The definitions of risk differ significantly between the scientific disciplines. Modern societies have generally been characterized as risk societies, where risk is considered a normal life experience (Zinn, 2019). This paper utilizes a psychological approach, which perceives risk as behavior that could result in negative consequences. For instance, risk in psychological understanding may lead to health complications, legal system encounters, and psychological problems (Defoe et al., 2019). The age of adolescence is commonly associated with an increased prevalence of various risk-taking behaviors. According to Fairchild et al. (2019), approximately 10% of all individuals are affected by conduct disorder at the time of childhood and adolescence. The conduct disorder may manifest in various risk-taking behaviors, such as binge drinking, unsafe driving, risky sexual behavior, and drug abuse (Sanci et al., 2018). In addition, adolescents’ tendency to take risks impacts their socialization, as they actively engage in delinquency and aggression (Sijtsema & Lindenberg, 2018). Overall, the evidence from scholarly sources confirms the association of adolescence with an increased probability of taking serious risks.
However, an important question stands — which factors cause adolescents to behave riskily to the point of self-destruction? Developmental psychology regards peer group influence as one of the most prominent risk factors. According to McGloin and Thomas (2019), peer influence is responsible for two critical aspects of delinquency. Firstly, deviant peers socialize the acceptance of deviant values and behaviors. Secondly, adolescents seek the immediate impact of socialization routines, regardless of whether their peers are deviant (McGloin & Thomas, 2019). Most adolescents strive to socialize, find respect, support, and understanding among their peers, which results in the acceptance of risky behaviors. In this regard, peer influence can theoretically become beneficial if the group encourages an adolescent to take positive risks or engage in constructive behaviors. Therefore, peer influence is an important factor, but the prevalence of harmful risk-taking in adolescents should be associated with the malleability of the young brain rather than the natural predisposition of a particular individual. Such factors as the quality of peers and socio-cultural environment should also be accounted for in studying adolescents as a group susceptible to risk-taking behaviors.
Psychological and social studies explain the mechanism of peer group influence through several theories. The social learning theory was gradually formulated in the works of Sutherland (1947), Jeffery (1965), and Akers (1973) is based on four constructs (as cited in McGloin &Thomas, 2019, p. 243). Firstly, delinquent and risky behaviors are related to the peer type (delinquent versus non-delinquent). Secondly, behaviors are influenced by the individual’s attitudes and rationalizations that allow deviance. Thirdly, the probability of risk-taking, such as criminal behavior, depends on whether reinforcements (rewards) outweigh the punishments. Lastly, delinquent individuals may learn observed behaviors by imitating their peers, especially if negative consequences are seemingly insignificant (McGloin &Thomas, 2019). Through these constructs, peer group shows clear examples of expected and rewarded behaviors, which an individual subsequently accepts. Moreover, adolescents usually do not possess the capacity to formulate an opinion of their own and withstand peer group pressure. The frontal control regions of the adolescent brain are insufficient to inhibit responses to risky stimuli (Sherman et al., 2018). As a consequence, adolescents are quite malleable despite their possible engagement in risky and antisocial behaviors.
Given that adolescence is associated with increasing social activity and communication with peers, one can see how negative risk-taking is promoted and reinforced. Adolescent sees how “cool”, “mature”, or “brave” their peers look and starts copying their behaviors in order to achieve the desired recognition. The forbidden pleasures of smoking, binge drinking, casual sex, or reckless driving fit well into the image of a free, adult individual. Consequently, risk-taking becomes a powerful statement of maturity, a way of impressing friends (Zinn, 2019). Adolescents seek rewards and satisfaction in their peers’ reactions and learned risky behaviors turn into dangerous habits.
The network theory perceives peer group influence as a result of two simultaneous and interrelated processes — peer selection and peer socialization. Peer selection creates a circle of friends based on particular criteria, and peer socialization presents opportunities for reinforcement of risky behaviors. According to the social identity approach, self-categorizing as a member of a specific group shapes the individual’s experience and perception of the world (Cruwys et al., 2021). Under this influence, a group identity promotes a set of accepted, expected, and respected behaviors. In addition, rejection by peers leads to a negative affect in adolescents, which reduces their willingness to persist in the face of frustration (King et al., 2018). As a result, the adolescents submit to the group identity out of fear of being rejected by the peer group. Consequently, if the negative risk-taking behaviors are portrayed as identity elements, they become shared by other group members.
From this theoretical perspective, adolescents select peers based on the norms of their group, and the group shifts behaviors of newcomers to riskier and more self-destructive. For instance, Henneberger et al. (2021) found that adolescents who exhibited risky behaviors were more likely to be retained as friends, and friendships between the adolescents with similar intensity of risk-taking behaviors were more likely. According to Wang et al. (2018), teenagers are more likely to select friends based on similar behaviors and are also more likely to align these behaviors to those of their friends over time. Finally, McMillan et al. (2018) reviewed a sample of over 9,000 U.S. students in 51 school networks and confirmed that youths prefer to select friends with similar participation in risk-taking behaviors. Essentially, the problem becomes more embedded in society as social networks spread and make risky behaviors a norm within a particular group.
One can compare the peer group influence under the social network theory to a constantly-spreading web. In the center, there is a small core group of teenagers who like binge drinking or exhibit another form of risk-taking. Every adolescent within the core group may start new friendships, which is natural for their age, and introduce new members to the network. These new members would likely have to develop peer-influenced risk-taking behaviors in order to blend into the company and feel welcome and comfortable. In addition, since social acceptance is one of the central driving forces of adolescent behavior, youth become highly exposed to the peer pressure factor (McCoy et al., 2019). Under peer pressure, an adolescent strives to achieve approval and engages in risk-taking behaviors, such as substance use, binge drinking, or delinquency.
Finally, peer influence as a social reward fits into the fuzzy trace theory (FTT) context. Reyna et al. (2020) argued that adolescents who take negative risks are guided by verbatim thinking (focus on literal details) as opposed to gist-thinking (emphasis on overall context). For example, such an adolescent would attend a party with illegal drugs because the probability of having fun and gaining peer respect is higher than the chance of getting caught (Reyna et al., 2020). If a peer group exhibits and promotes verbatim thinking, it may likely become a staple among the members and a foundation of the network identity. In this regard, Reyna et al. (2020) associate risk-taking and delinquency with adolescence since these behaviors often become normative in that age group. The cognitive and social drivers such as strong sensations and peer respect motivate adolescents to take harmful risks.
Overall, the psychological and social theories emphasize the role of peer influence in adolescent risk-taking. The social learning theory highlights the mechanisms of reinforcement and imitation, which legitimize the negative risk-taking behaviors. The social network theory explains how negative risk-taking spreads through new social contacts and friendships. Finally, the FTT connects peer influence as a rewarding motivation with a verbatim thinking pattern that disregards potential negative consequences as improbable. However, one might wonder whether peer group influence should be perceived exclusively as a negative factor or its impact can be reversed and utilized for the benefit. The evidence from scholarly sources suggests that peer influence can be directed to the promotion of positive risk-taking. As such, the malleability of adolescents’ minds and their search for peer appreciation can be perceived as beneficial factors in the development of cognitive-behavioral interventions and youth policies.
Several scholarly sources provide evidence of positive risk-taking working in the same pattern as the negative one. According to Duell and Steinberg (2019), positive risk-taking in adolescents — for instance, trying out for a sports team, or enrolling in a challenging course, is driven by similar stimuli, such as sensation seeking. Contrary to the negative behaviors, positive risks are associated with the benefit to well-being, mild severity of potential consequences, and social acceptability (Duell & Steinberg, 2019). In this regard, positive risk-taking offers adolescents an opportunity to impress their peers and satisfy the need for excitement in a socially acceptable way. Furthermore, Telzer et al. (2018) presented multiple examples of peer influence on positive adolescent development. For example, peer influence in close friendships predicted greater prosocial goal pursuit and subsequent cooperation. In a small group, prosocial peer spectators encouraged greater prosocial behavior; the impact was more substantial depending on the peer salience level (Telzer et al., 2018). As such, recruiting notable members of adolescent social networks can serve as a powerful tool for the promotion of positive risk-taking among youth.
One should note that distinctive markers of adolescence are not limited to risk-taking and heightened susceptibility to peer influence. Additionally, the teenage years are also associated with the increasing ability to consider others’ needs, concerns, and perspectives (Fuligni, 2019). Adolescents are more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors than adults and become volunteers for the community, especially if their peers volunteer (Andrews et al., 2020). As such, the promotion of positive risk-taking in adolescents corresponds with their willingness to make a social contribution. The effect is stronger in the younger (12-14-year-old) adolescents who are more sensitive to social influence from their peers (Do et al., 2020). Overall, the popularity of positive risk-taking behaviors among peers would likely make them appealing across adolescents’ social networks.
Given this information, youth social policies should consider utilizing the effects of peer influence in order to attract adolescents rather than stressing the harmful consequences of negative risk-taking. For example, the anti-bullying program experiment in 56 U.S. schools revealed that student-led anti-bullying programs resulted in a 30% reduction in reports of student conflicts (Blakemore, 2018). This case shows that adolescents are more inclined to trust and follow their peers, and if the peers translate a positive message, adolescents will likely contribute to the common cause.
Furthermore, it is important to consider the emotional state of adolescents in addition to the potential peer group influence. Depressive environments which do not provide sufficient opportunities for social interactions and fun leisure time can provoke boredom in adolescents. In the field of clinical psychology, boredom is defined as an affective state characterized by unpleasant feelings, lack of stimulation, and low psychological arousal. Consequently, adolescents affected by boredom may try to cope with it via risky behaviors, which provide the needed stimulation (Biolcati et al., 2018). For instance, Biolcati et al. (2018) studied a sample of 478 Italian adolescents and found that high levels of boredom were associated with such risky behaviors as binge drinking and Internet addiction. The adolescents’ inability to satisfy psychological needs of sensation- and pleasure-seeking resulted in a loss of control in the attempts to find a way out of uncomfortable situations.
From these examples, one can see that adolescents are torn between two patterns. On the one hand, they are susceptible to risky behaviors and peer influence. On the other hand, adolescents develop social competence as they learn how to see the world from the other’s perspective and demonstrate the willingness to contribute. However, these tendencies are likely developing in tandem, with fun-seeking predicting both prosocial and risk-taking behaviors. Blankenstein et al. (2020) tested the behavioral and neural pathways supporting adolescent development and found that fun-seeking was related to both prosocial and rebellious behaviors in a sample of 210 mid-to-late adolescents. Consequently, the lack of opportunities to have fun without engaging in risky behaviors creates a potent environment for rebellious, negative risk-taking.
The socio-environmental factor directly impacts the peer group influence since potential members of the adolescent’s social network would likely live in comparable conditions. In this regard, a review by Lewycka et al. (2018), which highlighted downward trends in multiple risky behaviors among teenagers in New Zealand and other developed countries, is representative. In particular, significant reductions in substance use, physical fighting, binge drinking, teenage pregnancies, and risky driving were reported (Lewycka et al., 2018). Chung et al. (2018) provided the data on binge drinking prevalence in the U.S. youth, which decreased from 41% in 1983 to 17,2% in 2015. Therefore, one can conclude that life in a setting where an adolescent can find non-risky entertainment reduces the potential for negative peer group influence. If teenagers have a safer alternative to risky behaviors, they will likely use it and influence their peers. In this regard, economically-developed countries are better prepared to address the social issues that contribute to antisocial risk-taking among adolescents.
Lastly, in several studies, peer influence appeared to be a risk-avoidance factor in adolescent decision-making. For instance, Van Hoorn et al. (2018) asked 56 adolescents in the 12-15 years-old range to complete a computerized driving Yellow Light Game alone, under parents’ monitoring, and in the presence of peers. Surprisingly, the participants were less likely to drive through intersections under the yellow light in the peer presence. The riskiest decisions were made when the adolescents remained unobserved by their parents and peers (Van Hoorn et al., 2018). Somerville et al. (2019) found that adolescents and young adults are less likely to take risks in a card game when a peer actively monitors them. As such, the peer group influence can promote safer behaviors depending on the situational context. Good-quality, reliable peers can prevent an adolescent from unnecessary risk-taking. In contrast, isolation and loneliness may increase teenagers’ frustration and susceptibility to negative risky behaviors.
In summary, one can confirm that peer group influence plays a significant role in adolescent engagement in risk-taking behaviors. From the social learning theory perspective, adolescents may become inclined to imitate the behaviors of their deviant peers, especially if perceived rewards outweigh the potential negative consequences. Under the social network theory, adolescents tend to find friends in peers with similarities in risk-taking. Furthermore, peer pressure stimulates youth to adopt and protect group identity due to the increasing need for social acceptance and approval. Lastly, the developing adolescent brain rarely has the capacity to inhibit responses to risky stimuli, which hinders gist-thinking. Teenagers tend to think about immediate benefits without looking at the overall context. As a result, adolescents emerge as a malleable and highly vulnerable population group. Youth might perceive themselves as rebellious and tough, but in reality, the majority are driven into risk-taking by the fear of rejection by their peers and insufficient mental capacity to withstand the external influence. This conclusion should not be considered offensive since it merely summarizes the natural features of adolescence, which are applicable to almost every human being.
However, the susceptibility to peer influence that pushes youth toward risk-taking can be utilized to a beneficial effect. Since adolescents seek social appreciation and experience a need to contribute to the group, they can be encouraged to take positive risks. For example, teenagers can make a valuable addition to volunteer and community service groups or be encouraged to practice sports. Loneliness and social isolation can put youth at greater risk than negative peer group pressure. In this regard, the malleability of adolescents and the strength of peer influence can be used to protect them from unhealthy risk-taking behaviors. Therefore, instead of concentrating on the consequences of negative risk-taking, policymakers should recruit notable adolescents and young adults so that they can promote positive behaviors via peer influence.
Finally, attempts to utilize peer group influence for the benefit should be backed with sufficient conditions for safe, good-quality leisure. Adolescents can resort to negative risk-taking behaviors out of boredom, especially in the social environments which do not provide them with safer alternatives. As such, local- and national-level government agencies should continue developing youth leisure and entertainment infrastructure. The data from the economically-developed countries demonstrate a significant reduction in various adolescent risk-taking behaviors, including binge drinking, unsafe driving, and substance use. The improvements in youth infrastructure would lead to a decrease in deviant behaviors since teenagers and young adults would receive safe options for having fun. Consequently, fewer teenagers would be involved in the negative risk-taking, and the quality of peer groups and adolescent social networks would increase.
References
Andrews, J. L., Foulkes, L., & Blakemore, S. J. (2020). Peer influence in adolescence: Public-health implications for COVID-19. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8), 585-587. Web.
Biolcati, R., Mancini, G., & Trombini, E. (2018). Proneness to boredom and risk behaviors during adolescents’ free time. Psychological Reports, 121(2), 303-323. Web.
Blakemore, S. J. (2018). Avoiding social risk in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 116-122. Web.
Blankenstein, N. E., Telzer, E. H., Do, K. T., Van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., & Crone, E. A. (2020). Behavioral and neural pathways supporting the development of prosocial and risk‐taking behavior across adolescence. Child Development, 91(3), e665-e681. Web.
Chung, T., Creswell, K. G., Bachrach, R., Clark, D. B., & Martin, C. S. (2018). Adolescent binge drinking: Developmental context and opportunities for prevention. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews. 39(1), 5-15.
Cruwys, T., Greenaway, K. H., Ferris, L. J., Rathbone, J. A., Saeri, A. K., Williams, E., Parker, S. L., Chang, M. X-L., Croft, N., Bingley, W., & Grace, L. (2021). When trust goes wrong: A social identity model of risk taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(1), 57-83. Web.
Defoe, I. N., Semon Dubas, J., & Romer, D. (2019). Heightened adolescent risk-taking? Insights from lab studies on age differences in decision-making. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 56-63. Web.
Do, K. T., Prinstein, M. J., & Telzer, E. H. (2020). Neurobiological susceptibility to peer influence in adolescence. In K. Cohen Kadosh (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
Duell, N., & Steinberg, L. (2019). Positive risk taking in adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 13(1), 48-52. Web.
Fairchild, G., Hawes, D. J., Frick, P. J., Copeland, W. E., Odgers, C. L., Franke, B., Freitag, C. M., & De Brito, S. A. (2019). Conduct disorder. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 5(1), 1-25. Web.
Fuligni, A. J. (2019). The need to contribute during adolescence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 331-343. Web.
Henneberger, A. K., Mushonga, D. R., & Preston, A. M. (2021). Peer influence and adolescent substance use: A systematic review of dynamic social network research. Adolescent Research Review, 6(1), 57-73. Web.
King, K. M., McLaughlin, K. A., Silk, J., & Monahan, K. C. (2018). Peer effects on self-regulation in adolescence depend on the nature and quality of the peer interaction. Development and Psychopathology, 30(4), 1389-1401. Web.
Lewycka, S., Clark, T., Peiris-John, R., Fenaughty, J., Bullen, P., Denny, S., & Fleming, T. (2018). Downwards trends in adolescent risk-taking behaviours in New Zealand: Exploring driving forces for change. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 54(6), 602-608. Web.
McCoy, S. S., Dimler, L. M., Samuels, D. V., & Natsuaki, M. N. (2019). Adolescent susceptibility to deviant peer pressure: Does gender matter? Adolescent Research Review, 4(1), 59-71. Web.
McGloin, J. M., & Thomas, K. J. (2019). Peer influence and delinquency. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(1), 241-264. Web.
McMillan, C., Felmlee, D., & Osgood, D. W. (2018). Peer influence, friend selection, and gender: How network processes shape adolescent smoking, drinking, and delinquency. Social Networks, 55, 86-96. Web.
Reyna, V. F., Panagiotopoulos, C., & Decety, J. (2020). Morals, money, and risk-taking from childhood to adulthood: The neurodevelopmental framework of fuzzy-trace theory. In J. Decety (Ed.), The social brain – A developmental perspective (pp. 385-405). The MIT Press.
Sanci, L., Webb, M., & Hocking, J. (2018). Risk-taking behaviour in adolescents. Australian Journal of General Practice, 47(12), 829-834. Web.
Sherman, L. E., Greenfield, P. M., Hernandez, L. M., & Dapretto, M. (2018). Peer influence via Instagram: Effects on brain and behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 89(1), 37-47. Web.
Sijtsema, J. J., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2018). Peer influence in the development of adolescent antisocial behavior: Advances from dynamic social network studies. Developmental Review, 50, 140-154. Web.
Somerville, L. H., Haddara, N., Sasse, S. F., Skwara, A. C., Moran, J. M., & Figner, B. (2019). Dissecting “peer presence” and “decisions” to deepen understanding of peer influence on adolescent risky choice. Child Development, 90(6), 2086-2103. Web.
Telzer, E. H., Van Hoorn, J., Rogers, C. R., & Do, K. T. (2018). Social influence on positive youth development: A developmental neuroscience perspective. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 54, 215-258. Web.
Van Hoorn, J., McCormick, E. M., Rogers, C. R., Ivory, S. L., & Telzer, E. H. (2018). Differential effects of parent and peer presence on neural correlates of risk taking in adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13(9), 945-955. Web.
Wang, M. T., Kiuru, N., Degol, J. L., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2018). Friends, academic achievement, and school engagement during adolescence: A social network approach to peer influence and selection effects. Learning and Instruction, 58, 148-160. Web.
Zinn, J. O. (2019). The meaning of risk-taking – Key concepts and dimensions. Journal of Risk Research, 22(1), 1-15. Web.