, Volume 189, Supplement 1, pp 161–171 | Cite as

Forecasted risk taking in youth: evidence for a bounded-rationality perspective



This research examined whether youth’s forecasted risk taking is best predicted by a compensatory (namely, subjective expected utility) or non-compensatory (e.g., single-factor) model. Ninety youth assessed the importance of perceived benefits, importance of perceived drawbacks, subjective probability of benefits, and subjective probability of drawbacks for 16 risky behaviors clustered evenly into recreational and health/safety domains. In both domains, there was strong support for a non-compensatory model in which only the perceived importance of the benefits of engaging in a risky behavior predicted youths’ forecasted engagement in risky behavior. The study overcomes earlier methodological weaknesses by fully decomposing participants’ assessments into importance and probability aspects for both benefits and drawbacks. As such, the 6findings provide clear evidence in support of a bounded-rationality perspective on youth decision making regarding risk taking.


Risk perception Risk taking Subjective expected utility Bounded rationality Youth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anand P. (1995) Foundations of rational choice under risk. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, J., Brown, R. V. (eds) (1991) Teaching decision making to adolescents. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman K. E., Fisher L., Koch G. (2006) External variables, subjective expected utility and adolescent behavior with alcohol and cigarettes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19: 789–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauman K. E., Udry J. R. (1981) Subjective expected utility and adolescent sexual behavior. Adolescence 16: 527–535Google Scholar
  5. Benthin A., Slovic P., Severson H. (1993) A psychometric study of adolescent risk perception. Journal of Adolescence 16: 153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyth-Marom R., Fischhoff B. (1997) Adolescents’ decisions about risks: A cognitive perspective. In: Schulenberg J., Maggs J., Hurnelmans K. (eds) Health risks and developmental transaction during adolescence. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 110–135Google Scholar
  7. Boyer T. W. (2006) The development of risk-taking: A multi-perspective review. Developmental Review 26: 291–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhami M. K. (2003) Psychological models of professional decision-making. Psychological Science 14: 175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhami, M. K., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (in press). Spanish young adults’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of risky driving. The Spanish Journal of Psychology.Google Scholar
  11. Dhami, M. K., & Mandel, D. R. (2011). Crime as risk taking. Psychology, Crime and Law. doi: 10.1080/1068316x.2010.498423.
  12. Dhami M. K., Mandel D. R., Garcia-Retamero R. (2011) Canadian and Spanish youths’ risk perceptions of drinking and driving and riding with a drunk driver. International Journal of Psychology 46: 81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhami M. K., Mandel D. R., Loewenstein G., Ayton P. (2006) Prisoners’ positive illusions of their post-release success. Law and Human Behavior 30: 631–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiClemente, R. J., Hansen, W., Ponton, L. E. (eds) (1996) Handbook of adolescent health risk behavior. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishburn P. C. (1981) Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories. Theory and Decision 13: 139–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Furby L., Beyth-Marom R. (1992) Risk taking in adolescence: A decision-making perspective. Developmental Review 12: 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garcia-Retamero R., Dhami M. K. (2009) Take-the-best in expert-novice decision strategies for residential burglary. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16: 163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. the ABC Research Group: (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Greening L., Stoppelbein L. (2000) Young drivers’ health attitudes and intentions to drink and drive. Journal of Adolescent Health 27: 94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gruber, J. (Ed.). (2001) Risky behavior among youths: An economic analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  21. Halpern-Felsher B. L., Biehl M., Kropp R. Y., Rubinstein M. L. (2004) Perceived risks and benefits of smoking: Differences among adolescents with different smoking experiences and intentions. Preventive Medicine 39: 559–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jessor R. (1998) New perspectives on adolescent risk behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman D. (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58: 697–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47: 313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knight, F. H. (1921/1964). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York: Sentry Press.Google Scholar
  26. Loewenstein G. F., Hsee C. K., Weber E. U., Welch N. (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin 127: 267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moore S., Gullone E. (1996) Predicting adolescent risk behavior using a personalized cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 25: 343–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morris S. B., DeShon R. P. (2002) Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods 7: 105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nickoletti P., Taussig H. N. (2006) Outcome expectancies and risk behaviors in maltreated adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence 16: 217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parsons J. T., Siegel A. W., Cousins J. H. (1997) Late adolescent risk-taking: effects of perceived benefits and perceived risks on behavioral intentions and behavioral change. Journal of Adolescence 20: 381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reyna V. F., Farley F. (2006) Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: Implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 7: 1–44Google Scholar
  32. Romer, D. (Ed.). (2003) Reducing adolescent risk: Toward an integrated approach. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Siegel A. W., Cousins J. H., Rubovitts D., Parsons J. T., Lavery B., Crowley C. (1994) Adolescents’ perceptions of the benefits and risks of their own risk-taking. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 2: 89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon H. A. (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63: 129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon H. A. (1982) Models of bounded rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Slovic P., Finucane M. L., Peters E., MacGregor D. G. (2002) The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. (eds) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 397–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weber E. U., Blais A., Betz N. E. (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15: 263–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of SurreyGuildford, SurreyEngland, UK
  2. 2.Defence R&D CanadaTorontoCanada
  3. 3.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations