Chapter 5: Discussion
5.2. Other significant findings
5.2.1. Levels of risk-taking behaviour engagement
The extent of consequences and level of adolescent risk-taking behaviour has been found to be alarming and detrimental to negotiating adolescents. The subjective expected utility theory and the prospect theory have been found useful for the comprehension of adolescent’s engagement in risk-taking behaviour, and explaining the absence of correlation evident between the two variables in this study. Otherwise, a correlation would have been able to link cause and effect for adolescent risk-taking behaviour and shed some light on how these two variables relate.
Other significant findings follow in the next section of this chapter.
The other 64% of the participants were classified as engaging in low risk-taking behaviour. It is evident that more participants reported lower than average risk-taking behaviour, which suggests that that only a few adolescents were really vulnerable to risk-taking and possibly their well-being is threatened.
The few adolescents who are classified as high risk-takers above could also be viewed as individuals suffering from a syndrome of risk behaviours. This syndrome is described as a wide propensity for individuals to engage in numerous risk behaviours (Protogerou et al., 2012). To qualify, adolescents who end up using illicit drugs had at least been involved in either or both cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption (Essau, 2004). However, the majority of the adolescents are still viewed as vulnerable and not safe irrespective of their lower than average risk-taking behaviour as noted from the previous paragraphs.
The argument put forth, is that adolescents who engage in one form of risk-taking behaviour are more likely to engage in another or other forms of risk-taking behaviours. This has also been noted (Gouws et al., 2010; Kalichman et al, 2006; Morojele et al, 2006; Wild et al, 2004). For instance, adolescents who consume alcohol were found to be more inclined to engage in sexual-risk behaviour, which also led to other risk-related behaviours that include psychological disorders (depression, stress, suicide), teenage parenthood and education failure or university (or school) drop-out (Timmermans et al., 2008). Also, is the co-occurrence of substance use and delinquent behaviour (Essau, 2004). Overall, one form of risk-taking behaviour is problematic enough because it usually opens doors for adolescents to engage in other forms of risk-taking behaviour.
Most risk-taking behaviour definitions emphasize on the destructive nature, and negative outcome or consequences for those who engage in any form of risk-taking behaviour because involvement in any form of risk-taking behaviour is problematic (Byrnes et al., 2004; Leather, 2009; Umeh, 2009). Therefore, despite having a few adolescents who severely engaged in risk- taking behaviour, those who reported lower than average risk-taking behaviour are still a concern. This could be because most of them are still negotiating the adolescent stage and yet remain vulnerable due to the high level of chance for risk initiation or shift to more severe forms of risk-taking behaviour within this stage, as evidenced in the previous section.
The most common form of risk-taking behaviour reported in the current study was alcohol (72%), followed by sexual-risk behaviour (51%), then cigarette smoking (38%), and dagga smoking (31%). Glue sniffing (10%) was the least reported type of risk-taking behaviour amongst the other mentioned or five common types of risk-taking behaviour focused on in this discussion. These are common among adolescents and are on the rise the world over (Flisher et al., 1993a; Timmermans et al., 2008). The pattern depicted here is consistent with other studies (Essau, 2004; Madu & Matla, 2003; Michael & Ben-Zur, 2007), because alcohol was also found to be the most frequent risk-taking behaviour or primary substance of abuse amongst students or adolescents, which is likely to be followed by either cigarette or dagga smoking.
Other risk-behaviours like cocaine, ecstasy, and other illegal drugs were excluded from the results of this study because they were least reported by participants and they also yielded a significantly low statistical value. However, less than three participants indicated ever having used one of these excluded substances. This exclusion indicates a less frequent usage of illegal drugs amongst students at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, which is a positive finding.
Although some studies (Gouws et al., 2010; Morojele et al., 2006) show that adolescents’
involvement in drugs has remarkably been on the rise in recent years, only a few cases of drug use was recorded in this study. This was found to be inconsistent with other findings of a similar study. For instance, a 2003 survey by Gouws et al. (2010) revealed that about 45% of high school learners experimented with drugs in Cape Town, and about 32% were addicted or “hooked”, that is, they continued to use drugs. Such difference could be accounted for by geographical area because the above mentioned study was done in Cape Town whilst the current one in Pietermaritzburg.
Adolescent risk-taking behaviour by gender showed that more males (51%) than females (32%) engaged in risk-taking behaviours amongst the participants, indicating that males predominantly engage in self-harming and dangerous activities which leaves them more vulnerable to risk-taking behaviour than their female counterparts. The difference in this case, according to Essau (2004), is reflective of gender stereotypes which usually portray males as less empathic. Moreover, a study by Kavas (2009) confirms that both adolescent male and female students engage differently in risk-taking behaviour.
The study proved that more health-risk behaviours like cigarette smoking and illicit drug use were more common amongst males than females. In addition, aggression-related hormonal change during adolescent stage could also explain such gender differences for their engagement in risk-taking behaviour. According to Arnett (1996), high secretions of testosterone amongst males during adolescent stage predispose them to aggression tendencies that manifest in reckless or risk behaviours.
Adolescent risk-taking behaviour was also explained by age, whereby the minimum age of onset for engagement in risk-taking behaviour was six years old. The average age of onset for all combined risk-factors or risk-taking behaviour was 15.3 years old, indicating that adolescents would have initiated or experimented with at least one or more risk-taking behaviours by the time they reach approximately 15 years old.
The above mentioned results pertaining to age, suggest that the age of onset for adolescents usually happens within the middle stage of adolescence with an exception of some outliers that may initiate risk-taking behaviour as early as the age of six. This also means that age is a predictor of risk-staking behaviour, because it can be deduced from this study that risk-taking behaviour peaks when adolescents are around 15 years old. This is consistent with Essau (2004), who states that age is a crucial predictor for all risk behaviours with the exception of thrill- seeking. As such, rigorous policies, intervention, prevention and treatment strategies should be intense and primarily focused on the middle stage of adolescence as opposed to early- or late adolescents stages. This is necessary because most adolescents are more prone to risk-taking behaviour at this age or particular stage of adolescence. The unfolding discussions will independently look at the studied risk-factors and their patterns.
5.2.2. Risk-taking behaviour patterns