Cited by 39Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Deciding in the dark: Age differences in intuitive risk judgment.

Shulman, Elizabeth P., Cauffman, Elizabeth·2014·Developmental Psychology

Abstract

Elevated levels of risky behavior in adolescence may signal developmental change in unconscious appraisal of risk. Yet, prior research examining adolescent risk judgment has used tasks that elicit conscious deliberation. The present study, in contrast, attempts to characterize age differences in (less conscious) intuitive impressions of risk. Participants (N = 282; ages 10-30) were presented with depictions of a range of risky and nonrisky activities. They were given 2.5 s to rate each activity on a continuous scale ranging from "bad idea" (low-risk favorability) to "good idea" (high-risk favorability). A curvilinear pattern was found, such that favorability ratings increased across adolescence and peaked around age 20. These results pose a challenge to developmental models that view early adolescence as the period of greatest predisposition toward risk taking; however, they are fairly consistent with age patterns for actual risk taking, at least with respect to crime, binge drinking, and unwanted pregnancy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0032778

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Constructs reflecting the functional status of the socioemotional and cognitive control systems, like sensation seeking and impulsivity, tend to be highly correlated despite being theoretically and empirically separable.

    “constructs reflecting the functional status of the socioemotional and cognitive control systems, like sensation seeking and impulsivity, tend to be highly correlated (e.g., Shulman and Cauffman, 2014, Steinberg et al., 2008), despite being theoretically and empirically separable (Duckworth and Kern, 2011, Duckworth and Steinberg, 2015).”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Shulman and Cauffman, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Published
2014
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
167-177
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
OpenAlex
W2081223650
Cited by
39
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (SES-1024961)
  • American Psychological Foundation
  • American Psychology–Law Society
  • University of California, Irvine
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
risk judgment, intuitive judgment, adolescence, age differences, risk-taking, developmental changes, binge drinking, crime, unwanted pregnancy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aging, Child, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Intelligence Tests, Judgment, Male, Reaction Time, Risk-Taking, Social Behavior, Statistics as Topic, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review