Risk-taking by retarded and nonretarded children.

Abstract

The present study examined the risk-taking propensities of 30 boys and 30 girls of mildly retarded intelligence (Mia = 68) in special education classes, and equal numbers of nonretarded youngsters of comparable mental ages in Grades 3 to 5. Predictions based on Atkinson and Feather's (1966) achievement-motivation model, a presumed low expectancy of success among the retarded, and Cromwell's (1963) review, suggesting failureavoidance behaviors bv the retarded. were that retarded children would take fewer risks than the nonretarded in a simple game of chance involving no motor skill. A praise condition was included as it was of interest to determine if social reward for performance would increase the number of risks taken. A switch game similar to that employed by Slovic (1966) and West, Fretz, and MacDonald (1970) was used to measure risk-tahng. The device consisted of a vertical panel with 10 horizontally positioned toggle switches, nine of which were said to be good, and a tenth (unspecified) was designated bad. A penny could be won for each good switch flipped on, but if the bad switch was hit a buzzer was to sound and all pennies won so far lost. Ss were told that they could stop playing whenever they wished and keep the pennies they had accumulated. Two practice trials were given and for each the bad switch was randomly selected by E. Each S was encouraged to flip the switches until the buzzer sounded as there were no pennies to lose. The buzzer was thereafter disconnected (unknown to the child) and two test trials were given. For the first trial, no youngster received praise, but on the second trial one-half of the Ss from each IQ group wrrc glveri social praise for each good switch flipped on while the remaining Ss were not prased, as in Trial 1. Scores could range from 0 to 9 (9 good switches). Surprisingly, the results indicated extremely high levels of risk-taking by both IQ groups. The mean risk-taking score over the two trials was 8.5 for the nonretarded and 8.8 for the retarded. Only 32% of the nonretarded and 15% of the retarded children voluntarily quit on at least one of the two trials before flipping on all nine switches. No significant effects of IQ were obtained for Trial 1 (no praise) nor did analysis of difference scores (Trial 2 minus Trial 1) indicate reliable main effects or interactions with praise, perhaps due to ceiling effects. Pooled Trial 1 and Trial 2 data, however, did indicate significantly higher risk-taking scores for the retarded than for the nonretarded (F = 4.8, df = 1/119, p < .05). Further, comparison of the number of Ss who voluntarily quit on at least one of the two trials versus those who did not showed that the nonretarded quit more often than the retarded (x3 = 4.6, df = 1, P < .05). No reliable sex differences were obtained in any analysis. Thus, in certain risk situations, retarded boys and girls take as many or more risks than do the nonretarded of equal mental age. A potentially fruitful direction for research is the manipulation of magnitude of reward for risk-taking.