Peer Influence on Adolescent Risk-Taking in a Gambling Task
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47604/ijp.3699Keywords:
Adolescence, Risk-Taking, Peer Influence, Cognitive Psychology, Social LearningAbstract
Purpose: Adolescents are both more prone to peer influence and more likely to take risks than any other age group. The current study aims to build upon Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, that found when a small group of teens was asked to participate in a risk-taking gambling task, the majority altered their response strategy to take more risks or to be more conservative to match that of a friend's. The author of the current study used a similar approach to that described above; however, he sought to determine whether the observation of a friend receiving a reward or losing would impact the risks adolescents took in the gambling task. The timing of changes in risk-taking behavior in adolescence can be attributed to the ongoing development of the prefrontal cortex and is further exaggerated by social factors such as the presence of peers.
Methodology: A between-subjects experimental design was employed with participants recruited from a high school and a summer program for talented teenagers. Three conditions were tested: observing a peer win, observing a peer lose, or no peer observation (control). Risk-taking was measured through rounds risked, dropout point, number of wins, and final outcome in a computerized gambling paradigm. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, Pearson’s Chi-squared, and multiple regression to assess group differences and predictors of risk-taking behavior.
Findings: Both peer-winning and peer-losing observation groups risked significantly more rounds than the control group, though there was no significant difference between observing peer success versus failure. Peer observation, regardless of outcome, led to riskier behavior, while a greater number of personal wins robustly predicted continued risk-taking. Although the study’s manipulated conditions did not yield statistically significant group differences in risk-taking or wins via ANOVA, regression analyses demonstrated that both peer exposure and reinforcement histories independently contributed to adolescents’ decisions, supporting a model where social and reward-driven mechanisms interact.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice, and Policy: The study contributes to the theoretical perspective by suggesting that observing peer behavior can potentially increase risk taking in adolescents, independently of whether peers are observed to receive positive or negative consequences for their actions. In terms of practice and policy, the study highlights the need for prevention and intervention efforts that consider the indirect and general effects of peer influence on adolescent decision making, and the importance of social context even when there are no clear incentives or disincentives present. Educators and policymakers should consider the implications of both social facilitation and reinforcement feedback mechanisms in developing strategies to reduce adolescent risk taking.
Downloads
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action Control (pp. 11–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
Anselme, P., & Robinson, M. J. F. (2013). What motivates gambling behavior? Insight into dopamine’s role. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00182
Brewer, N. T., Weinstein, N. D., Cuite, C. L., & Herrington, J. E. (2004). Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27(2), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7
Croisant, S. A., Haque Laz, T., Rahman, M., & Berenson, A. B. (2013). Gender differences in risk behaviors among high school youth. Global advances in health and medicine, 2(5), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2013.045
Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 65–116.
Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625
He, Y., & Lei, P. (2025). Differential pathways from personality to risk-taking: how extraversion and negative emotionality shape decision-making through overconfidence. Frontiers in psychology, 16, 1537658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1537658
Humphreys, K. L., Lee, S. S., & Tottenham, N. (2013). Not all risk taking behavior is bad: Associative sensitivity predicts learning during risk taking among high sensation seekers. Personality and individual differences, 54(6), 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.031
Knoll, L. J., Magis-Weinberg, L., Speekenbrink, M., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2015). Social influence on risk perception during adolescence. Psychological Science, 26(5), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569578
Nickerson, C. (2023). Theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/theory-of-reasoned-action.html
Potenza, M. N. (2013). Neurobiology of gambling behaviors. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(4), 660–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.03.004
Rincón Uribe, F. A., Espejo, C. A. N., & Pedroso, J. D. S. (2020). Role of optimism in adolescent mental health: a protocol for a systematic review. BMJ open, 10(7), e036177. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036177
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002
Strang, N. M., Chein, J. M., & Steinberg, L. (2013). The value of the dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00223
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole.
Triandis, H. C. (2002). Subjective culture. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1021
Vaughn, M. G., Salas-Wright, C. P., Alsolami, A. S., Oh, S., & Goings, T. C. (2021). Margin for error: examining racial and ethnic trends in adolescent risk propensity. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 56(6), 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02026-8
Wang, Z., Lu, K., Wang, X., Zheng, J., Gao, X., & Fan, Q. (2024). Breaking the Cycle: Perceived Control and Teacher-Student Relationships Shield Adolescents from Bullying Victimization over Time. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 14(12), 1198. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121198
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: common biosocial factors. Journal of personality, 68(6), 999–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00124
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Shaun Malhotra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
