Sex differences in the mediation role of political mobilization between the search for status and risk-taking behaviors in adolescents

Adolescent risk-taking has significant implications for mental and physical health and can be understood from an evolutionary perspective as behavior that may yield adaptive benefits related to status, survival, and reproduction. The fundamental social motives framework highlights status-seeking as a key driver of adolescent behavior. Political mobilization—expressed through lawful, non-violent activism or illegal, violent radicalism—may serve as a pathway to status. This study investigates whether activism and radicalism mediate the relationship between status-seeking and risk-taking behaviors and whether these pathways differ by sex. The authors propose: H1) a positive direct relation between status-seeking and risk-taking; H2) an indirect effect of status-seeking on risk-taking via activism and radicalism; and H3) sex differences in both direct and indirect paths. Understanding these mechanisms can inform prevention strategies by leveraging prosocial political engagement and mitigating violent radicalization in youth.

Prior work characterizes adolescent risk-taking as potentially adaptive within an evolutionary framework, balancing costs and benefits to achieve status and mating advantages. The fundamental social motives theory identifies status as a salient motive in adolescence and young adulthood, with risk-taking sometimes enhancing reputation and perceived formidability (e.g., the "crazy bastard hypothesis"). The significance-quest theory posits that the pursuit of meaning/status (need), validating narratives, and supportive networks (the 3Ns) can channel individuals into activism or violent radicalism. Political mobilization can confer status gains: activism involves transgressive but non-violent action; radicalism involves illegal or violent tactics. Evidence suggests activism and radicalism are distinct constructs; while a minority may transition from activism to radicalism, radicalization can occur independently. Group processes (security, anonymity, diffusion of responsibility) can elevate risky/violent behavior, and adolescents may gain prestige and rewards through radical acts. Sex differences are well documented: males generally engage in more risk-taking, driven partly by higher sensation seeking, potential reproductive benefits of status, and greater variance in competitive strategies; females may favor lower-risk strategies due to higher sensitivity to potential losses and parental investment considerations. Cultural gender norms may overlay evolved tendencies. These literatures motivate testing activism and radicalism as mediators between status and risk-taking, and sex as a moderator.

Design and participants: Cross-sectional survey of 482 students from three state schools in Málaga, Spain (270 males, 212 females; ages 14–22, M=17.97, SD=1.83). Schools were selected from densely populated areas to access a diverse adolescent/young adult sample. Data were collected in classrooms during school hours in 2021 by trained researchers with school staff support. Questionnaires were in Spanish; participants understood items without issues. Most were Spanish nationals (n=422). Measures: 1) Status-seeking: Status subscale of the short Fundamental Social Motives Inventory (FSM; Neel et al., 2016; Spanish version). Three items, 5-point Likert (1–5). Internal consistency α=0.56; inter-item correlations 0.24–0.33 (acceptable for short scales). McDonald’s ω reported in Supplementary Table S1. 2) Activism and Radicalism: Spanish version of the Activism and Radicalism Intentions Scale (ARIS; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2009). Two 4-item subscales; 7-point Likert (1–7). Internal consistencies: activism α=0.87; radicalism α=0.84; ω in Table S1. 3) Risk-taking behaviors: Risky Behavior Questionnaire (RBQ; Auerbach & Gardiner, 2012): 20 items assessing past-12-month engagement (unsafe sex, aggression/violence, rule breaking, dangerous/destructive/illegal acts, self-injury, substance use). Response scale 0 (Never) to 4 (Usually). Internal consistency α=0.84; ω in Table S1. Procedure and ethics: Classroom administration; informed consent obtained from participants and guardians; ethics approval by University of Málaga CEUMA (Registry 45-2018-H). Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations were computed. Moderated mediation was tested using PROCESS Macro Model 59 to examine sex as moderator of direct and indirect effects of status on risk-taking via activism and radicalism. Variables were mean-centered. Cases with missing data on any variable were excluded. Model fit statistics and interaction terms were reported; sex-specific simple slopes were estimated.

- Descriptives and correlations: Boys reported higher engagement in risk-taking behaviors and higher radicalism than girls. Risk-taking correlated positively with radicalism and negatively with activism; status correlated positively with both activism and radicalism. Activism and radicalism were positively correlated. - Moderated mediation results: Model 1 (activism as outcome) was not significant (F(3,412)=1.93, p=0.124), indicating status and sex did not predict activism. Model 2 (radicalism as outcome) was significant (F(3,412)=9.21, p≤0.001); status positively predicted radicalism (β=0.35, p≤0.001). Model 3 (risk-taking behaviors as outcome) was significant (F(7,408)=11.60, p≤0.001; R2=0.17). In this model: • Status had no overall direct effect on risk-taking (β=0.04, p=0.211), but interacted with sex (β=0.13, p≤0.05). Simple slopes: status predicted higher risk-taking in girls (b=0.17, p≤0.001) but not in boys (b=0.04, p=0.211). • Activism negatively predicted risk-taking (β=−0.14, p≤0.001) and interacted with sex (β=0.08, p≤0.05). The protective effect was present in both sexes but stronger in boys (b=−0.14, p<0.001) than in girls (b=−0.06, p≤0.05). • Radicalism positively predicted risk-taking (β=0.17, p≤0.001) and interacted with sex (β=−0.10, p≤0.05). The risk-enhancing effect was present in both sexes, stronger in boys (b=0.17, p≤0.001) than in girls (b=0.07, p≤0.05). - Mediation: Evidence supported an indirect effect of status on risk-taking through radicalism; activism did not mediate the status–risk-taking relation. - Sex moderation: Sex moderated the direct status–risk link (present for girls only) and the paths from activism and radicalism to risk-taking (both effects stronger in boys).

Findings support that political mobilization mechanisms shape how status-seeking relates to adolescent risk-taking. Radicalism operates as a risk factor: higher status-seeking predicts greater radicalism, which in turn predicts more engagement in risky/violent/illegal behaviors. Activism operates as a protective factor, associated with lower risk-taking across sexes, though mediation via activism was not supported. Sex moderates these relationships: the direct association of status with risk-taking emerged in girls only, potentially reflecting earlier maturation and intensified competitive dynamics within female peer hierarchies during adolescence. For boys, both protective (activism) and antisocial (radicalism) competitive strategies are more strongly linked to risk-taking outcomes, aligning with evolutionary accounts of male variability in competition and status-seeking and with higher male involvement in extremist contexts. These results underscore that political mobilization can serve as a status-driven competition mechanism, with divergent behavioral consequences depending on whether it manifests as lawful activism or violent radicalism.

This study clarifies the distinct roles of activism and radicalism in the link between adolescents’ status-seeking and risk-taking. Radicalism mediates the path from status motivation to higher engagement in risky behaviors, whereas activism is associated with reduced risk-taking but does not mediate the status–risk link. Sex moderates key pathways: status directly predicts risk-taking among girls, while activism’s protective and radicalism’s risk-enhancing effects are stronger among boys. Practically, interventions should encourage prosocial, lawful avenues for status attainment (e.g., peaceful activism) and include mechanisms to identify and support potentially radicalized youth to reduce risk-taking and violent engagement. Future work should further examine lawful vs. unlawful political actions, incorporate broader risk domains (including prosocial risks), and triangulate with qualitative methods to deepen understanding of adolescents’ motives.

Self-report questionnaires on sensitive behaviors administered in classroom settings may have constrained honesty. The quantitative design limits insight into underlying rationales; incorporating qualitative methods (e.g., focus groups, interviews) is recommended. Activism did not show a mediating effect; future research should continue probing its potential mediating role and examine different types of risk (including socially acceptable/prosocial risks) that may relate differently to political mobilization.