IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i8p1407-1422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Online Risk Taking: The Role of Gist and Verbatim Representations

Author

Listed:
  • Claire M. White
  • Michaela Gummerum
  • Yaniv Hanoch

Abstract

Young people are exposed to and engage in online risky activities, such as disclosing personal information and making unknown friends online. Little research has examined the psychological mechanisms underlying young people's online risk taking. Drawing on fuzzy trace theory, we examined developmental differences in adolescents’ and young adults’ online risk taking and assessed whether differential reliance on gist representations (based on vague, intuitive knowledge) or verbatim representations (based on specific, factual knowledge) could explain online risk taking. One hundred and twenty two adolescents (ages 13–17) and 172 young adults (ages 18–24) were asked about their past online risk‐taking behavior, intentions to engage in future risky online behavior, and gist and verbatim representations. Adolescents had significantly higher intentions to take online risks than young adults. Past risky online behaviors were positively associated with future intentions to take online risks for adolescents and negatively for young adults. Gist representations about risk negatively correlated with intentions to take risks online in both age groups, while verbatim representations positively correlated with online risk intentions, particularly among adolescents. Our results provide novel insights about the underlying mechanisms involved in adolescent and young adults’ online risk taking, suggesting the need to tailor the representation of online risk information to different age groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire M. White & Michaela Gummerum & Yaniv Hanoch, 2015. "Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Online Risk Taking: The Role of Gist and Verbatim Representations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(8), pages 1407-1422, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:1407-1422
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12369
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12369?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valerie F. Reyna, 2008. "A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 850-865, November.
    2. T. Terpstra & R. Zaalberg & J. de Boer & W. J. W. Botzen, 2014. "You Have Been Framed! How Antecedents of Information Need Mediate the Effects of Risk Communication Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1506-1520, August.
    3. Valerie F. Reyna & Mary B. Adam, 2003. "Fuzzy‐Trace Theory, Risk Communication, and Product Labeling in Sexually Transmitted Diseases," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 325-342, April.
    4. Jonathan J. Rolison & Yaniv Hanoch & Stacey Wood & Pi-Ju Liu, 2014. "Risk-Taking Differences Across the Adult Life Span: A Question of Age and Domain," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 69(6), pages 870-880.
    5. Stephan Verroen & Jan M. Gutteling & Peter W. De Vries, 2013. "Enhancing Self‐Protective Behavior: Efficacy Beliefs and Peer Feedback in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1252-1264, July.
    6. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    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. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    2. Wookjae Heo & John E. Grable & Barbara O’Neill, 2017. "Wealth Accumulation Inequality: Does Investment Risk Tolerance and Equity Ownership Drive Wealth Accumulation?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 209-225, August.
    3. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    4. Volker Thoma & Elliott White & Asha Panigrahi & Vanessa Strowger & Irina Anderson, 2015. "Good Thinking or Gut Feeling? Cognitive Reflection and Intuition in Traders, Bankers and Financial Non-Experts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Emily A. Elstad & Anne Sutkowi-Hemstreet & Stacey L. Sheridan & Maihan Vu & Russell Harris & Valerie F. Reyna & Christine Rini & Jo Anne Earp & Noel T. Brewer, 2015. "Clinicians’ Perceptions of the Benefits and Harms of Prostate and Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 467-476, May.
    6. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Shuolin Geng & Qi Zhou & Mingjie Li & Dianxing Song & Yanjun Wen, 2021. "Spatial–temporal differences in disaster perception and response among new media users and the influence factors: a case study of the Shouguang Flood in Shandong province," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 2241-2262, January.
    8. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    9. Gabriella Passerini & Laura Macchi & Maria Bagassi, 2012. "A methodological approach to ratio bias," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(5), pages 602-617, September.
    10. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    11. Jan M. Gutteling & Peter W. de Vries, 2017. "Determinants of Seeking and Avoiding Risk‐Related Information in Times of Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 27-39, January.
    12. Mehdi Mourali & Zhiyong Yang, 2023. "Misperception of Multiple Risks in Medical Decision-Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(1), pages 25-47.
    13. Jurriaan P. Oudhoff & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans, 2015. "The Effect of Different Graphical and Numerical Likelihood Formats on Perception of Likelihood and Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 487-500, May.
    14. Shambhavi Tiwari & Morten Moshagen & Benjamin E. Hilbig & Ingo Zettler, 2021. "The Dark Factor of Personality and Risk-Taking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-18, August.
    15. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Carolyn A. Lin, 2025. "Participatory Flood Risk Management and Environmental Sustainability: The Role of Communication Engagement, Severity Beliefs, Mitigation Barriers, and Social Efficacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-20, March.
    17. Anna Dodonova, 2022. "Risk Aversion, Managerial Reputation, and Debt–Equity Conflict," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-10, March.
    18. Timmons, Shane & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Public understanding of climate change and support for mitigation," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS135.
    19. Rasa Kanapickiene & Deimante Teresiene & Daiva Budriene & Greta Keliuotytė-Staniulėnienė & Jekaterina Kartasova, 2020. "The Impact Of Covid-19 On European Financial Markets And Economic Sentiment," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 14(1), pages 144-163.
    20. Weina Liu & Chaonan Xu & Yajie Peng & Xinlong Xu, 2023. "Evolution of Tourism Risk Communication: A Bibliometric Analysis and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Communicating Risk to Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-31, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:8:p:1407-1422. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.