International Journal of Psychology

International Journal of Psychology, 2019

DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12611

Effect of peer presence on adolescents’ risk-taking

is moderated by individual
self-esteem: An experimental study

Lumei Tian, Xinyue Dong, Dayong Xia, Lu Liu, and Dawei Wang
School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China

P rior research suggests that the presence of peers increases adolescents’ risk-taking. However, it is not clear whether
the effect of peer presence is moderated by individual characteristics such as self-esteem, since individuals with
low self-esteem are more susceptible to peer influence theoretically. The present study examined this problem using an
adapted Stoplight Game in an experiment. A final sample of 140 adolescent students aged 14–18 (M = 16.25 ± 0.73 years,
61 girls), divided into two groups—low self-esteem and high self-esteem, according to their self-esteem scores, completed
a risk-taking task either alone or in the presence of a same-sex peer. The results indicated that peer presence increased
adolescents’ risk-taking, specifically for those with low self-esteem, while those with high self-esteem were not affected
by peer presence. The findings are helpful for our understanding of peer influence on adolescent risk-taking and the
moderating role of the self and have practical implications for preventing and intervening adolescents’ risk-taking via
increasing their self-esteem.

Keywords: Peer presence; Self-esteem; Risk-taking behaviour; Adolescents.

Adolescence is a period of heightened involvement in 2014; Wolf, Bazargani, Kilford, Dumontheil, & Blake-
risky and reckless behaviour (Smith, Chein, & Steinberg, more, 2015), even though they know exactly the negative
2014; Smith, Steinberg, Strang, & Chein, 2015; Weigard, consequences caused by risk-taking (Smith et al., 2014),
Chein, Albert, Smith, & Steinberg, 2014), such as drink- and the peers as observers are anonymous (Weigard et al.,
ing, smoking, sexual risk-taking and unsafe driving. Fur- 2014). The effect of peer presence, however, is not sig-
thermore, adolescent risk-taking has been recognised as nificant among adults (Smith et al., 2015). One of the
a public health issue because it is usually associated with explanations for this difference is that peer presence sig-
negative outcomes throughout adolescence and into adult- nificantly activates the brain’s reward circuitry in adoles-
hood, including both poor physical health (Logue, Chein, cents, which in turn promotes adolescents to seek more
Gould, Holliday, & Steinberg, 2014) and poor men- rewards from risky choices (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uck-
tal health (Rooke, Norberg, Copeland, & Swift, 2013). ert, & Steinberg, 2011; Smith et al., 2015; Steinberg,
Accordingly, a growing body of research has focused on 2010). This behaviour is particularly true for adolescents,
the factors related to adolescent risk-taking. who are more easily affected by peers compared with
Remarkably, the majority of adolescent risk-taking those in other age periods (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007).
occurs in the presence of same-sex peers. Adolescents Consequently, peer presence becomes one of the risky
are inclined to engage in more risky behaviour when in environmental factors linked with adolescent risk-taking.
the presence of their same-sex peers than when they are Over the past several years, researchers have exam-
alone (e.g., Gardner & Steinberg, 2005; Weigard et al., ined the effect of peer presence on adolescent risk-taking

Correspondence should be addressed to Lumei Tian, School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, No.1, Daxue Road, Changqing District,
Jinan City, Shandong Province, China. (E-mail: tianlumei@sina.com).
We are most grateful to the school for allowing the research to be conducted. Thanks for the teachers, parents and the adolescents who volunteered
to participate in our study and for Dr. Steinberg at Temple University who provided us the procedure package of the Stoplight Game. This research was
supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 16BSH103).
Lumei Tian provided conception and design of this study, drafted and revised the article substantially. Xinyue Dong revised the article critically for
important intellectual content. Dayong Xia and Lu Liu collected and analysed data and Dawei Wang proposed important suggestions for modification.
All authors approved the final version to be published.

© 2019 International Union of Psychological Science

2 TIAN ET AL.

and its possible mechanisms. Many of them were keenly main effect of self-esteem and its interactions with other
concerned with the pervasiveness or distinctiveness of peer factors on adolescents’ risk-taking, however, direct
this effect. Previous research, however, mostly focused on empirical evidence of its interaction with peer presence
peer influence under different external conditions, such on adolescents’ risk-taking is quite scarce. The purpose
as the age of peers (Silva, Chein, & Steinberg, 2016), of the current study was to narrow this gap.
probability of loss in risk (Smith et al., 2014), uncer- Bukowski, Velasquez, and Brendgen (2008) regarded
tainty of conditions (Van Hoorn, Crone, & Van Leijen- the concept of peer influence as an idea about change
horst, 2016) and familiarity with the peer (Weigard et al., that occurs to repair discrepancies between a current
2014). The interactions between peer factors and individ- state and a desired one. Based on this assumption, they
ual traits have received little attention. In other words, proposed that friendlessness and low self-esteem were
the existing work has not clarified whether the effect of two forms of discrepancy that would motivate a child
peer presence is moderated by individual characteristics, to change to behave as expected by his or her peers. In
except for age and gender. Although adolescents are sus- their opinions, individuals with low self-esteem are more
ceptible to external factors, this susceptibility varies with susceptible to peer influence because they are not satisfied
different individuals (Schriber & Guyer, 2016). Individu- with themselves and need to change their behaviours to
als with high levels of a certain trait may be more (or less) obtain a better self and to establish and maintain good
vulnerable to peer influence and may take more (or fewer) relationships with peers, whereas individuals with high
risks than those with low levels of this trait. For instance, self-esteem believe they have reached an ideal self and
individuals with low self-control who affiliate with more will not see a need for change. The sociometer theory
deviated peers have been found to engage in more nega- of self-esteem by Leary et al. (Leary, Tambor, Terdal,
tive and risky behaviours (Holt, Bossler, & May, 2012). & Downs, 1995) provides a theoretical basis for this
Adolescents with lower self-esteem have also been found view, according to which the self-esteem system monitors
to be more inclined to smoke or drink to excess when affil- others’ reactions and alerts the individual to the possibility
iated with deviant peers (Yang, Schaninger, & Laroche, of social exclusion and motivates him or her to change
2013) compared to those with higher self-esteem. There- to minimise exclusion. Thus, the lower in self-esteem
fore, researchers should take the perceived environment an individual is, the more vulnerable he or she is to
system, individual personality system and their interac- peer influence and the stronger the motivation to change.
tion into account when studying adolescents’ risk-taking, Furthermore, those adolescents with lower self-esteem
as suggested by problem-behaviour theory (PBT, Jessor, are more vulnerable to the influence of peer presence
1987). According to PBT, individual development is a and thus seek more risks to improve their self-image in
dynamic process in which the personality system interacts the eyes of their peers, because adolescents believe that
with the perceived environment system to impact one’s risk-taking involves courage and confidence and that they
problem behaviours. The personality system includes are being evaluated by peers in their presence (Logue
many individual traits such as self-esteem, self-control et al., 2014). High self-esteem adolescents, however, are
and locus of control, and the perceived environment sys- very confident in their competence and worth, so they are
tem involves roles of parents, peers, and others. They not as vulnerable to this peer presence effect. Based on
can be protective or risk factors in influencing one’s these theoretical viewpoints, we believed that self-esteem
behaviours and usually do not act in isolation but inter- would be an important moderator of this peer presence
act with one another. Accordingly, the above-mentioned influence and hypothesized that the magnitude of the
effect of peer presence should be moderated by certain peer presence effect on maladaptive risk-taking would
individual traits. vary with adolescents’ levels of self-esteem. Specifically,
Self-esteem, which reflects positive or negative atti- adolescents would take more risks when in the presence
tudes towards the self (Rosenberg, 1965), is expected of their peers than when alone, particularly for those with
to be one such important individual trait. From the per- lower self-esteem. We examined this hypothesis using an
spective of Shrauger (1975)’s self-enhancement theory, adapted Stoplight Game in an experiment in the present
individuals participate in risk-taking behaviour to sat- study.
isfy the needs of self-esteem and good feelings about
themselves, despite the loss or the benefits. Therefore,
people who have lower self-esteem are more likely to METHOD
be involved in risk-taking due to their stronger need
for self-enhancement. In fact, low self-esteem has been Participants
regarded as the root of many problem behaviours (Sowislo
& Orth, 2013) and has been found to be broadly related An initial sample of 317 adolescent students in Grade
to many risk-taking behaviours, such as smoking (Jinadu, 10 was recruited from a public high school located in a
Salmiah, & Azuhairi, 2016) and drug abuse (Tse, Zhu, county in Shandong Province in eastern China. Parental
Yu, Wong, & Tsang, 2016). Even with evidence of the approval was obtained, and participants were informed

© 2019 International Union of Psychological Science

 EFFECT OF PEER PRESENCE ON RISK-TAKING 3

of the anonymity of all measures. Males and females more dangerous. Risk perception was controlled only as
scored similarly on the measure of self-esteem across the a covariate in the analysis.
whole group of 317 adolescents (t (315) = 1.92, p = .06).
Therefore, based on their self-esteem scores, 86 adoles-
cents with higher self-esteem (the top 27% of scores) Risk-taking behaviour
and 86 students with lower self-esteem (the bottom 27%
Risk-taking behaviour was measured by a simple driv-
of scores) were selected to participate in the following
ing game, adapted from the Stoplight Game developed by
tests. Statistical tests indicated that the two groups were
Steinberg’s research team (Chein et al., 2011). Because
significantly different in self-esteem, t (170) = −33.88,
the legal age of driving a car is from 18 to 70 years old
p < .001, Cohen’s d = −5.20 but were similar in numbers
according to the Chinese law, an electric bicycle replaces
for gender, 𝜒 2 (1) = .84, p = .36. Random halves of each
the car in the game. The game is presented on a com-
group were informed to be free to choose a same-gender
puter screen in HD animation accompanied with analogue
peer from a list of their classmates excluded from the
sound (i.e., sound of the electric bicycle going and crash).
experiment due to medium self-esteem and bring this peer
As shown in Figure 1, to play the game, the participants
who would function only as an observer to participate
should manipulate a simulative bicycle to proceed along a
in the following experiment together. A total of 156 stu-
straight track on which there are 32 intersections, treated
dents attended the following experiment, and 140 par-
as separate trials, and they are encouraged to arrive at
ticipants’ data were complete. In the final sample, 36
the destination as soon as possible, told that every par-
lower-esteem students were in the ALONE condition (18
ticipant completing the course in a timely fashion will be
girls, 50%) and 37 in the PEER PRESENCE condition
offered a small gift and those in the first 5 % of winners
(20 girls, 54%); 31 higher-esteem students were in the
ALONE condition (10 girls, 32%) and 36 in the PEER arriving at the destination will be offered an extra reward
PRESENCE condition (13 girls, 36%). There were a total at the end of the present study. At each intersection, the
of 61 girls (43.57%) and 79 boys, whose mean age was bicycle will encounter a yellow traffic light that will turn
16.25 ± 0.73 years, range from 14 to 18 years. Partici- red in a few seconds, and the participants should decide
pants mostly lived in rural areas (N = 128, 91.43%) and whether to continue to go and possibly crash into a car
with siblings (N = 102, 72.86%). Prior analyses indicated in the intersection (Go), or to brake and wait for the light
that there were no significant differences in self-esteem, t to turn green by pressing the SPACEBAR (Stop). Partici-
(138) = −1.56, p = .12, between the PEER PRESENCE pants cannot control the speed of the bicycle and the only
group and the ALONE group, and no significant differ- time the brake works is after the traffic light has turned
ences were found in age, gender, living area and sibling yellow. The participants will save time (approximately
status, F (1,136) = .06, p = .81; 𝜒 2 (3) = 4.69, p = .20; 3 seconds) reaching their destination if they drive through
𝜒 2 (3) = .38, p = .95; 𝜒 2 (3) = 4.49, p = .21, as well the intersection successfully. However, if they select go
among the four experimental groups. and crash, the participants will lose more time (approxi-
mately 6 seconds) than if they choose to brake and wait
for the green light. They were also told that if they did
Measures not respond or responded too late, this would be automat-
ically registered as a “go-decision.” Importantly, both the
Self-esteem
timing of the traffic signals and the probability of a crash
Self-esteem was measured with a Chinese revised ver- at each intersection vary randomly and unpredictably. To
sion of Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale (1965), which help participants decide what to do, the bar at the left of
was made up of 10 items. Items are rated on a 4-point the screen shows them how far they have travelled, with
Likert scale (ranging from 1 = completely disagree to the breaks indicating each of the 32 intersections they
4 = completely agree). Higher scores indicate higher lev- need to cross to get there. A clock is also shown at the
els of self-esteem. In the current sample, the Cronbach top of the screen counting down the time; it is set to 8
alpha was .83. minutes and 30 seconds. Numbers of Go selections (Gos)
were recorded automatically by the computer, with more
Risk perception Gos indicating more risk-taking.
To test the validity of this task, we also collected par-
Risk perception is an important factor for adolescent ticipants’ data on their real-life risk-taking behaviours
risk-taking behaviour, and it may vary between individ- using a widely-used Chinese revised version of the Ado-
uals. Thus, the current study also surveyed participants’ lescent Risk-Taking Questionnaire—the Risk Behaviour
risk perception of running a yellow traffic light with one Subscale (ARQ-RB; Gullone, Moore, Moss, & Boyd,
item, rated on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from “1 = 2000). The ARQ-RB included 12 items loaded on nega-
very safe” to “5 = very dangerous”). A higher score indi- tive risk-taking (e.g., “smoking,” “unsafe driving”), rated
cates that running a yellow traffic light is perceived as on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 = “never” to

© 2019 International Union of Psychological Science

4 TIAN ET AL.

Figure 1. The adapted Stoplight Game. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com].

4 = “always”). Higher scores indicate more risk-taking participant’s operation. In contrast, all participants in the
behaviours. In the initial sample of 317 participants, the other subgroup completed this task alone. The experimen-
Cronbach alpha was .79. Statistics found a significant tal task was conducted individually in a quiet computer
correlation (r = .19, p < .05) between the percentage of room, and a practice procedure was offered prior to the
“Gos” on the task and real-life risk-taking in the current formal task that included a track with four intersections
sample. Because the majority of adolescent risk-taking (i.e., four decisions), treated as separate trials that could
occurs in the presence of peers, we also conducted a cor- be repeated until the participant mastered the operation.
relation analysis between them and found a significant During the task period, all participants and their peers
correlation (r = .28, p < .05) as well in the sample of 73 wore the same type of earphones to obtain good acous-
participants in the PEER PRESENCE condition. It indi- tics and to prevent disturbance. The task lasted no more
cated that the new task was valid to measure adolescents’ than 8.5 minutes. At the end, thanks and gifts to all partic-
risk-taking behaviour. ipants, and extra rewards (mid-sized notebooks) to those
participants in the first 5 % of winners arriving at the des-
tination, were sent to participants.
Procedure

First, the present study protocol was approved by an Data analysis

appropriate ethics review board. Parental approval was
also obtained. The participants were informed that their A 2 (level of self-esteem: high vs. low) × 2 (peer condi-
participation in, refusal to participate in, or choice to with- tion: peer presence vs. alone) between-subject experimen-
draw from the study at any time was voluntary. Second, tal design was adopted. Experimental data were handled
participants completed questionnaires in their own class- and analysed using SPSS 20.0. Gos in the Stoplight Game
rooms and then were divided into two groups based on were transformed into percentages of Gos/total decisions
their self-esteem scores. Next, each group was then ran- (i.e., Gos/32) as the outcome variable to conduct analysis
domly divided into two subgroups. In one subgroup, each of covariance (ANCOVA), with self-esteem and peer con-
participant completed the Stoplight Game in the pres- dition as two independent variables and risk perception as
ence of a same-gender peer, who was asked to sit next a covariate.
to the participant and watch his/her performance on the All procedures performed in this study were in
screen at all times during the experiment, which was in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institu-
keeping with Somerville et al. (2018)‘s finding that peer tional Review Board at Shandong Normal University
effects were only observed if they were actively watch- in China and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and
ing and judging performance, but would not disturb the its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

© 2019 International Union of Psychological Science

 EFFECT OF PEER PRESENCE ON RISK-TAKING 5

TABLE 1 Alone
Means and standard deviations of adolescent risk-taking under Peer presence
different conditions
50
**
Peer conditions **
Levels of self-esteem Alone M (SD) Peer presence M (SD) 40

Percentage of Gos
Low 26.13 (17.57) 37.92 (15.97)
30
High 25.40 (16.21) 25.69 (16.72)
Total 25.79 (16.83) 31.89 (17.36)
20

Assent from participants and informed consent from their 10

guardians were obtained.
0
RESULTS Low self-esteem High self-esteem

Means and standard deviations of adolescent risk-taking Figure 2. Comparisons of adolescents’ risk-taking between different
conditions. **p < .01. All data represent average ± 1 S.E.M.
under different conditions are shown in Table 1. Prior
descriptive statistics found no significant gender (M boys :
30.74 ± 17.55; M girls : 26.69 ± 16.89; t (138) = 1.38, 2014, 2015; Weigard et al., 2014; Wolf et al., 2015). First,
p = .17) or age differences (r = .09, p = .29) in adoles- from a developmental perspective, peers play an espe-
cent risk-taking. Therefore, gender and age differences cially important role in adolescent development (Criss
were not considered in the following analyses. ANCOVA et al., 2016), and adolescents are more easily affected by
indicated that there were significant main effects of peers compared with those in other age periods (Steinberg
self-esteem (F (1, 135) = 5.27, p < .05, 𝜂 2 p = .04) and & Monahan, 2007). Second, from a neuroscience per-
peer condition (F (1, 135) = 4.76, p < .05, 𝜂 2 p = .03), spective, peer presence activates the reward-processing
as well as their interaction (F (1, 135) = 4.14, p < .05, circuits in the brain (Smith et al., 2015; Steinberg, 2010),
𝜂 2 p = .03), but risk perception was not a significant which in turn motivates adolescents to seek greater imme-
covariate (F (1, 135) = .65, p = .42). No difference in diate rewards through risk.
risk perception among the four experimental groups Significantly, adolescents with lower self-esteem are
(F (3, 136) = .14, p = .94) was found. As shown in especially vulnerable to this peer presence influence. As
Figure 2, the simple effect analysis showed that partici- mentioned above, adolescents with lower self-esteem are
pants’ risk-taking did not significantly vary with different likely to engage in negative risk-taking behaviours, such
levels of self-esteem when alone (p = .86), but adoles- as smoking (Jinadu et al., 2016) and drug use (Tse et al.,
cents with lower self-esteem took more risks than those 2016), possibly because they have a stronger demand
with higher self-esteem when in the presence of their for self-enhancement than those with higher self-esteem
(Shrauger, 1975) and take more risks to demonstrate
peers (t (71) = 3.20, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .76). More-
and promote their sense of value and ability. Thus, the
over, peer presence led to more risk-taking than when
effects of peer presence and lower self-esteem on adoles-
alone only for those adolescents with lower self-esteem
cent risk-taking would be enhanced, similar to “adding
(t (71) = 3.00, p < .01, Cohen’s d = .71), whereas for
fuel to the fire”. In addition, Leary et al. (Leary et al.,
those with higher self-esteem, the effect of peer presence
1995)’s sociometer theory of self-esteem provides another
was not observed (p = .92).
explanation for this individual difference in peer influ-
ence. According to this theory, adolescents with low
DISCUSSION self-esteem are more vulnerable to peer influence than
their counterparts because they are not satisfied with
The present study employed an experiment to explore themselves and thus perceive more risks of exclusion by
whether the effect of peer presence on adolescent others, thereby experiencing a need to change to behave in
risk-taking was moderated by individual self-esteem. As ways that minimise exclusion. Similarly, this vulnerabil-
hypothesized, the results indicated that only adolescents ity of adolescents with low self-esteem can be explained
with lower self-esteem engaged in more risky behaviours by a need to change their behaviours to achieve a better
(e.g., more reckless driving) when in the presence of their self-image and to be liked by their peers (Bukowski et al.,
peers than when alone. 2008), since peer presence, as a kind of special social
As expected and found in the present study, the pres- stimulus, encourages adolescents to connect their perfor-
ence of peers is a risk factor for adolescent risk-taking, mance with peers’ evaluation of themselves and thereby
in accordance with previous findings (e.g., Smith et al., motivates them to show their courage and confidence by

© 2019 International Union of Psychological Science

6 TIAN ET AL.

taking risks to earn peers’ high evaluation (Logue et al., expanding our understanding of the peer influence on ado-
2014). lescent risk-taking and its individual differences. More-
Taken together, the present study has notable strengths. over, such findings could have clinical and public health
First, after a comprehensive literature review, this study prevention implications aimed at targeting adolescents’
is among the first to explore whether peer presence self-system to reduce adolescent maladaptive risk-taking
influence on adolescent risk-taking is moderated by behaviours.
individual traits (e.g., self-esteem). The results indicated
that only those adolescents with lower self-esteem were Manuscript received August 2018
particularly susceptible to the influence of peer presence. Revised manuscript accepted July 2019
It is essential to pay close attention to the individual
differences in peer influence on adolescents. Second, the
present study adopted an adapted task which was found to REFERENCES
be significantly related to real-life risk-taking behaviours Bukowski, W. A., Velasquez, A. M., & Brendgen, M. (2008).
to measure adolescent risk-taking with an experiment, Variation in patterns of peer influence: Considerations of
drawing a more reliable conclusion than those con- self and other. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.),
ducted with questionnaires. Third, previous research Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents
on adolescent risk-taking has been conducted mostly (pp. 105–117). New York: The Guilford Press.
in the Western context. The present study, conducted Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg,
within an Eastern context, provided new evidence of peer L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhanc-
influence. ing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmen-
There are certain limitations to the present study. Ado- tal Science, 14(2), F1–F10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2010.01035.x
lescent risk-taking was measured by a simulative com-
Criss, M. M., Houltberg, B. J., Cui, L. X., Bosler, C. D., Morris,
puter task in an experimental situation in the present
A. S., & Silk, J. S. (2016). Direct and indirect links between
study, which makes it difficult to generalise the find- peer factors and adolescent adjustment difficulties. Journal
ings to the more ecological context. Future research is of Applied Developmental Psychology, 43, 83–90. https://doi
needed to evaluate these factors, particularly to uncover .org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.01.002
the mechanism underlying their joint effects, within a Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk
broader social-ecological risk context. Furthermore, using taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adoles-
the experimental method can only reveal the short-term cence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental
effect of peer presence on adolescents’ risk-taking. Future Psychology, 41(4), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
studies should investigate the long-term effect of peer 1649.41.4.625
presence by adopting longitudinal designs and using Gullone, E., Moore, S., Moss, S., & Boyd, C. (2000). The ado-
questionnaires or scales. Additionally, although adoles- lescent risk-taking questionnaire development and psycho-
cent risk-taking peaks during middle adolescence (Stein- metric evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(2),
231–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400152003
berg, 2010), the sample only included grade-10 students
Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & May, D. C. (2012). Low
in the present study and was thus not sufficiently represen-
self-control, deviant peer associations, and juvenile cyberde-
tative of the overall adolescent population (range from 10 viance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3),
to early 20s years approximately, Steinberg, 2013). Fur- 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9117-3
thermore, participants in the present study mostly lived Jessor, R. (1987). Problem-behavior theory, psychosocial devel-
in rural areas of China with lower social-economic status opment, and adolescent problem drinking. British Journal of
(SES). The sample was not representative of other ado- Addiction, 82(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-
lescents living in cities with higher SES. Future research 0443.1987.tb01490.x
should expand the sampling scope (e.g., using a diverse Jinadu, L. O., Salmiah, M. S., & Azuhairi, A. A. (2016). Asso-
sample in age and SES) to further generalise the find- ciation between self-esteem and smoking among religious
ings. Lastly, although the adapted task was found to be schools students in Petaling district, Selangor. International
correlated with negative real-life risk-taking behaviours Medical Journal Malaysia, 15(1), 3–11.
(e.g., smoking, unsafe driving) significantly and regarded Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L.
as measuring maladaptive risk-taking in the present study, (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The
sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
it is possible to measure an adaptive behaviour because
Psychology, 68, 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
participants got to the end of the track the fastest and 3514.68.3.518
thus gained more rewards. Furthermore, in the task, Logue, S., Chein, J., Gould, T., Holliday, E., & Steinberg,
if participants responded too late, this was automati- L. (2014). Adolescent mice, unlike adults, consume more
cally registered as a “go-decision,” which potentially alcohol in the presence of peers than alone. Developmental
inflated the number of risky decisions. Future research Science, 17(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12101
should further improve this task to conduct relevant stud- Rooke, S. E., Norberg, M. M., Copeland, J., & Swift, W.
ies. Despite these limitations, this study is important in (2013). Health outcomes associated with long-term regular

© 2019 International Union of Psychological Science

 EFFECT OF PEER PRESENCE ON RISK-TAKING 7

cannabis and tobacco smoking. Addictive Behaviors, 38(6), Steinberg, L. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent
2207–2213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.01.013 risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 52(3), 216–224.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20445
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Steinberg, L. (2013). Adolescence (10th ed.). New York:
Schriber, R. A., & Guyer, A. E. (2016). Adolescent neurobiolog- McGraw-Hill Education.
ical susceptibility to social context. Developmental Cognitive Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences
Neuroscience, 19, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015 in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology,
.12.009 43(6), 1531–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6
Shrauger, J. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a func- .1531
tion of initial self-perceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 82(4), Tse, S., Zhu, S., Yu, C. H., Wong, P., & Tsang, S. (2016). An
581–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076791 ecological analysis of secondary school students’ drug use
Silva, K., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2016). Adolescents in peer in Hong Kong: A case-control study. International Journal
groups make more prudent decisions when a slightly older of Social Psychiatry, 62(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/
adult is present. Psychological Science, 27(3), 322–330. 0020764015589132
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615620379 Van Hoorn, J., Crone, E. A., & Van Leijenhorst, L. (2016).
Smith, A. R., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2014). Peers increase Hanging out with the right crowd: Peer influence on
adolescent risk taking even when the probabilities of nega- risk-taking behavior in adolescence. Journal of Research on
tive outcomes are known. Developmental Psychology, 20(5), Adolescence, 27(1), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora
1564–1568. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035696 .12265
Smith, A. R., Steinberg, L., Strang, N., & Chein, J. (2015). Weigard, A., Chein, J., Albert, D., Smith, A., & Steinberg, L.
Age differences in the impact of peers on adolescents’ and (2014). Effects of anonymous peer observation on adoles-
adults’ neural response to reward. Developmental Cognitive cents’ preference for immediate rewards. Developmental Sci-
Neuroscience, 11, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2014 ence, 17(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12099
.08.010 Wolf, L. K., Bazargani, N., Kilford, E. J., Dumontheil, I.,
Somerville, L. H., Haddara, N., Sasse, S. F., Skwara, A. C., & Blakemore, S. J. (2015). The audience effect in ado-
Moran, J. M., & Figner, B. (2018). Dissecting “peer pres- lescence depends on who’s looking over your shoulder.
ence” and “decisions” to deepen understanding of peer influ- Journal of Adolescence, 43, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/
ence on adolescent risky choice. Child Development, advance j.adolescence.2015.05.003
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13081 Yang, Z., Schaninger, C. M., & Laroche, M. (2013). Demarket-
Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict ing teen tobacco and alcohol use: Negative peer influence and
depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal longitudinal roles of parenting and self-esteem. Journal of
studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240. https://doi Business Research, 66(4), 559–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/
.org/10.1037/a0028931 j.jbusres.2012.01.004

© 2019 International Union of Psychological Science