IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i22p15254-d976911.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Childhood Socioeconomic Status on Adolescents’ Risk Behaviors: The Role of Physiological and Psychological Threats

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaowei Geng

    (Jing Hengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China)

  • Jinrong Xu

    (Jing Hengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China)

  • Yicong Li

    (School of Educational Science, Ludong University, Yantai 264025, China)

  • Feng Zhang

    (Jing Hengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China)

  • Xinye Sun

    (School of Educational Science, Ludong University, Yantai 264025, China)

  • Hongyang Yu

    (Academy of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Southern Federal University, Taganrog 344006, Russia)

Abstract

Adolescence is a period of high levels of risk behavior. The present research aims to examine the influences of childhood socioeconomic status (SES) on risk behaviors in gain or loss domains among adolescents and the roles of threats in this effect. In experiment 1, a total of 107 adolescents ( M age = 14.80; SD age = 1.15) were asked to complete the childhood socioeconomic status scale before they took part in a risk behavior task under the gain and loss situation. A total of 149 adolescents ( M age = 14.24; SD age = 1.11) in experiment 2a and 139 adolescents ( M age = 13.88; SD age = 1.09) in experiment 2b completed the childhood socioeconomic status scale before they took part in a risk behavior task under the gain and loss situation under physiological threats and psychological threats, respectively. The results showed that high-childhood-SES adolescents tend to take more risks than low-childhood-SES adolescents in the gain domain, while low-childhood-SES adolescents tend to take more risks than high-childhood-SES adolescents in the loss domain. Threats amplified the impact of childhood socioeconomic status on adolescents’ risk behaviors in the gain and loss domains. When a physiological threat or psychological threat was primed, compared to the control group, in the gain situation, the extent to which high-childhood-SES adolescents showed greater risk seeking than low-childhood-SES adolescents became larger; in the loss domain, the extent to which low-childhood-SES adolescents showed greater risk seeking than high-childhood-SES adolescents became larger.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaowei Geng & Jinrong Xu & Yicong Li & Feng Zhang & Xinye Sun & Hongyang Yu, 2022. "The Impact of Childhood Socioeconomic Status on Adolescents’ Risk Behaviors: The Role of Physiological and Psychological Threats," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:15254-:d:976911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15254/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/15254/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doll, Monika & Seebauer, Michael & Tonn, Maren, 2017. "Bargaining over waiting time in gain and loss framed ultimatum games," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 15/2017, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:529-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    4. Jan B Engelmann & C Monica Capra & Charles Noussair & Gregory S Berns, 2009. "Expert Financial Advice Neurobiologically “Offloads” Financial Decision-Making under Risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, March.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:424-440 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Kazumi Shimizu & Daisuke Udagawa, 2018. "Is human life worth peanuts? Risk attitude changes in accordance with varying stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-12, August.
    7. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    8. Klaus Abbink & Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2006. "Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 103-121, June.
    9. Chuqian Chen & Jiaxin Chen & Guibing He, 2017. "Immorally obtained principal increases investors’ risk preference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    10. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    11. Pennings, Joost M.E. & Garcia, Philip, 2004. "Strategic Risk Management Behavior: What Can Utility Functions Tell Us?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20388, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    13. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
    14. Krzysztof Przybyszewski & Dorota Rutkowska, 2013. "The Role of Cognitive Effort in Framing Effects," Collegium of Economic Analysis Annals, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, issue 32, pages 107-119.
    15. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    16. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    17. Jona Linde & Joep Sonnemans, 2012. "Social comparison and risky choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 45-72, February.
    18. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2020. "Prospect theory in experiments : behaviour in loss domain and framing effects," Working Papers hal-02987294, HAL.
    19. Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2009. "The informational content of the shape of utility functions: financial strategic behavior," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 83-90.
    20. Sandra Schneider & Sandra Kauffman & Andrea Ranieri, 2016. "The effects of surrounding positive and negative experiences on risk taking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 424-440, September.
    21. Renata M. Heilman & Petko Kusev & Mircea Miclea & Joseph Teal & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Are Impulsive Decisions Always Irrational? An Experimental Investigation of Impulsive Decisions in the Domains of Gains and Losses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    22. Adele Diederich & Marc Wyszynski & Stefan Traub, 2020. "Need, frames, and time constraints in risky decision-making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 1-37, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:15254-:d:976911. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.