同伴观看对早期青少年冒险行为的影响：距离与数量的作用

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.04.010

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用气球模拟风险任务，通过2个实验考察同伴观看、同伴距离与同伴数量对早期青少年冒险行为的影响。实验1选取90名初中生，考察同伴观看方式对青少年冒险行为的影响。结果发现，相比于独自情境，同伴观看会增加青少年冒险行为，同伴现场观看时青少年的冒险水平高于同伴在线观看。实验2选取81名初中生，考察现场观看情境下同伴距离与数量对青少年冒险行为的影响。结果发现，同伴旁边观看时青少年的冒险水平高于对面观看，后者又高于同伴仅在现场；两名同伴现场观看时青少年的冒险水平高于一名同伴在场。结果表明更近的同伴距离和更多的同伴数量会增加青少年冒险行为，证明双系统理论解释同伴情境下青少年冒险行为的适用性，并揭示了同伴的在场方式对青少年冒险行为的重要作用。

关键词: 青少年, 冒险行为, 同伴观看, 双系统理论

Abstract:

Two experiments were conducted by using the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) to examine the influence of peer observing, peer distance, and number of peers on early adolescent risk-taking behavior. Experiment 1 recruited 90 junior high school students to explore the effects of peer onsite observing versus online observing on adolescent risk-taking behavior. Compared to the solitary situation, we found that peer observing increased adolescent risk-taking behavior and that adolescents’ risk-taking level was higher when peer was onsite than when peer was observing online. Experiment 2 recruited 81 junior high school students to examine the effects of mode and amount of peer presence on adolescents’ risk-taking behavior. The results revealed that adolescents’ risk-taking level was higher when peers observed next to each other than when peers observed across from each other, which was higher than when peers were only present. Adolescents’ risk-taking levels were higher when two peers were present than when one peer was present. The study demonstrates that closer peer distance and a greater number of peers increased adolescent risk-taking behaviors, which proves the applicability of dual-systems theory in explaining adolescent risk-taking behavior in peer context, and reveals the important role of peer presence on adolescent risk-taking behavior.

Key words: adolescents, risk-taking behavior, peer observing, dual systems theory

刘明东, 解东霖, 张天羽, 王堃炎, 张向葵. 同伴观看对早期青少年冒险行为的影响：距离与数量的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(4): 501-508.

Mingdong LIU, Donglin XIE, Tianyu ZHANG, Kunyan WANG, Xiangkui ZHANG. Peer Observing on Early Adolescent Risk-Taking Behavior: The Role of Distance and Quantity[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(4): 501-508.

图/表 3

参考文献 0

	邓尧, 王梦梦, 饶恒毅. 风险决策研究中的仿真气球冒险任务. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30 (6): 1377- 1392. DOI
	田录梅, 袁竞驰, 李永梅. 同伴在场和自尊水平对青少年冒险行为的影响: 来自ERPs的证据. 心理学报, 2018, 50 (1): 47- 57.
	张晨, 张丽锦, 尚丽. 青少年冒险问卷-冒险行为量表在中学生中的信效度. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2011, 25 (8): 636- 640. DOI
	张玮玮, 朱莉琪. 同伴对青少年冒险行为的影响及其作用机制. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29 (8): 1462- 1471.
	张颖, 冯廷勇. 青少年风险决策的发展认知神经机制. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22 (7): 1139- 1148.
	周菘, 杨化齐, 李薇薇. 群际冲突视角下的网络暴力: 社会身份对社会信息加工的影响. 天津师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2023, (6): 115- 120, 128.
	Blakemore, S. J. Avoiding social risk in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2018, 27 (2): 116- 122. DOI
	Casey, B. J. Beyond simple models of self-control to circuit-based accounts of adolescent behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 2015, 66, 295- 319. DOI
	Casey, B. J., Getz, S., & Galvan, A. The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 2008, 28 (1): 62- 77. DOI
	Cavalca, E., Kong, G., Liss, T., Reynolds, E. K., Schepis, T. S., Lejuez, C. W., & Krishnan-Sarin, S. A preliminary experimental investigation of peer influence on risk-taking among adolescent smokers and non-smokers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2013, 129 (1–2): 163- 166. DOI
	Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 2011, 14 (2): F1- F10.
	Ciranka, S., & van den Bos, W. Social influence in adolescent decision-making: A formal framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, 10, 1915.
	Crone, E. A., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C. K., & Peper, J. S. Annual Research Review: Neural contributions to risk-taking in adolescence - developmental changes and individual differences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2016, 57 (3): 353- 368. DOI
	Duell, N., Steinberg, L., Icenogle, G., Chein, J., Chaudhary, N., Di Giunta, L., … Chang, L. Age patterns in risk taking across the world. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2018, 47 (5): 1052- 1072. DOI
	Evans, G. W. Behavioral and physiological consequences of crowding in humans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1979, 9 (1): 27- 46. DOI
	Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 2005, 41 (4): 625- 635. DOI
	Harakeh, Z., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. Actions speak louder than words: An experiment on the impact of peers discouraging young adult smoking. European Addiction Research, 2011, 17 (6): 316- 320. DOI
	Harakeh, Z., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. Internet chameleons: An experimental study on imitating smoking peers through digital interaction. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2012, 14 (3): 323- 328.
	Jackson, J. M., & Latané, B. All alone in front of all those people: Stage fright as a function of number and type of co-performers and audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1981, 40 (1): 73- 85. DOI
	Kessler, L., Hewig, J., Weichold, K., Silbereisen, R. K., & Miltner, W. H. R. Feedback negativity and decision-making behavior in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) in adolescents is modulated by peer presence. Psychophysiology, 2017, 54 (2): 260- 269. DOI
	Knoll, L. J., Leung, J. T., Foulkes, L., & Blakemore, S. J. Age-related differences in social influence on risk perception depend on the direction of influence. Journal of Adolescence, 2017, 60 (1): 53- 63. DOI
	Knoll, L. J., Magis-Weinberg, L., Speekenbrink, M., & Blakemore, S. J. Social influence on risk perception during adolescence. Psychological Science, 2015, 26 (5): 583- 592. DOI
	Knowles, E. S. Social physics and the effects of others: Tests of the effects of audience size and distance on social judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 45 (6): 1263- 1279. DOI
	Latané, B. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 1981, 36 (4): 343- 356. DOI
	Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Zvolensky, M. J., & Pedulla, C. M. Evaluation of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) as a predictor of adolescent real-world risk-taking behaviours. Journal of Adolescence, 2003, 26 (4): 475- 479. DOI
	Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., … Brown, R. A. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2002, 8 (2): 75- 84. DOI
	MacLean, R. R., Geier, C. F., Henry, S. L., & Wilson, S. J. Digital peer interactions affect risk taking in young adults. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2014, 24 (4): 772- 780. DOI
	Powers, K. E., Yaffe, G., Hartley, C. A., Davidow, J. Y., Kober, H., & Somerville, L. H. Consequences for peers differentially bias computations about risk across development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2018, 147 (5): 671- 682. DOI
	Reniers, R. L. E. P., Beavan, A., Keogan, L., Furneaux, A., Mayhew, S., & Wood, S. J. Is it all in the reward? Peers influence risk-taking behaviour in young adulthood. British Journal of Psychology, 2017, 108 (2): 276- 295. DOI
	Reynolds, E. K., MacPherson, L., Schwartz, S., Fox, N. A., & Lejuez, C. W. Analogue study of peer influence on risk-taking behavior in older adolescents. Prevention Science, 2014, 15 (6): 842- 849. DOI
	Rosen, D., Patel, N., Pavletic, N., Grillon, C., Pine, D. S., & Ernst, M. Age and social context modulate the effect of anxiety on risk-taking in pediatric samples. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2016, 44 (6): 1161- 1171. DOI
	Shulman, E. P., Smith, A. R., Silva, K., Icenogle, G., Duell, N., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2016, 17, 103- 117. DOI
	Smith, A. R., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. Peers increase adolescent risk taking even when the probabilities of negative outcomes are known. Developmental Psychology, 2014, 50 (5): 1564- 1568. DOI
	Somerville, L. H., Haddara, N., Sasse, S. F., Skwara, A. C., Moran, J. M., & Figner, B. Dissecting “peer presence” and “decisions” to deepen understanding of peer influence on adolescent risky choice. Child Development, 2019, 90 (6): 2086- 2103. DOI
	Steinberg, L. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 2008, 28 (1): 78- 106. DOI
	Steinberg, L. A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 2010, 52 (3): 216- 224. DOI
	Steinberg, L., Icenogle, G., Shulman, E. P., Breiner, K., Chein, J., Bacchini, D., … Takash, H. M. S. Around the world, adolescence is a time of heightened sensation seeking and immature self-regulation. Developmental Science, 2018, 21 (2): e12532. DOI
	Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 2007, 43 (6): 1531- 1543. DOI
	Tymula, A. An experimental study of adolescent behavior under peer observation: Adolescents are more impatient and inconsistent, not more risk-taking, when observed by peers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2019, 166, 735- 750.
	van Hoorn, J., McCormick, E. M., Rogers, C. R., Ivory, S. L., & Telzer, E. H. Differential effects of parent and peer presence on neural correlates of risk taking in adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2018, 13 (9): 945- 955. DOI
	Weigard, A., Chein, J., Albert, D., Smith, A., & Steinberg, L. Effects of anonymous peer observation on adolescents’ preference for immediate rewards. Developmental Science, 2014, 17 (1): 71- 78. DOI
	Willoughby, T., Heffer, T., van Noordt, S., Desjardins, J., Segalowitz, S., & Schmidt, L. An ERP investigation of children and adolescents’ sensitivity to wins and losses during a peer observation manipulation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2021, 51, 100995. DOI
	Zajonc, R. B. Social facilitation. Science, 1965, 149 (3681): 269- 274. DOI

变量	总样本(n=90)	独自(n=30)	现场观看(n=30)	在线观看(n=30)	F	p
年龄	13.79(0.94)	13.67(0.92)	13.73(1.01)	13.97(0.89)	0.84	0.437
性别(%)	58.9	46.7	66.7	63.3	1.72	0.189
ARQ-R	0.43(0.40)	0.31(0.25)	0.52(0.40)	0.46(0.50)	2.26	0.113
BART	58.47(25.89)	47.96(25.46)	70.41(21.08)	57.03(23.36)	7.01	0.002

变量	总样本(n=90)	独自(n=30)	现场观看(n=30)	在线观看(n=30)	F	p
年龄	13.79(0.94)	13.67(0.92)	13.73(1.01)	13.97(0.89)	0.84	0.437
性别(%)	58.9	46.7	66.7	63.3	1.72	0.189
ARQ-R	0.43(0.40)	0.31(0.25)	0.52(0.40)	0.46(0.50)	2.26	0.113
BART	58.47(25.89)	47.96(25.46)	70.41(21.08)	57.03(23.36)	7.01	0.002

变量	总样本(n=81)	仅在现场(n=28)	对面观看(n=26)	旁边观看(n=27)	F	p
年龄	14.14(1.05)	14.29(1.17)	13.96(1.06)	14.15(0.90)	1.28	0.282
性别(%)	47.0	46.4	50.0	48.0	1.72	0.190
ARQ-R	0.40(0.35)	0.46(0.31)	0.31(0.46)	0.44(0.39)	1.20	0.311
BART	73.05(17.63)	61.82(14.30)	74.10(17.95)	83.68(13.14)	30.22	0.001

变量	总样本(n=81)	仅在现场(n=28)	对面观看(n=26)	旁边观看(n=27)	F	p
年龄	14.14(1.05)	14.29(1.17)	13.96(1.06)	14.15(0.90)	1.28	0.282
性别(%)	47.0	46.4	50.0	48.0	1.72	0.190
ARQ-R	0.40(0.35)	0.46(0.31)	0.31(0.46)	0.44(0.39)	1.20	0.311
BART	73.05(17.63)	61.82(14.30)	74.10(17.95)	83.68(13.14)	30.22	0.001

	SS	dƒ	MS	F	p	${{\text{η}}_{\rm p}^2} $	1−β
同伴在场数量	2649.26	1	2649.26	12.11	0.001	0.07	0.93
同伴在场方式	13220.85	2	6610.43	30.22	<0.001	0.28	1.00
交互作用	68.15	2	34.07	0.16	0.862	0.002	0.07