A PSYCHOMETRIC STUDY OF ADOLESCENT RISK PERCEPTION
Alida C. Benthin
Department of Human Development and Family Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
Paul Slovic
Decision Research
Eugene, Oregon
and
Herbert Severson
-]Oregon Research Institute
Eugene, Oregon
Address Correspondence To:
Alida C. Benthin
Department of Human Development & Family Sciences
lifilam Hall 322
Qregon State University .. ,
Corvallis, OR 97331 '"'"•' /4 v
Phone: (503)737-2826 r .,,
January 3; 1992
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 3
Adolescence is a period of high risk in a person's life. It is the only age group for which
mortality has risen since 1960, with traffic accidents constituting the leading cause of death
among people between 15 and 24 years of age (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982). For
example, people aged 16-24 accounted for 58% of all driver fatalities in 1982, even though they
represented only about 21% of the licensed drivers.
Risky driving is only one of many high-risk behaviors that take place during adolescence.
Reportingon high-school seniors> Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman (1989) found that 92% had
tried alcohol, 64% were current users, and 35% had five or more drinks in a row at least once
during the previous two weeks. Surveys have shown that more than 50% of all young drivers
drink and drive. Phelps (1987) found that, compared with a sober young driver, drinking 1-2
drinks increases the risk of getting into an accident by a factor of 2.3 and six or more drinks
raises the relative risk by a factor of 100. Problem drinking has also been linked to the use of
other drugs such as marijuana (Donovan & Jessor, 1978). Marijuana has been found to be the
most widely used illicit drug among adolescents, with 50.9% of high-school seniors having used
the drug and one in 25 seniors smoking it daily (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 1987).
In addition to alcohol and illicit drug consumption, the use of tobacco among adolescents
remains a serious problem. The percentage of teen-aged youth who smoke at least one cigarette
a day is 21.5%, which approaches the level of adult smoking (Severson, 1984). According to
a 1986 national survey, three million young people under the age of 21 had used some form of
smokeless tobacco (chew or snuff) in the year preceding the survey (Cullen, 1986).
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 4
Yet another risk factor during adolescence is teenage pregnancy. According to the
National Center for Health Statistics, 36.5 out of every 1000 women aged 15-17 gave birth in
1989, the highest rate since the early 1970's. Increasing sexual activity among teenagers also
increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. A report in the November 28, 1985 Weekly
Surveillance Report (Centers for Disease Control, 1988), stated that 20-29-year-olds make up
21 % of all AIDS cases. Some of these cases may have been infected as adolescents. Although
teenagers are at increased risk of becoming infected with sexually transmitted diseases such as
AIDS, studies have shown that they do not believe that they are likely to become infected.
Results of a 1986 random-sample survey of 860 adolescents aged 16-19 indicate that only 15%
of all sexually active adolescents in the sample changed their sexual behavior because of concern
about contracting AIDS (Strunin & Hingson, 1987).
The statistics cited above demonstrate that significant numbers of adolescents engage in
behaviors that endanger their health and well-being. The risky behaviors noted here are
illustrative rather than exhaustive, with the emphasis placed on behaviors that have caused
considerable societal concern.
The phenomenon of teenage risk taking has stimulated the development of a social-
psychological framework termed "Problem-Behavior Theory," which addresses some of the most
important components of adolescent risk taking (Jessor 1984, 1987; Jessor & Jessor, 1977).
Problem-Behavior Theory focuses on personality factors and environmental forces as major
determinants of adolescent risk taking. Each of these components can be broken down into
specific sub-componentswhich may either inhibit or encourage risk taking among young people.
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 5
Findings from studies guided by Problem Behavior Theory have drawn attention to a syndrome
of adolescent problem behavior. Specifically, these studies have shown that risky behaviors tend
to be interrelated rather than being a collection of independent activities. The present article
proposes to extend Problem Behavior Theory to include adolescent risk perception. Specifically,
it is proposed that adolescent risk taking is, in part, influenced by young people's perceptions
and attitudes concerning the riskiness involved in a certain activity.
The present study employs a psychometric paradigm that has been widely used to
investigate perceived risk. This approach uses psychophysical scaling and multivariate analysis
to produce "cognitive maps" of risk perceptions (Slovic, 1987). Within this paradigm, people
makequantitative judgmentsabout the riskiness of varioushazardous activities and technologies.
These judgments are then related to judgments about a number of risk characteristics that have
been hypothesized to influence risk perceptions.
A variety of studies of risk perception have been conducted within the psychometric
paradigm (Johnson & Tversky, 1984; Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1979, 1986; among
others). Although the results of these studies have sometimes differed, there has been enough
consistency across studies to distill some generalizations about perceived risk. Central among
these is that perceived risk is quantifiable and predictable (Slovic, 1987).
The earliest psychometric surveys by Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, and Combs
(1978) and Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein (1979) asked people to rate 30 different activities
and technologies with regard to their perceived riskiness. In addition, survey respondents were
asked to judge each of the 30 hazards with regard to nine characteristics which were though to
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 6
be important for the way people perceive risk. These characteristics were (a) whether the risk
is assumed voluntarily or involuntarily; (b) whether the risk of death from the hazard is
immediate or delayed; (c) whether the risks are known to those exposed; (d) whether the risks
are known to science; (e) whether risks from the hazard can be controlled by the individual; (f)
whether the risk is new (unfamiliar) or old (familiar); (g) whether an accident is likely to kill
one person at a time (chronic) or large numbers of people at once (catastrophic); (h) whether
the thought of the risk evokes a feeling of dread and (i) whether an accident caused by an
activity is likely to result in fatalities. Respondents were asked to rate each of the 30 activities
and technologies on all nine characteristics using a seven-point bipolar scale. The nine
characteristics were found to predict whether a particular risk was acceptable (Slovic, Fischhoff,
& Lichtenstein, 1979). Another of the findings in these studies was that the concept "risk" has
different meanings for experts than for laypersons (Slovic, 1987).
The present study is the first attempt to employ the psychometric paradigm to assess how
young people think about risk. The results will indicate whether the quantitative assessment
methodology that has successfully predicted risk perceptions and social response to risk in
college students and adults can be successfully applied with adolescents. In addition to
describing perceptions quantitatively, the present study will examine the relationships between
perceptions and self-reported participation in high-risk activities.
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 7
METHOD
Sample. Participants in this study were 41 student volunteers from two high schools in
Eugene, Oregon. They were recruited through announcements in class and by word of mouth.
Of those participants who indicated gender, 25 were females and 15 were males. Their mean
age was 15.5 years (range 14 to 18). Each person was paid $10 for participation.
Procedures. Parent permission slips were sent home with the students three weeks before
the data were collected. All participants returned the permission slips. Subjects responded to
a self-report questionnaire after school at a local research institute. On average it took 30
minutes to complete the questionnaire. Participants were assured of complete confidentiality in
the treatment of the data and were asked not to write their names on the questionnaires.
Design. Quantitative judgments were made for 30 risk behaviors. As indicated in Table
1, these behaviors included 11 items considered to represent problem behaviors (e.g., smoking
marijuana, using cocaine, etc.) and 19 items representative of what might be considered socially
approved risk-taking behaviors (e.g., swimming, riding a bicycle, etc.). The goal in selecting
these items was to provide a comprehensive context in which to compare and evaluate risk
perceptions. Items were selected according to several criteria including prevalence, popularity
and presumed importance from a risk standpoint. Some of the items, however, pose much
greater risks than others (e.g., using crack vs. ingesting caffeine). The risks from engaging in
sexual activity were rated separately for risk of pregnancy and risk of disease.
Insert Table 1 about here
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 8
Each of the 30 items was rated by each respondent on the 14 risk characteristics shown
in Table 2. Some of these risk characteristics were selected because of their importance in
previous studies of risk perception (e.g., knowledge, warning sign, etc.), whereas others were
selected because of their potential relevance to adolescent behavior (e.g., peer influence,
admiration, etc.). All 30 risk behaviors were rated on one risk characteristic before the next
characteristic was considered. Each rating used a seven-point scale. Respondents were also
asked to indicate how many times they themselves had engaged in each of the 30 activities
during the previous six months by checking one of four frequency categories (none, once or
twice, 2-5 times, > 5 times).
Insert Table 2 about here
RESULTS
Mean Ratings
Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for each rating scale, along with the
extreme high- and low-rated activities for each scale. The avoidability scale had the highest
overall mean (5.73) with a range from 4.24 to 6.78, indicating that our respondents thought that
all 30 activities are moderately to highly avoidable for young people. A rather low mean for
perceived peer influence (2.44) reflected the perception that peer influence plays only a minor
role in young people's motives to engage in these risk-taking activities. The lowest specific
means for peer influence occurred for the use of hard drugs such as methamphetamines, crack,
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 9
and cocaine and the highest mean (only 4.20) was associated with driving a car. The meanson
the various risk and benefit scales (fear, personal risk, risk to peers, benefits vs. risks) varied
greatly across the 30 activities. Hard drugs, such as crack and cocaine, were perceived to be
most frightening and least beneficial relative to their risks; bicycle riding was viewed most
favorably in terms of low perceived risk and a high benefit vs. risk rating. The overall means
for personal risk (3.95) and risk to peers (3.94) were quite similar and the two sets of means
correlated .99 across the 30 activities. The overall mean for perceived knowledge of the risks
(4.0) and the small standard deviation (0.81) across the 30 items indicates that the risks
associated with most of the activities were perceived as moderately well known among
adolescents. Of particular interest in this context was that "having sex" received the highest
mean rating (5.22) among all 30 activities, suggesting that the young people in our sample
thought that the risks of having sex are particularly well known among young people. In
addition, our respondents thought that the risks of sex are about as controllable as risks from
sports and swimming and more controllable than the risks from driving a car.
Insert Table 3 about here
Mean evaluations for two types of risk associated with sexual activity (risk of pregnancy
and risk of disease) showed that risks from pregnancy (5.56) were perceived to be better known
than risks from disease (4.88; p < .01) and that the risk of disease (5.73) was more feared than
the risk of pregnancy (4.95; p < .01). Our respondents perceived their peers to be at more risk
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 10
from pregnancy than themselves, whereas the mean risk from disease was about the same for
self and others. Furthermore, the risk from disease was perceived as slightly less controllable
than the risk from pregnancy. The benefit/risk balance was negative for both risks, particularly
for risk of disease.
Intercorrelations Among Activities
Based upon their confidential self reports, each respondent was categorized as someone
who did or did not participate in each of the activities. These dichotomous categorizations were
then intercorrelated across the 41 individuals. Table 4 presents these intercorrelations for 11
high-risk activities.1 A positiveconelation between a pair of activities indicates that people who
engage in one also tend to engage in the other. The finding that 50 out of 55 correlations among
the 11 high-risk activities were positive, strongly suggests a syndrome ofproblem behavior. For
example, young people who were found to drink alcohol were also relatively more likely to
smoke cigarettes (r=.32) and to use marijuana (r=.57). Unprotected sexual behavior was
associated with use of snuff and drug taking. A high conelation was observed between the use
of "uppers" and the use of cocaine. Use of crack is the only activity that showed negative
conelations with other behaviors, and these conelations were quite small.
Insert Table 4 about here
1 Theseconelations werecomputed by coding the four frequency categories on a 1-4 scale.
Note that there were two distinct questions pertaining to sexual activity. One question asked
how frequently the respondent had engaged in sex during the previous six months. The second
asked about frequency of unprotected sex, defmed as sex without a condom.
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 11
Comparisons Between Participants and Non-participants
There were a number of strong differences in the perceptions of those who participate
in an activity and those who do not. Generally participants reported greater knowledge of the
risks from the activities they perform, less fear of those risks, less personal risk, less risk to
peers, greater benefits relative to risks, less seriousness of effects, more personal control over
the risks, greater peer pressure, lessdesire for regulation, less ability to avoid doing the activity
and higher perceived participation rate by peers.
Despite the small sample sizes in the participant and non-participant groups, many of the
differences for high-riskbehaviors suchas excessive consumption of alcohol, smoking cigarettes,
using marijuana, and engaging in sexualactivity, were statistically significant,as shownin Table
5. Similar patterns of differences were also found for socially approved risk taking such as
climbing, skateboarding, and skiing.
Insert Table 5 about here
Factor Analysis
The interconelations among all 14 of the risk characteristics (personalrisk, risk to peers,
etc.) were subjected to a principle component factor analysis. The analysis produced two
unconelated factors, with the first factor accounting for 68% of the variance among the risk
characteristics and the second factor accounting for 15% of the variance. After varimax
rotations the pattern of factor loadings indicated that Factor 1 was primarily determined by
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 12
perceived risk, fear, and perceived seriousness of consequences, whereas Factor 2 was
determined by admiration and knowledge and, to a lesser extent, peer influence. We have
chosen to name Factor 1 "Risk" and Factor 2 "Admiration." It is interesting to see that
knowledge loads highly on the same factor as admiration. This reflects a conelation of .49
between the means for these two characteristics across the 30 activities. The most admired
activities (driving, contact sports, skiing, and sex) were also judged to have risks that were
relatively well known, and many of the least admired activities (eating disorders, use of pain
relievers) were judged to pose risks that were not well known.
Factor scores were computed for each of the 30 activities by weighting the ratings on
each risk characteristic proportional to the importance of the characteristic for the factor and
summing over all characteristics. This weighted sum gives a particular activity a score that is
an amalgamation of its ratings on the variables that define the factor. The factor scores for each
activity are plotted in Figure 1. As one moves from left to right in the space, the activities are
judged to be more risky to self and others. As one goes from the bottom to the top of the space,
the activities are judged to be more admired and better known. It is interesting to note that
many of the most dangerous activities (upper-right quadrant; both actual danger and perceived
risk) are as highly admired as the more socially approved forms of risk taking (upper-left
quadrant).
Insert Figure 1 about here
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 13
DISCUSSION
One message in these data is that a methodology which had previously been used to
investigate perceived risk only in college students or adult populations can also be used with
adolescents. Although the present results need to be generalized with caution because of the
small, self-selected natureof the sample, the finding that the results were orderly and meaningful
leads to the general conclusion that we have developed a useful psychometric instrument to
investigate how adolescents view risk.
One important finding from this study is that actual participation in risky activities is
related to very distinct cognitive and social factors . From a cognitive perspective, people who
engage in the activity report greater knowledge of risks, less fear of risks, less risk to self and
others, less seriousness of effects, more personal control over risk, less ability to avoid the
activity and higher participation in the activity by others. The finding that those who participate
in a given activity also perceive a generally higher participation rate is consistent with the
availability heuristic that has been found to determine judgments of frequency and probability
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1973); By this heuristic, the estimation of the frequency of a behavior
is mediated by the ease with which instances or associations of the behavior can be brought to
mind through imagination or recall. Obviously, participants in an activity would have greater
ability to recall or imagine the activity being performed.
From a social perspective, participants report greater peer influence, less desire for
regulation of the activity by authorities and greater benefits relative to risks. The importance
of peer influence has long been acknowledged as a major variable in adolescent risk taking. For
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 14
example, Jessor and Jessor (1975) found that young people who engage in high-risk behavior
perceived greater support for their risk taking behavior from friends and also reported having
more friends who engage in such behavior. The finding that risk taking may actually provide
benefits for the young person requires specific attention. Although it has been suggested that
engaging in risky behaviors may serve a variety of functions from leading to social maturity to
establishing identity (Baumrind, 1987; Irwin & Millstein, 1986; Jessor, 1984), it is still unclear
why certain behaviors yield relatively high benefits for some teenagers whereas they remain less
attractive for others. Jessor (1984) points out that some young people may use excessive risk-
taking behavior as a way to achieve goals that may seem unattainable otherwise. For example,
risk taking may be seen by the adolescent as an effective way to gain independence from
parental control.
It is also notable that results from this study point to a problem behavior syndrome. In
other words, young people who engage in one form of risk taking behavior (e.g., excessive use
of alsochol) are relatively more likely to engage in another (e.g., smoking cigarettes). These
results are in line with previous research, suggesting that problem behaviors during adolescence
tend to be intenelated rather than being a collection of independent activities (Biglan, Wendler,
Wirt, Ary, Noell, Ochs, French, & Hood, 1990; Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Jessor, 1984).
The finding that those who engage in risky activities tend to perceive the risks as well
known, raises questions about the potential effectiveness of information and educational
programs designed to discourage young people from engaging in risk-taking behaviors. Do
adolescents actually have adequate risk information? Do they simply have a general idea that
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 15
the activity is dangerous, or are they actually knowledgeable about specific risks? Do they
understand that certain risks may apply to them personally and do they know how they can
protect themselves from potential harm if they engage in risky behavior? Finally, will they
ignore information or education programs on the grounds that they think they already know the
risks?
The finding that participants in high risk activities thought that they could control the
risks but at the same time believed they were unable to avoid the activity is also intriguing.
Why do some young people believe they cannot control their engagement in an activity, but,
once involved, believe they can control its risks? The former belief may stem from sensitivity
to peer pressures which may be hard to resist. The latter belief may point to a "personal fable"
of uniqueness and immortality, which has been said to be a typical dimension of adolescent
thinking (Seltzer, 1982). So far, the notionof a personal fable has not been empiricallyverified
and future research needs to determine whether such a fable actually exists, whether it is part
of a normal developmental course in adolescence, and whether it is more pronounced in some
young people than in others.
Many other future directions are indicated for this type of research. It would be
interesting, for example, to investigate whether young people differ in their perceptions of risk
from adults. Although such a difference is generally presumed in the adult population, it has
yet to be empirically verified. It may well be that young people are similar to older people in
their perceptions of risk and that perceived differences derive from the fact that certain activities
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 16
(e.g., drinking) are not socially approved for younger populations whereas theyare encouraged
among adults.
Research is particularly needed to determine why young people who participate in high-
risk activities differ from their nonparticipating peers in their perceptions of the risks and
benefits of these activities. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess the development of
perceptions and to determine if the perceptions associated with risk-taking behaviors occur prior
to engagement in the behaviors (and thus can be used to predict the onset of these behaviors).
An alternative hypothesis, suggested by dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) and also testable
longitudinally, is that the behavior drives the perceptions, rather than vice-versa. Adolescents
who participate in high-risk activities may be motivated to reduce dissonance or rationalize their
actions by making their beliefs consistent with their behaviors.
Research might also examine the relationship between adolescent risk taking and the
development of formal operational thinking characterized by the ability to thinkabstractly (e.g.,
about risk) and to apply hypothetical and deductive reasoning (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958).
Damody (1991), for example, found that adolescents deficient in formal reasoning ability were
less able to plan ahead or delay gratification.
Another hypothesis in need of testing is that repeated exposure to a stimulus is a
sufficient condition to enhance an observer's favorable attitude toward that stimulus (Zajonc,
1968). Thus adolescents whoare frequently exposed to riskyactivities (e.g., via thepeer group)
may come to perceive these activities as less threatening than those who are not as frequently
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 17
exposed to the activity. This may be particularly true for activities such as smoking, whose
harmful effects are not immediately apparent.
Drawing on these ideas, future research needs to examine adolescent risk perceptions in
light of the social context (e.g., family, peer group, school, etc.) in which they develop. A
contextual understanding of adolescent risk perceptions may be required to understand the social
reality of the adolescent to the degree necessary for the developmentof effectiveprevention and
intervention strategies.
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by a grant from the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research
Foundation, Herb Severson and Paul Slovic, co-investigators. We are grateful to Mark Layman
and Maureen Barkley for assistance with data analysis and to Sarah Hampson for helpful
comments on the manuscript.
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 23
Table 1. Items Used in the Present Study
1. Problem Behaviors
Drinking Alcoholic Beverages
Smoking Cigarettes
Smoking Marijuana
Drinking Five or More Alcoholic Beverages
Using Crack
Taking Methamphetamines (Uppers)
Using Cocaine
Riding in a Car with an Intoxicated Driver
Using Smokeless Tobacco
Binge Eating/Vomiting
Crash, or Compulsive Dieting
2. Other Behaviors
Climbing Mountains or Rocks
Riding Motorcycles
Driving an All-Terrain Vehicle
Swimming
Riding a Bicycle
Playing Contact Sports
Taking Prescription Drugs
Riding Skateboards
Downhill Skiing
Driving a Car
Sunbathing
Using Caffeine
Using Artificial Sweeteners
Using Fireworks
Taking Pain Relievers
Taking Diet Pills
Listening to Loud Music
Having Sex
Hitchhiking
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 24
Table 2. Characteristics on which the 30 Items were Rated
OLD OR NEW RISK
Is this a new type of risk for people your age, or an old one that has been around for a long
time? (1 = very new; 7 = very old)
KNOWLEDGE OF ADOLESCENTS
To what extent are the risks associated with this activity known to people your age? (1 = risks
not well-known; 7 = risks very well known)
FEAR
To what extent are the potential risks (dangers) associated with this activity frightening for
people your age? (1 = not at all frightening; 7 = very frightening)
PERSONAL RISK
If you did this activity, to what extent do you believe that you would be personally at risk of
getting hurt or getting sick? (1 = very much at risk; 7 = not at all at risk)
RISK TO PEERS
If some other person your age engaged in this activity, to what extent do you believe that he/she
would be at risk of getting hurt or getting sick? (1 = very much at risk; 7 = not at all at risk)
BENEFITS VS RISKS
To what extent are the benefits or pleasures provided by this type of activity greater than the
risks associated with it? (1 = risks much greater than the benefits; 7 = benefits much greater
than the risks)
SERIOUSNESS OF EFFECTS
If an accident or something bad happened because of this activity, would you expect the harmful
effects to be mild, or serious? (1 = very mild harm; 7 = very serious harm)
(Table continues)
Table 2, continued
Psychometric Study ofAdolescent Risk Perception
Benthin, Slovic, Severson / page 25
INFORMATION VALUE
If an accident or something bad happened because of this activity, to what extent would it
provide important information to young people that similar or even worse things might happen
in the future? (1 = low information value; 7 = high information value)
PERSONAL CONTROL
If someone yourage did this activity, to what extent could he or she control the risksassociated
with it? (1 = risks cannot be controlled; 7 = risks can be completely controlled)
PEER INFLUENCE
To whatextent are you influenced by your friends to do this activity? (1 = not at all influence;
7 = greatly influenced)
ADMIRATION
To what extent are teenagers who are doing this activity admired by their peers? (1 = not at
all admired; 7 = greatly admired)
NEED FOR REGULATION
To what extent does this type of activity need to be controlled by parents, school officials, or
the law? (1 = little or no regulation needed; 7 = very strict regulation needed)
AVOIDABILITY
To what extent can a person your age avoid doing this activity? (1 = cannot be avoided; 7 =
can be avoided)
PERCEIVED PARTICIPATION
What percentage of people your age would you say are doing this activity? (00 to 100%)
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Extreme Activities for Each Scale
Scale Mean SD
Old/New Risk 4.71 1.14
Knowledge 4.01 0.81
Fear 3.35 1.53
Personal Risk 3.95 1.49
Risk to Peers 3.94 1.51
Benefits vs. Risks 3.77 1.73
Seriousness of Effects 5.01 1.28
Information Value 3.99 0.99
Personal Control 3.74 0.96
Peer Influence 2.44 0.88
Admiration 3.20 1.28
Need for Regulation 3.96 1.65
Avoidability 5.73 0.83
Perceived Participation 50.80 23.60
Extreme Activities
(1.72) Crack -* (6.68) Swimming
(2.54) Diet Pills
-* (5.22) Sex
(1.22) Bicycle Riding
-
(6.29) Crack
(1.37) Crack -» (6.51) Bicycle Riding
(1.37) Crack
-
(6.53) Bicycle Riding
(1.20) Cocaine
-
(6.59) Bicycle Riding
(2.78) Caffeine
-
(6.98) Crack
(2.50) Contact Sports
-
(5.85) Uppers
(1.95) Crack
-
(5.10) Bicycle Riding
(1.34) Uppers
-* (4.20) Driving
(1.42) Binge Eating
-
(5.80) Driving
(1.51) Bicycle Riding -» (6.71) Cocaine
(4.24) Driving
-
(6.78) Crack
(18.50) Binge Eating - (85.90) Caffeine
Note: In some cases, high ratings are associated with low perceptions of the quality (e.g., personal risk).
The labeling of each scale is given in Table 2.
!
a.
o
II
K) g
Table 4. Interconelations among 11 High-Risk Activities across 41 Subjects
1. Alcohol —
2. Five or More Drinks .63 —
3. Rode with Drunk .44 .38 —
4. Sex .21 .19 .52
5. Unprotected Sex .03 .17 .13
6. Cigarettes .32 .59 .21
7. Marijuana .57 .51 .56
8. Snuff .08 .23 .23
9. Uppers .15 .01 .33
10. Cocaine .10 .16 .23
11. Crack .10 -.15 .23
.62
.27
.36
.70
.43
.30
.30
.31
.21
.88
.31
.48
.05
.45
.39
.09
.23
.11
.27
.03
.18
.14
.26
.42
-.06
.70
.70
10
-.02
11
!
a.
f I
"'I
.8 fc
II