Risk Taking Study - Measuring Risk Using a Video Game, "Chicken"

https://www.uwf.edu/smathews/documents/peerroleinrisktakinggardnerandsteinberg.pdf


A study by Gardner & Steinberg (2005) measuring risk taking behaviour of adolescents vs. adults using a video game, "Chicken."  Users were tested on how long they would allow a virtual car to travel, knowing that a wall would pop up at some time between when the traffic light changed from yellow to red.  Points were allocated for waiting longer before stopping the car.  Restarts were also allowed if users wanted to go further and score more points.


In terms of gender, the study "found few significant gender effects. There were no differences between males and females on risk taking or risky decision making, nor were there any significant two-way interaction effects involving gender on measures of these constructs" (p. 630).


The study did find "differences in age and condition effects on the measure of risk preference. First, males gave significantly greater weight to the benefits of risky decisions than did females" and "second, we found that males weighted the benefits of risky activities more heavily when in a group than when alone, but that cost– benefit consideration did not differ substantially between the group and sole participant conditions among females.  Lastly, "among younger individuals, males weighted the benefits of risky decisions more heavily than did females but that among older individuals males and females gave comparable weights to the benefits of risky decisions" (p. 630).

Conclusions

"Between adolescence and adulthood there is a significant decline 

in both risk taking and risky decision making. In addition, our 

findings suggest that, in some situations, individuals may take 

more risks, evaluate risky behavior more positively, and make 

more risky decisions when they are with their peers than when they 

are by themselves. Most importantly, the effects of peer presence 

on both risk taking and risky decision making vary as a function of 

age" (p. 632).

"We did find some interesting gender differences in risk preference, 

however. Specifically, males, particularly at younger ages, 

were more likely than were females to weigh the benefits of risky 

activities over the costs. Additionally, peer effects on benefit 

versus cost consideration were greater among males than among 

females. Although we did not explicitly predict these gender 

differences, our findings are consistent with several previous studies. 

For instance, Parsons, Halkitis, Bimbi, and Borkowski (2000) 

found that, among young adults, males reported more benefits and 

fewer risks when asked about the consequences of risky behaviors. 

Additionally, Brown et al. (1986) found that, at least among 

adolescents, males are more susceptible to peer influence than are 

females in antisocial or risky situations. Nonetheless, it is interesting 

that these gender related differences in risk– benefit consideration 

did not translate into gender differences on the more direct 

measures of risk taking or risky decision making" (p. 633).


So if I'm going this direction, I will have to take what we know about risk taking and apply it to a learning situation with specific outcomes.  Initially I was thinking of gender differences in relation to risk taking among individual boys and girls, however, Michele has me thinking about collaboration and participatory learning environments.  The Gardner & Steinberg study raises questions of how males might collaborate in a learning situation that promotes risk-taking.


Here's what this could look like:


male individual - low risk learning scenario
female individual - high risk learning scenario
male group - low risk learning scenario
female group - high risk learning scenario


What would a low risk or high risk learning situation look like?  How do we define risk taking in learning?

Puddle Jumping - Boys and Risk Taking

This week a glorious Chinook swept through Calgary.  Off came the toques and mittens, winter jackets and scarves, and ice began to thaw.  The temperature shifted so much in fact, that the ice melted into sizeable pools of water, dirtying vehicles and splashing unsuspecting pedestrians.

At our school, ever curious elementary children began to explore into these pools of ice water.  Chunks of ice skimmed across the surface while winter boots and wooly socks sponged up cold water.  Our administration responded by making regular cautionary announcements, stationing a perimeter of pylons, and stepping up supervision around these ponds.

While on supervision, I witnessed a grade 2 boy testing the limits of our "stay out of the frozen pool of water in the playground" policy.  He observed the pylons, dipping the toe of his boot just along the border of the pond. He delighted in the sharp crackle of the ice when his toe broke through.  The boy soon got caught in the moment.  His other boot followed suit, testing the limits of the ice and his supervisor.  It wasn't long before both boots full on plunged into the water.  The boy squealed, flapped his arms and spun around, swirling loose pieces of ice.  Though inside I was delighted by spirit of this boy's exploration, my professional duties won over and I asked him to leave the area as it was deemed unsafe.

Risk management.  At what cost?   At our school, we speak about taking risks in our practice and encouraging students to take risks in their learning.  I've accepted this, seemingly without question, for the past few years.  Now I wish to confront it.  What does this actually mean?

I dug up an article titled, "Why Do Boys Engage in More Risk Taking Than Girls?  The Role of Attributions, Beliefs, and Risk Appraisals" by Barbara A. Morrongiello and Heather Rennie. http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/33.full.pdf+html  The article begins by citing research on gender differences in relation to risk taking, such as activity levels, socialization, amount of direct supervision, and constraints parents place upon each gender.  Morrongiello and Rennie (1998) identify the purpose of their research, which is to examine "the possibility that cognitive-based factors also may contribute to increased injury liability among boys" They assessed "children's beliefs about their personal vulnerability" and whether "they are less susceptible to injury than their peers" (p. 34).  These researchers conducted a survey with a sample of boys and girls, asking them to rate a series of scenarios on their relative risk.  They discovered that "for the highest risk condition, boys' risk ratings for the confident wary-affect displays were significantly less than the corresponding ratings by girls" (p. 38).  Also, "boys attributed more injuries to bad luck" and "expressed more of an optimism bias than girls" (p. 40).  Interestingly, in terms of peer influence, boys may be more inclined than girls to engage in an injury-risk activity even if they observe a peer get hurt doing the activity" (p. 41).

So what does this all mean for my research?  Going back to my original post, my goal in this thesis is to "to determine how to best meet the learning needs of a boy."  Given a boy's propensity to take risks, how can we harness this behaviour and apply it in a productive and meaningful way in the classroom?