Adolescent risk-taking behavior is a significant concern, impacting both individual and community well-being. While traditionally viewed as dysfunctional, an evolutionary perspective suggests risk-taking can serve adaptive functions, such as acquiring resources or enhancing mating opportunities. The pursuit of status, a fundamental social motive, strongly influences adolescent behavior. High status provides benefits like group support and increased survival/reproductive chances. Competition for status can lead to risk-taking, potentially boosting reputation or demonstrating formidability ('crazy bastard hypothesis'). The quest for status is also linked to a search for meaning, which can drive behaviors aimed at affirming values, even at risk. Political mobilization, encompassing activism (legal, non-violent) and radicalism (illegal, violent), represents a key mechanism through which adolescents seek status. Activism aims at political change through non-violent means, while radicalism involves illegal or violent actions. While distinct, activism can sometimes lead to radicalization. The evolutionary perspective suggests sex differences in risk-taking, with males exhibiting higher rates due to potential reproductive advantages linked to status. Females, due to higher sensitivity to potential losses associated with childbearing, may exhibit less risk-taking behavior. However, socialization and cultural norms also play a role. This study explores the indirect effect of status-seeking on risk-taking, mediated by activism and radicalism, considering the moderating role of sex.

Extensive research documents the link between status and risk-taking behaviors in adolescents. Individuals with lower status, facing limited opportunities for traditional prestige, are disproportionately involved in risky behaviors. The pursuit of meaning is frequently associated with status-seeking and can provide a compelling narrative for risky actions. Historical examples, such as the French Revolution, highlight the link between the quest for dignity and collective risk-taking. Ideological narratives often justify violence as a means to achieve status. Political mobilization, particularly activism and radicalism, offer avenues for status attainment through social validation and group membership. Activism and radicalism are distinct, yet activism can be a pathway to radicalization, especially for those who fail to achieve goals through non-violent means. Research suggests that the need for meaning drives violent radicalism. Group membership provides security and reduces individual responsibility, potentially increasing risky behaviors. Prosocial actions within a group contribute to status, leading to acknowledgment and significance. Adolescents and young adults may be particularly susceptible to radicalism for status and group rewards. Existing literature indicates sex differences in adolescent risk-taking, with males engaging in riskier behavior more often. This is attributed to higher sensation-seeking in males and the evolutionary link between status and reproductive success in men. Women may avoid risk due to heightened sensitivity to potential losses and the importance of childbearing. Evolutionary psychology acknowledges the interplay between evolutionary factors and socialization in shaping sex differences.

This study employed a quantitative design with a sample of 482 students (270 males, 212 females) aged 14-22 (M=17.97, SD=1.83) from three state schools in Málaga, Spain. Data were collected in 2021 using self-report questionnaires administered in classrooms. The questionnaires measured: 1. **Search for status:** The status-seeking subscale of the Fundamental Social Motives Inventory (FSM; internal consistency α = 0.56; inter-item correlations 0.24-0.33). The low number of items in the scale was addressed through analysis of inter-item correlations which were within the acceptable range. 2. **Activism-radicalism:** The Spanish version of the Scale of Activism and Radicalism Intention (internal consistency α = 0.87 for activism, α = 0.84 for radicalism). This instrument assessed political mobilization and willingness to sacrifice for a cause. 3. **Risk-taking behaviors:** The Risky Behavior Questionnaire (RBQ; internal consistency α = 0.84), assessing engagement in various risk behaviors (unsafe sex, aggression, rule-breaking, substance use, self-harm) over the past 12 months. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and moderated mediation analysis (Model 59 in PROCESS) were conducted. Variables were mean-centered before analysis. Participants with missing data were excluded. The moderated mediation model examined the indirect effect of status-seeking on risk-taking behavior, mediated by activism and radicalism, with sex as a moderator. The model tested for direct and indirect effects and interactions.

Descriptive statistics showed that boys reported higher risk-taking and radicalism than girls. Correlation analysis revealed a positive relationship between risk-taking and status and radicalism and a negative correlation between risk-taking and activism. Status showed positive correlations with activism and radicalism. Moderated mediation analysis yielded the following key findings: * **Model 1 (Activism):** The model predicting activism from status was not significant. * **Model 2 (Radicalism):** Status positively predicted radicalism (β = 0.35, p ≤ 0.001). * **Model 3 (Risk-taking):** The model was significant (F(7, 408) = 11.60, p ≤ 0.001). Status did not directly predict risk-taking (β = 0.04, p = 0.211), but activism negatively predicted risk-taking (β = -0.14, p ≤ 0.001), while radicalism positively predicted risk-taking (β = 0.17, p ≤ 0.001). Significant interactions were found between sex and status (β = 0.13, p ≤ 0.05), sex and activism (β = 0.08, p ≤ 0.05), and sex and radicalism (β = -0.10, p ≤ 0.05). Specifically regarding the interaction effects: * **Status x Sex:** Status significantly predicted risk-taking in girls (b = 0.17, p ≤ 0.001), but not in boys. * **Activism x Sex:** Activism negatively predicted risk-taking in both sexes, but the effect was stronger in boys (b = -0.14, p < 0.001) than in girls (b = -0.06, p ≤ 0.05). * **Radicalism x Sex:** Radicalism positively predicted risk-taking in both sexes, but the effect was stronger in boys (b = 0.17, p ≤ 0.001) than in girls (b = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05).

The findings partially support the hypotheses. Status indirectly influenced risk-taking through radicalism, but not through activism. Sex moderated the relationships between status, political mobilization, and risk-taking. The direct effect of status on risk-taking was only significant for girls, possibly due to earlier maturation and increased intrasexual competition among girls. Radicalism served as a risk factor, while activism showed a protective effect against risk-taking, with stronger effects observed in boys. This suggests that boys may employ two competition strategies: a less risky one (activism) and a more antisocial one (radicalism). These findings align with evolutionary perspectives on sex differences in risk-taking and competition for resources, with males exhibiting higher variability in strategies. The study's findings relate to the 'Crazy Bastard Hypothesis', suggesting that risk-taking can signal formidability and attract allies. The stronger effects in boys may be due to males' greater competition for status and reproductive opportunities, often achieved through risky political actions. The less pronounced effects in girls align with the concept of lower-risk competitive strategies in females due to childbearing constraints. The study's limitations include the use of self-report data and the focus on specific risk-taking behaviors; future research should explore a wider range of behaviors and utilize mixed methods approaches.

This study highlights the complex interplay between status-seeking, political mobilization, and risk-taking in adolescents, with significant sex differences. Activism plays a protective role, while radicalism increases risk-taking. Interventions should focus on promoting prosocial behaviors to fulfill adolescents’ need for status and identifying potential radicalization. Future research should address the study's limitations by using mixed methods and examining a wider range of risk-taking behaviors.

The study's reliance on self-reported questionnaires, particularly regarding sensitive behaviors, might have introduced bias. The lack of a significant mediating effect of activism warrants further investigation. The specific types of risk-taking behaviors examined could have influenced the relationship between radicalism and risk-taking. Future studies incorporating qualitative methods and exploring a broader range of risk-taking behaviors are recommended.