.

3. A. I was relatively young the first time I drank alcohol or used another drug. B. I was at “adult” enough age the first time I used a substance.

4. A. I have on more than one occasion forgotten part of an evening due to alcohol. B. I have always remembered what I have done.

5. A. It is safe to have one or two drinks before driving. B. Even after one drink, driving is impaired.

6. A. Most of my friends use substances at least once a week. B. I don’t hang around people who do drugs or drink, or at least they don’t very often.

7. A. If I drink, I usually get drunk. B. I can go to a party or out and just have a drink or two.

8. A. I consider an acquaintance (e.g., classmate) a “safer” sexual partner than a stranger. B. Just because I am familiar with someone doesn’t mean they are any safer.

9. A. It is only the male’s responsibility to provide contraception. B. Both partners are just as responsible for providing contraception.

10. A. One should only sleep with others who they are deeply in love with. B. It is OK to have as many sexual partners as one likes.

11. A. It is probably safe to have unprotected sex once or twice in a lifetime. B. One unprotected encounter is just as bad as 10.

12. A. I have engaged in a “risky” sexual activity. B. I have never been scared about a sexual behavior of mine.

13. A. My first sexual experience was at a relatively young age. B. I was old enough to make a sound decision at my first sexual experience.

14. A. It is OK to “go home” with someone you have met the same night. B. It is crazy to “go home” with someone you have just met.

15. A. I can always assess a sexually risky situation and get out of it immediately. B. I have realized a sexually risky situation but did not stop whatever I was doing.

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Fall/Winter 1996 61