Abstract
The goal of this project was to substantiate a more positive conceptualization of adolescent risk behavior and to compare adolescent viewpoints of risk behavior to the items on the Prosocial and Health Adolescent Risk Behavior Scale (PHARBS). A total of 57 high school students participated in the research. Researchers recruited students from an Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology course at a large Midwestern high school. The high school serves approximately 1,750 students in grades 9 through 12. The university Institutional Review Board approved the study procedures. Families provided informed consent, and students assented to participating in one of eight focus group discussions. The focus groups were audio taped, transcribed, and coded. Researchers analyzed the coded data using word count analysis. Students discussed prosocial risk behaviors in addition to health risk behaviors, providing support for the PHARBS and suggesting that adolescents view taking some risks as positive. A more positive conceptualization of risk behavior may better align with how adolescents view risk behavior. Researchers and clinicians might approach adolescent risk behavior measurement and research on the importance of understanding risk behaviors as a normal and potentially positive aspect of adolescent development.
Taking a risk or choosing to act in a way that could result in loss or injury has been a matter of discussion in psychology and philosophy beginning in the time of Socrates (Partenie, 2014). More contemporary philosophers continued contemplation of risky human behavior. Camus (1956) wrote about rebellion as a risk worth taking; that existence begins when the risk is taken. de Beauvoir (1948) similarly exalted human action in the face of potential loss. She wrote that transcendence and personal freedom are not achieved without taking risks: The resistance of this thing sustains the action of man as air sustains the flight of the dove; and by projecting himself through it man accepts its being an obstacle; he assumes the risk of a setback in which he does not see a denial of his freedom. The explorer knew that he may be forced to withdraw before arriving at his goal; the scientist, that a certain phenomenon may remain obscure to him; the technician, that his attempt may prove abortive; these withdrawals and error are another way of disclosing the world. (p. 80)
The act of taking a risk and facing potential loss has been contemplated for centuries, and interest in human risk behavior, especially adolescent risk behavior, has continued to be a topic of great interest. Adolescence is an especially remarkable developmental period because it is during this time that participation in risk behavior increases substantially (Brodbeck et al., 2013; Defoe et al., 2015; Do et al., 2017). Across the 20th century, researchers studied the process of risk taking (e.g., Benthin et al., 1993), risk perception (e.g., Slovic et al., 1979), personality traits related to taking risks (Satinder & Black, 1984; Zuckerman et al., 1972), and participation in and correlates of a variety of specific risk behaviors (e.g., Engberg & Morral, 2006; Hardoon et al., 2004; Hawkins et al., 1992; Ivers et al., 2009; Satinder & Black, 1984); however, rarely is risk behavior researched as a positive activity or as a behavior that is essential to achieve personal freedom or optimal existence as discussed by the cited philosophers (Duell & Steinberg, 2019). Over the decades, a few researchers have taken a more positive stance on risk taking in alignment with early philosophies that risk is necessary for human growth. For example, Jessor (1992) wrote that “. . .risk behaviors are functional, purposive, goal directed, and that the goals involved are often those that are central in normal adolescent development.” (p. 378). Arnett (2004) also argued that risk behavior may be functional for obtaining adolescent developmental milestones such as independence and identity. Further, Schulenberg (2006) suggested that, in the context of adolescent development, risk behavior may be related to positive youth development. More recently, Duell and Steinberg (2019) presented a framework for positive risk-taking and defined three features of this type of adolescent risk behavior: the risk benefits well-being, the risk is less intense than health risk behaviors, and the risk is legal behavior and is widely considered socially acceptable. Do et al. (2017) proposed a “. . .new area of study, Prosocial Risk Taking (PSRT), to explore the possibility that adolescents engage in risk-taking behaviors to benefit others,” (p. 264). Nevertheless, behaviors that often come to mind in discussions of adolescent risk behavior include substance use, unprotected sex, reckless driving, and peer aggression (together commonly referred to as health risk behaviors); all of which have a high potential to result in negative life consequences. Unfortunately, risk behaviors that can potentially result in positive outcomes are often overlooked in both research and applied settings. Adolescents also take risks in the classroom (e.g., choice of challenging academic tasks), on the athletic field (e.g., attempting a new sport), and in the community (e.g., making new friends).
Risk behavior is accepted within adolescent peer groups (Albert et al., 2013), but this behavior is often discouraged by teachers, parents and other adults; and yet, participation in risk behavior is an appropriate aspect of adolescent development (Erickson, 1968), and research has demonstrated that adolescents who participate in some level of risk are psychologically healthier compared to those who abstain from risk and those who overindulge in risk (Chassin et al., 1988; Shedler & Block, 1990). In essence, there is a delicate balance required for optimal outcomes. Recent neuroscience suggests the stimulation from risk behavior participation might be gained from not only participation in health risk behaviors, but also from participation in prosocial behaviors that hold some risk, such as helping others and making new friends (Telzer, 2016; Telzer et al., 2013). Think about adolescents who regularly attempt unfamiliar activities, often speak up in class, and choose to lead rather than follow. These adolescents risk failure or embarrassment rather than physical harm, and they are the adolescents many adults acclaim as exemplary models. It is necessary to include positive risk behaviors in risk behavior descriptions in order to understand adolescent risk-taking more completely and, in turn, develop effective interventions; something with which intervention scientists have had little success (Maes & Lievens, 2003).
Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveal that educational strategies and interventions have helped to decrease some health risk behaviors. Arnett (2018) presented data suggesting that alcohol and cigarette use, unprotected sex, and criminal behaviors have declined since 1990. The most recent documentation of trends across 21 different health risk behaviors (e.g., sexual behavior, condom usage, illicit drug use, bullying) revealed that only six of these behaviors had decreased from 2009 to 2019 with most of the behaviors documented as “no change” or “wrong direction” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020). The past decades have given us prevention efforts focused on elimination of health risk behaviors, but innovative intervention methods are needed. While these strategies have been somewhat successful, as evidenced by decreases in some health risk behaviors across the last decade (CDC, 2020), there is still much work to be done.
Behavioral science suggests that it is necessary to teach an appropriate replacement behavior in order to modify a problem behavior (Horner, 1994). Adolescents are going to take risks; therefore, a more appropriate intervention strategy may be to teach adolescents appropriate and positive risk behaviors perhaps paired with educational programing on the dangers of health risk behaviors. A reconceptualization of risk behavior that includes both typically studied health risk behaviors and more recently studied positive risk behaviors may lead to programs that prevent and/or reduce behaviors identified as problematic for adolescents while at the same time providing support for risk behaviors that may be more socially acceptable, are less likely to result in serious injury, and may lead to positive outcomes. Therefore, research is needed to identify positive risk behaviors that have the potential to link to important academic and social emotional outcomes for youth and may act as replacement behaviors for the health risk behaviors that are more likely to result in serious physical and psychological injury; however, it is necessary to further develop and improve measures that allow such investigations. To understand adolescent risk behavior more completely, it is necessary to include a wide variety of risk behaviors on assessments that will, in turn, inform the development of interventions that aim to increase positive risk taking and decrease negative risk taking—something that was suggested nearly three decades ago (Jessor, 1992). While a few researchers are leading the way in better understanding positive risk behaviors and their relation to a variety of important variables, more research is needed; and the purpose of this paper is to add a student perspective to this growing literature.
Rethinking the Definition of Risk Behavior
Risk is conceptualized as an activity or behavior that has potential for adverse outcomes (Irwin, 1993), and risk taking is described as any behavior that has uncertain potential losses associated with it (Rosenbloom, 2003). Risk behaviors are typically defined as behaviors that have the potential to result in adverse outcomes such as substance abuse and other reckless behaviors (e.g., fighting, gang activity, and reckless driving). However, risk behavior is more completely defined when the potential for positive outcomes is acknowledged. The drawback of this deficit viewpoint is that more socially acceptable risk behaviors have been largely excluded from study. Standing up to peers, attempting a physical challenge, or telling the truth in the face of punishment are also risk behaviors and are distinct from typical health risk behavior in terms of the likely consequences (Byrnes et al., 1999). This type of risk behavior has been called “exploratory risk behavior” (Irwin & Vaughan, 1988), “positive risk behavior” (Duell & Steinberg, 2019) or “prosocial risk behavior” (Do et al., 2017; Skaar et al., 2014). For example, an adolescent who stands up to peers who are teasing a younger student is risking social acceptance but may also experience immediate praise from adults and feelings of pride in the act of doing what was right. This, in turn, reinforces the positive risk behavior and increases the likelihood that it will happen again in the future when the opportunity presents.
As a result of this reconceptualization, risk behavior can be defined more broadly. It is defined as a class of behaviors that have potential to result in either a positive or a negative outcome; however, very different types of behavior fall under this broad definition (e.g., speaking out in class and substance use). Subtypes are also defined to distinguish between these different types of risk behaviors. Prosocial risk behavior is defined as a risk behavior for which there is an increased likelihood of positive outcomes. Health risk behavior is then defined as a risk behavior for which there is an increased likelihood of negative outcomes. This conceptualization aligns with Do et al.’s (2017) typology of risk behavior. They proposed individuals’ risk-taking propensity and their prosociality exist on a continuum and intersect creating four types including antisocial risk takers and prosocial risk takers. This change in the way researchers are describing risk behavior must be accompanied by changes in the way we measure risk behavior in adolescents.
Risk Behavior Measurement
Several federal and state agencies have developed adolescent risk behavior questionnaires in order to describe participation in health risk behavior across large samples of adolescents. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is one such example (Underwood et al., 2020). This large national data collection contributes important information on the developmental patterns and historical trends of risk behavior and has informed theory throughout the years. Although the YRBS is a valid and reliable measure of adolescent risk behavior, it ignores prosocial risk behaviors and focuses exclusively on participation in health risk behaviors and experiences.
In addition to the YRBS, there are a large number of measures more regularly used to assess risk behaviors and the mental health of school aged youth; however, they tend to place an emphasis on symptoms of mental disorders (Levitt et al., 2007). Social-emotional screening instruments used in schools often assess both social-emotional difficulties as well as personal assets; however, the instruments do not focus assessment on risk behavior (Dowdy et al., 2011; Furlong et al., 2014), which is an important assessment activity due to administrator focus on these behaviors (Cornell & Loper, 1998; National Center for Educational Statistics, 1998). A model of prosocial and health risk behavior provides a foundation for a holistic conceptualization of risk behavior in adolescence, and may inspire researchers, clinicians, educators, and policy makers to transform their view of risk behavior from a wholly negative set of behaviors to a construct that includes a wide spectrum of behaviors from health risk behavior to prosocial risk behaviors. This reconceptualization inspires a need for measures that include both health risk items and prosocial risk items and that can be utilized across research and applied settings (Do et al., 2017). Wood et al. (2013) developed the Prosocial Activities Scale (PAS), which measures participation in various recreational activities that carry either physical and emotional risks, but does not include items that measure participation in health risk behaviors. The Prosocial and Health Adolescent Risk Behavior Scale (PHARBS) was developed to measure both prosocial risk behavior and health risk behavior (Skaar et al., 2014). Measuring both health and prosocial risks at the same time is important because little is known about the interaction between the two types of risk behaviors (Do et al., 2017). This line of research is important and must continue to provide further evidence of validity (Messick, 1995) for these modern definitions and measures of risk behavior and of how they might be used to impact intervention and other applications of this work.
The goal of this project was to provide student voice in the definition of a more positive conceptualization of adolescent risk behavior. Focus group methodology was chosen for the purpose of encouraging conversation about adolescent risk behavior that was less structured by the adult-derived definitions of risk behavior within a quantitative survey or rating scale. This choice of methodology places student voice at the focus of the data collection (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2013). The specific purpose of this study was to interview high school students in order to get a better sense of what they thought about risk behavior and, specifically, prosocial risk behavior. Further, the researchers planned to compare adolescent responses to the items on the PHARBS. This study addressed the following research questions:
What behaviors do high school students consider as health and prosocial risk behaviors?
How do the behaviors discussed by high school students compare to those behaviors on the PHARBS?
Methods
Participants
The population for this study was defined as 9th through 12th grade students living in the United States; however; the sample used in this study is not representative of that population and is, rather, a sample of convenience. Researchers recruited students from four sections of an Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology course at a large Midwestern high school. The high school serves approximately 1,750 students in grades 9 through 12. Approximately 81% of the students are White, and approximately 28% of students receive free or reduced-price lunch. All students, no matter their achievement level, are offered the opportunity to take Advanced Placement courses. According to the teacher of this course, AP Psychology is considered the easiest of the AP courses, and this leads to many low achieving students taking this course.
The university’s Institutional Review Board approved the consent and data collection procedures of this study. While 63 families provided consent for their students, only 57 students assented to participate in the study. This attrition is due to students being gone from school the day of the focus groups (n = 4) or students choosing not to participate in the study (n = 2). Of the students who participated in the study, 77% were female, and over 90% were White.
Procedures
Students left their AP psychology course for approximately 20 minutes either at the beginning or end of the class period. In order to keep focus group numbers to fewer than 10 participants (Bloor et al., 2001), consented students in each class period were randomly split into two groups where one group participated at the beginning of class and the other group participated during the second half of class. A total of eight focus groups were completed. Students were escorted to an adjacent conference room to take part in the focus group. Students signed assent forms immediately upon reaching the conference room, and once all assent forms were signed, the focus group began. The focus group discussions were audio taped, and a graduate assistant took notes during the discussion. The audio files were transcribed verbatim. Audio that was difficult to transcribe was substantiated with notes taken during the session.
Materials
A series of interview questions were developed to provide direction for the discussion, but the discussion was intended to be semi-structured and open-ended allowing for students to lead the conversation. Each focus group was asked the following questions. The order of the questions was followed, and each question was asked by the researcher once the discussion of the previous question ended or there was a natural lead into the next question based on the focus group discussion. The questions were as follows:
What behaviors come to mind when I say “risk behavior?”
Prosocial risk behaviors are those risks that are more likely to lead to positive psychological, health and educational outcomes. What behaviors would fit this description?
How risky are those prosocial risk behaviors we listed?
About how often do you participate in those types of risk behaviors?
How do the adults in your life talk to you about risk behavior?
While the focus group questions lead students to respond to risk perception, frequency of participation in risk behavior, and how adults talk about risk behavior, the focus of this paper is on the first two focus group questions.
Data Analysis
The focus group data was transcribed and then coded by both the author and a graduate student who had knowledge of research on risk behavior took notes during the focus groups, and had training on the administration and development of the PHARBS. The transcribed discussions were analyzed through word count analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to identify different risk behaviors named and discussed by students. A code book was created with all of the behaviors listed on the current and previous versions of the PHARBS. Each of the researchers independently coded all of the transcribed data using ATLAS software. Researchers coded each of the references to those behaviors no matter which question participants were answering at the time. Further, researchers created a new code for any additional behaviors mentioned by students. Each coded instance of a risk behavior was then reviewed by the author, and any discrepancies were discussed with the graduate student to achieve consensus. For example, a student may have mentioned joining a club for the first time, and the two researchers may have disagreed on whether it should be coded as “trying something new” or “entering competitions.” Once consensus was achieved and both researchers were confident all of the behaviors discussed by the students were coded correctly, each of the coded behaviors was counted, again using ATLAS to find and count each code. Finally, coded behaviors that were similar were aggregated in the count. For example, raising hand in class and taking a difficult class were collapsed into “educational risk behaviors.” Aggregations are further explained in the results section below.
Results
Table 1 presents the results of the word count analysis including aggregations. The most frequent behaviors mentioned as a risk behavior were educational risk behaviors such as taking difficult course work or raising a hand during class. This risk behavior was mentioned 55 times during the focus group sessions. One student reported, “I guess if you take harder classes there’s more of a risk that you’re going to fail, but then there’s also a greater benefit for college applications and stuff.” Another student reported, “Sharing ideas in class” as a prosocial risk behavior. One student stated, “Like this year I did sign up for two classes, AP classes. . .That was a good risk . . .I think that’s a good risk.” Currently, the PHARBS does not have any items that reference educational risk behavior. When the measure was initially developed there was an item, “I raise my hand to ask or answer questions in class,” but this item was removed from the final version because it did not correlate well with the total scores nor did it load highly on the prosocial risk behavior factor (Skaar et al., 2014). It is important to note that students who participated in this study were pulled from their AP psychology course, so it is possible that taking hard courses was at the forefront of their minds at the time of the focus group sessions. Further, these are students who take AP courses, so it is possible they consider this a risk when students who had never taken or considered taking an AP course may not think of taking difficult courses or raising a hand in class as a risk.
Results From the Word Count Analysis.
Students mentioned “out of comfort zone,” often using those exact words, 23 times during the focus group sessions. While this is not a specific behavior, it does provide some insight into how adolescents think about risk behavior. Some students referred to this as a positive behavior. One student said, “Doing things that are outside your comfort zone but help better yourself.” Other students reported that it could be considered either good or bad, “Going out of your comfort zone can be good, bad, you know, whatever.” Several students linked specific situations to going out of their comfort zones. One student said, “I think of overcoming your fears, like stage fright or something like that.” Another student said, “Like challenging yourself. . . I play the violin so maybe playing a hard song that will require more practice. Or doing something new like speech, but I’ve never done speech so I see this as a positive risk.” This is important because this is not the language typically used in risk behavior rating scales and questionnaires (e.g., Youth Risk Behavior Survey, PHARBS), and perhaps using language similar to that of adolescents can tap into how they view risk behavior rather than thinking about risk behavior from the adult perspective (Abbott-Chapman et al., 2008).
Focus group participants mentioned taking drugs 27 times and trying something new 27 times during the focus group sessions. Trying something new is represented on the PHARBS by the prosocial risk behavior item, “I try games/sports I’ve never tried before,” (Skaar et al., 2014). While this item is focused on sports and games, the students mentioned a much wider variety of activities they try; for example, new foods, student council, school clubs, and new jobs. One student said, “Taking a job you don’t necessarily know, like, if you have a stable job and you don’t really like it, and you want to try something new.” Another student reported, “I think of, like, going along with that and trying out different sports and stuff like that. Like seeing what you’re good at and trying things.” It is clear from this focus group that adolescents think about trying something new as a prosocial risk behavior, but they think about this much more broadly than just as sports and games.
Taking drugs, a health risk behavior, is also represented on the PHARBS. The item refers to using marijuana (Skaar et al., 2014). Drugs was often mentioned immediately after the first focus group question, “What comes to your mind when I say ‘risk behavior’?” In six of the 10 sessions it was mentioned within the first several comments made by students, and it was specifically mentioned in all but one of the sessions. In the session where drugs were not specifically mentioned, students talked about “partying” and “doing illegal things.” Since health risk behaviors are those that are most frequently measured in national and state surveys (CDC, 2020; Iowa Department of Public Health, 2021) and most frequent targets of intervention (Clayton et al., 1996; Jensen et al., 2011), it is not surprising that this was frequently mentioned and was one of the first behaviors brought up during the sessions.
Standing up to bullying was mentioned 24 times during the focus groups, and this is a behavior that is represented on the PHARBS with the item, “I stand up to people who are bullying other students,” (Skaar et al., 2014). Participants who discussed standing up to bullies referred to it as a positive behavior. One student reported, I know when people are being, like racist or homophobic and stuff, I try to point it out. And even though I get, like, backlash, it just kind of feels like more rewarding, even if people hate you for it, you feel like a better person.
Some research suggests that students who defend against bullying report positive feelings and improved social status (Ma et al., 2019; Spadafora et al., 2020); therefore, students may be experiencing the risk of social backlash, but also reporting positive impacts of standing up to bullies. This behavior was usually mentioned later during the conversation and was not mentioned in each of the focus groups; however, when it was discussed, it usually sparked participants to talk often about both face to face bullying and cyberbullying. Relatedly, participants reported that even though cyberbullying occurs, spending time online is a positive behavior because they can give compliments to people and stand up to the cyberbullying.
Drinking alcohol was discussed 22 times, and was the third most frequent behavior mentioned by the participants. This is another health risk behavior that has been surveyed in national and state measures for decades (CDC, 2020; Research Institute for Studies in Education, 2006) and is represented on the PHARBS as well (Skaar et al., 2014). Students used typical phrases commonly used in surveys such as “drinking alcohol,” but also referred to drinking alcohol as “partying.” Drinking and driving was also mentioned by the participants, and several students mentioned drunk driving at the same time they discussed “partying” or going to parties. There is not a specific item about drinking and driving on the current PHARBS, but it was on the previous version and was removed because not all high school students can drive and it was important that all items be relevant for all high school students (Skaar et al., 2014). Similar to the language about being out of their comfort zones, it is important to consider the language relating to alcohol use. It might benefit risk behavior scale developers to consider the language of the adolescents. It may be possible to get a more honest self-report of alcohol use or risk behavior participation if we used their language rather than academic and adult language.
Disobeying was mentioned 20 times during the focus group as a risk behavior. Participants referred to behaviors such as skipping class, getting in trouble with parents, missing curfew, and trying not to get caught by adults. These behaviors are referred to in the PHARBS with just one item specific to skipping school (Skaar et al., 2014). This was clearly on the minds of these adolescents when discussing risk behavior, and the PHARBS and other risk behavior measures may be improved with more items to address this behavior. If these are behaviors that adolescents consider risky, it seems that more study is needed to understand why adolescents engage in these behaviors and if these behaviors are related to more troublesome risk behaviors, such as drinking, drug use, and dropping out of school. There is some research suggesting that disobedient and other oppositional behavior in early adolescence is not related to late adolescence substance use and risky sexual behavior (Timmermans et al., 2008). Lastly, these behaviors, while not widely researched as risk behaviors, might be of interest to school personnel, families, and community members. At the same time, disobedience and non-compliance have been extensively studied in relation to intervention and predicted outcomes (e.g., Dittman et al., 2016; Kalb & Loeber, 2003; Reitz et al., 2005)
The next several most frequently mentioned risk behaviors were all prosocial risk behaviors. The behaviors mentioned by participants were making new friends (15 times), participating in extreme sports (13 times; e.g., skydiving, rock climbing, bungee jumping), asking someone on a date (10 times), and dressing differently than peers (8 times). Most of them are on the current version of the PHARBS; however, “making new friends” is not currently represented on the PHARBS but was an item on the initial version of the measure (Skaar et al., 2014). These data suggest that when students are asked about risk behavior, they think about prosocial risk behavior as well as health risk behavior. It is possible that these behaviors appeared often during the sessions because prosocial risk behavior was defined for students after the initial open-ended question about risk behavior; however, participation in extreme sports was often mentioned before prosocial risk behavior was defined for the groups. It may be the case that they see taking drugs, drinking, and partying as the riskiest behaviors compared to making new friends, asking someone out on a date, and other prosocial risk behaviors (Gullone & Moore, 2000; Skaar et al., 2014). This could also come from the way adults socialize risk. In a brief search on Google for articles on ways adults talk to teens about risk behavior, results were mostly negative portrayals of risk behavior. In one academic article, the authors defined risk behavior as behaviors that “can have adverse effects on the overall development and well-being of youth, or that might prevent them from future successes and development” (Guzman & Pohlmeier, 2014, p. 1). When asked about risk behavior, adolescents first mentioned health risk behaviors, and after learning about prosocial risk behavior, they were able to categorize more behaviors in this positive way.
There were 18 other behaviors mentioned by the participants all with a frequency of less than seven (see Table 1). These included prosocial risk behaviors such as entering competitions, standing up to friends, being honest, and foreign travel; and health risk behavior such as unsafe sex, reckless driving, fighting, stealing, and smoking. Several of these 18 behaviors are represented on the current version of the PHARBS, some were on the initial version, and some were never considered for the PHARBS.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to gather qualitative information from high school students regarding their ideas about health and prosocial risk behaviors. The PHARBS (Skaar et al., 2014) was developed to assess a spectrum of risk behaviors so that researchers, educators, and others could begin to study positive risk-taking behaviors and connect the idea of risk taking with positive activities, just as philosophers and psychologists have debated for centuries. This is a shift from a deficit perspective to a strengths perspective. Instead of continuing to think about adolescent risk behavior as an exclusively negative enterprise, the principles of positive psychology pushed researchers to alter their perspectives. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) wrote that the fundamental concepts of positive psychology stemmed from prevention science. They suggested that it is necessary to understand qualities that buffer individuals against disease in order to prevent the disease from occurrence in others, and they challenged psychological researchers to focus on the investigation of human strengths in order to “understand and learn how to foster these virtues in young people” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 7). Given that adolescents are going to participate in risk behavior, a positive psychology perspective might focus on promoting positive risk taking, or prosocial risk behaviors, rather than focusing on the reduction of health risk behaviors. The current study contributes to the growing literature on positive and prosocial risk taking in adolescence.
The data gathered in this study support the idea that adolescents hold a similar perspective; not all risk behavior is negative. The most popular examples of risk behavior provided by the participants were educational risk behaviors, such as raising a hand in class or taking an AP course. While the magnitude of this response is likely an artifact of the sample, it is still important that they perceived this experience as a risk behavior. As risk behavior continues to be equated with unhealthy and dangerous behaviors, it is noteworthy that adolescents viewed taking AP courses and raising their hands in class as risk behaviors. The adolescents in this study also mentioned other prosocial risk behaviors, which supports the idea that adolescents do not view risk behavior as exclusively negative, but that taking risks can result in positive experiences. Trying something new was mentioned often. Participants discussed that trying something new and being outside of one’s comfort zone often results in learning new things, overcoming fears, and improving oneself. Recent neuroscience provides a possible explanation for this adolescent perspective. Telzer et al. (2013) found that similar areas of the brain are stimulated when adolescents participate in prosocial behaviors, such as volunteering. More recently, Blankenstein et al. (2020) found that changes in certain brain structures (i.e., nucleus accumbens and medial prefrontal cortex) accompanied increases in both prosocial risk-taking and rebellious behavior. The researchers concluded that the development of these two, seemingly contradictory, behaviors may be developmentally connected; therefore, uncovering a unique opportunity to impact health risk behavior in adolescence. If adolescents receive similar reward center stimulation from prosocial risk behaviors as they do when they participate in health risk behaviors, then educators and parents may be able to direct adolescents to “out of my comfort zone” experiences that feel risky and provide a similar reward experience as substance use or risky sexual behavior. This replacement of one risk with another may be key to decreasing some of the health risk behaviors that have been difficult to change over time (CDC, 2020). Further, if adolescents view each of these behaviors as risky, they might be more likely to buy into such intervention strategies.
The typically studied health risk behaviors were also mentioned frequently in the focus groups. Drugs and alcohol use or “partying” were the most frequently mentioned health risk behaviors. This is not surprising considering that substance use is often the subject of school assemblies and has been for decades through the DARE program and the “Just Say No” campaign during the 1980s and early 1990s. Further, adolescents view drug use as a highly risky behavior compared to other types of risk behaviors (Moore & Gullone, 1996; Skaar, 2009); therefore, it makes sense that this would be a popular example provided by the participants. Several other health risk behaviors were also mentioned by the adolescents in the study, and these behaviors were similar to behaviors represented on the PHARBS.
Many of the items on the PHARBS were mentioned by the participants, but often the language used by the participants was different than the language used in the PHARBS and other youth risk behavior surveys (CDC, 2020; Skaar et al., 2014). One of the most frequent ways to refer to risk behavior was through the phrase “out of comfort zone”; however, this phrase is not used in youth risk behavior surveys. One participant explained that risk behavior is often viewed as negative, but taking a chance or going out of your comfort zone is viewed as positive. It is possible that this comes from the way adults discuss risk behavior and the words adults use to refer to the various risk behaviors in which adolescents participate. If a parent is talking about substance use or unprotected sex, then she may use the word “risk,” but if that same parent is talking about trying out for the play for the first time, then she may use the words “take a chance,” or “step out of your comfort zone.” Similarly, other language differences were found when referring to drug and alcohol use. The word “partying” was used often, and using words similar to the language of the target audience, adolescents in this case, may result in more reliable and valid self-reports of behaviors. In the future, the PHARBS and other youth risk behavior scales might be revised to better align with adolescent language and perspectives of risk behavior.
The focus of this project was to better understand what behaviors adolescents view as risk behaviors, and generally, what adults have considered as risk behaviors is what this group of adolescents reported. Certainly, this could be because of the way adults talk to adolescents about risk behavior. Adolescents are simply modeling what is discussed with them about risk behavior. It is also possible that researchers have gotten it correct over the years; what adults think of as risk behavior is what adolescents also perceive as risk behavior. It is interesting, however, that adolescents report prosocial behaviors (e.g., taking an AP course, trying something new) as risk behaviors. These results are similar to those from a recent study in which researchers used a focus group design to discuss with adolescents the riskiness of inclusive behavior, which they defined as behavior, “intended to help facilitate social belonging for those who are marginalized or excluded” (May et al., 2021, p. 42). Adolescents reported both potential social costs and potential rewards related to inclusive behaviors demonstrating inclusive behavior as a possible new category of prosocial risk behavior. More research is needed when it comes to fully understanding adolescent risk behavior as only a few researchers study risk behavior as a positive influence on adolescent development.
Limitations and Future Directions
The qualitative nature of the data analysis is influenced by the researchers’ lived experience and perspectives. The researcher views risk taking in adolescence as a natural aspect of development, and this perspective likely influenced follow-up questions and discussion during the focus group sessions.
Another limitation of this study is that it was completed with a sample of convenience. While the sample is made up of a group of high school students rather than college undergraduates, the sample is convenient as they were not randomly chosen to participate and were instead recruited from four sections of an advanced placement psychology course from one large Midwestern high school. However, the sample is an ample size with almost 60 students participating in the discussions. It is possible that since these students have chosen to take this AP course, they are more likely to participate in prosocial risk behaviors; and therefore, they were more likely to discuss this type of risk taking during the focus groups. There is no literature to directly support this hypothesis; however, research has demonstrated an inverse relationship between academic achievement and participation in health risk behaviors (Gremmen et al., 2019; Hinshaw, 1992; Maguin & Loeber, 1996). Given the inverse relationship between participation in health risk behaviors and academic achievement, an opposite relationship may exist between academic achievement and prosocial risk behaviors. Future research is needed to understand the relationship between academic achievement and participation in prosocial risk behaviors.
Also, the current convenience sample is not representative of the diversity in the current high school youth population; however, this sample of students was representative of the high school student population in the state in which these data were gathered (Iowa Department of Education, 2020). Due to the limitations of this sample, the results of this study may not be generalizable to the larger U.S. population of high school students. However, the purpose of focus group research is to develop a deeper sense of participants’ ideas rather than to generalize results to the larger population (Krueger, 1998); and therefore, results from the present study may act as a spring board for further investigation of adolescent perspectives on prosocial risk behavior.
Future research should extend the current study with a variety of adolescent populations. It is possible that cultural differences impact how high school students think about both prosocial and health risk behavior. Ethnicity, socio-economic status, and influence of religion along with other cultural variables may influence these results. There is evidence to suggest that cultural differences impact participation in certain health risk behaviors (CDC, 2020; Duell et al., 2018; Szapocznik et al., 2007; Thomas, Yarandi et al., 2015); however, cross cultural study in the area of prosocial risk behaviors is lacking. Further, while there is some evidence suggesting that culture influences risk perception within adolescents (Helweg-Larsen & Nielsen, 2009; Miller et al., 2009; Omori et al., 2015), understanding the role of various cultural influences on adolescent perception of prosocial risk behavior is needed.
Conclusions
It is apparent from the attention given to this subject throughout the decades that risk behavior in adolescence is an important focus for researchers, federal and state agencies, and schools. A broader and more positive conceptualization of risk behavior provides the foundation to better understand risk behavior in adolescence, and may continue to inspire researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to transform their view of risk behavior from an exclusively negative set of behaviors to a spectrum of behaviors that include both traditionally studied health risk behaviors and newly conceptualized prosocial risk behaviors. Based on the data presented in this study, a more positive conceptualization may be in better alignment with how adolescents view risk behavior.
The data gathered in this study might encourage researchers and clinicians to approach adolescent risk behavior study with a positive viewpoint that focuses attention on the importance of understanding risk behaviors as a normal and potentially positive aspect of adolescent development. Further, youth risk behavior assessments that include prosocial risk behavior (e.g., PAS, PHARBS) may provide researchers, policy makers and clinicians a new option for assessment. With prosocial risk behaviors measured at the same time as health risk behaviors, researchers can better study how prosocial and health risk behavior participation might interact in the daily lives of adolescents. Do adolescents who participate in prosocial risk behaviors participate in health risk behaviors less often? Do adolescents who participate in prosocial risk behaviors have more positive educational, psychological, and health outcomes compared to those who participate in more health risk behaviors? At what level of participation in prosocial risk behavior is there a positive effect on psychological, educational, and health variables? Answering questions such as these may even lead to better prevention and early intervention efforts that encourage prosocial risk behavior while also discouraging health risk behavior. Educational and psychological science may yet catch up with the ideas of Socrates and more contemporary philosophers and psychologists.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
