Content-Type: text/html

Relationship between Sensation Seeking Tendency and Substance Use:

Refining the Measure of Rebelliousness for Substance Use Research



Moon J. Lee, Washington State University, Assistant Professor
Yi Chun Chen, Washington State University, Master's Student


Direct reprint requests to:
Moon J. Lee
Assistant Professor
Edward R. Murrow School of Communication
Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2520
(office) 509-335-4225
(home) 509-334-0740
(fax) 509-335-1555
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0309D%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D0%26P%3D567123%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Dus-ascii" >[log in to unmask]</a>


ABSTRACT
This study reviewed a history of developing a theoretical framework of
sensation-seeking tendency and addressed the critical issues involved in
substance use research in regard to the sensation-seeking scale (SSS).  An
attempt was made to examine the existing sensation-seeking scale to better
capture Disinhibition, one of the four factors in SSS that exhibit a high
correlation with substance use. An exploratory factor analysis of the
existing items with newly added items indicates one factor solution. The
scale was re-conceptualized as the rebelliousness scale.  Several tests
were conducted to address validity issues related to this newly refined
scale.  The implications of the scale and suggestions for the future
development and uses of the scale are also addressed in discussion.
 INTRODUCTION
        Some might wonder why young people take risks with their personal health
and put not only themselves but also others in danger. Some risks are
considered positive in society, such as risks accompanied with athletic
activities such as skydiving or scuba diving.  Individuals who enjoy and
seek out such adventure tend to carefully plan and train for their
risk-taking behaviors.  In this aspect, some are considered to be "a
constructive deviance" represented by true autonomy and independence
(Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 1989).
        However, some risks are considered to be negative in society and create
serious concerns for their family members, educators, and even
lawmakers.  Those are heavy alcohol or drug use, unprotected sex,
drunk-driving, etc. The reasons as to why young people exhibit what we
might consider "reckless" behaviors vary from a biolochemical and
developmental bases to social, cultural, structural, and political bases.
        Individuals with these behaviors may rebel against rules that seem to
oppose their will or may only act impulsively without much consideration
(Ferguson, Valenti, & Melwani, 1991).  This tendency can be well understood
when we think of teens who are told not to do things by their parents. The
more parents try to prevent teenagers from doing something risky, they less
teens are likely to change their risky behaviors.  The question is "why"?
        One of the hot topics brought up by endless debates and lawsuits is
individuals' substance use, followed by other types of risky behaviors. For
example, heavy alcohol use has been identified as a gateway to other
illicit drugs (Bardo, Donohew, & Harrington, 1996; Birch, Ashton, & Kamali,
1998;McC & M, 1996) including tobacco uses (Humfleet, Munoz, Sees, Reus, &
Hall, 1999; Epstein, Botvin, & Diaz, 1999; Kraft & Rise, 1994; Rigotti,
2000; Le, 2002; Istvan, & Matarazzo, 1984; Sobell et al., 1990; Brook,
Brook, Zhang, Cohen, & Whiteman, 2002; Ford, Vu, & Anthony, 2002). It poses
serious problems from minor consequences such as hangovers to serious
life-threatening experiences such as alcohol poisoning.  The fact that
there is a high correlation among these risky behaviors, indicates that
there might be an underlying mechanism as to why teens tend to take risks
without much consideration.
        In this study, the theoretical framework of sensation seeking tendency is
explored with the consideration of other identified behavioral factors. In
addition, an attempt has been made to reassess the college students'
risk-taking tendencies by conducting an confirmatory factor analysis with
the data gathered at a junior college and a university in a southeastern
region from 1998 to 2000 and a university in a northwest region from 2001
to 2002.
        The purpose of the study was to refine existing measurements to capture
individuals' rebellious risk-taking tendency and test its validity through
demonstrating its relations with the original scale and other known
behavioral indicators of risk-taking such as conduct problems in
school.  In addition, this newly refined rebelliousness scale was discussed
for further substance use research.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
History of
Sensation-Seeking Tendency
        Marvin Zuckerman, in 30 years of research on sensation-seeking, found that
individuals vary in levels of predisposition toward sense-arousing stimuli
and that this tendency decreases with age (Zuckerman, Koline, Price, and
Zoob, 1964). He postulates a biochemical basis for those differences and a
chemical decrease with maturation (Zuckerman, 1988). It was argued that
sensation seekers exhibit a higher need for arousal than non-risk takers
(Zuckerman, Persky, Hopkins, Murtaugh, Basu, & Schilling, 1966).
                The Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) has been used as the standard test
instrument for defining the trait of sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1990).
SSS was developed to assess individual differences in optimal levels of
arousal or stimulation (Zuckerman et al., 1979). Zuckerman identified
sensation seekers as people who need unusual and different sensations and
experiences in order to remain aroused (Zuckerman et al., 1972).  There was
an overall score derived from the factor analysis at the first SSS version
at the year 1967. However, Farley (1967) suggested there was more than one
dimension of SSS. Thus, four factors were identified later.
        Studies have shown that young people have much higher risk-taking
tendencies than those in the very young and in older age groups (Zuckerman,
1971; Ferguson, Valenti, and Melwani, 1991; Moore & Gullone,
1995).  Zuckerman found that sensation seeking peaks in the late teens and
early twenties and declines with age.
        Sensation (novelty) seeking was identified as a prominent characteristic
of adolescence (Farley & Cox, 1971; Newcom & McGee, 1991) and closely
related to risky behaviors, such as drinking and smoking (Kraft & Rise,
1994), drug use (Donohew, Hoyle, Clayton, Skinner, Colon, & Rice, 1999),
drunk driving (Johnson & Cropsey, 2000; Jonah, 1997), diving or parachuting
(Zarevski, Marusic, Bunjevac, & Vukosav, 1998). Kraft & Rise (1994) found
that adolescent unconventionality (i.e., rebelliousness, self-deviancy,
sensation seeking) and interpersonal aggression were related to substance
use such as smoking.
Sensation Seeking and Substance Use
        Studies have shown that sensation seeking is consistently related to
substance use. With different approaches in studying sensation seeking and
its correlation to substance use, all of these have shown that high
sensation seekers are more likely to be involved with smoking and alcohol
behavior (Lee & Ferguson, 2002; Jex, 1998; White, Hill, & Hopper, 1996;
Kraft & Rise, 1994). Johnson and Cropsey (2000) compared sensation seeking
scores for college students who play drinking games to those who do
not.  High sensation seekers, in this study, showed that they are more
likely to play drinking games than low sensation seekers.
        Barefoot, Smith, Dahlstrom, & Williams (1989) showed that physicians who
exhibited higher scores in sensation seeking during their medical school
year behaved rebellious. Lipkus, Barefoot, Williams, & Siegler (1994)
concluded that indicators such as impulsiveness, rebelliousness, sensation
seeking, and hostility measured during college best predicted people who
were likely to begin smoking. People who continued to smoke were more
hostile and engaged more often in sensation-seeking behaviors (Lipkus,
Barefoot, Williams & Siegler, 1994).
Sensation seeking is also associated with risky sexual behaviors (Zuckerman
et al., 1970; Geis & Gerrard, 1984; White & Johnson, 1988).  White and
Johnson (1988) found sensation seeking to be positively associated with
coital frequency among females. In fact, some risky behaviors are highly
correlated to each other.  For example, heavy drinking itself is believed
to lead to sexual risk-taking (Meadows, 1996).
        Several studies focus on personality constructs in relation to substance
use (Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Corty, & Olshavsky 1981; Collins, Sussman,
Rauch, Dent, Johnson, Hansen, & Flay, 1987; Stacy, Sussman, Dent, Burton, &
Flay, 1992). It was indicated that individual who begin and maintain their
smoking habit tend to be extroverted, anticonformist, and rebellious
(Barefoot, Smith, Dahlstrom, & Williams, 1989; Cherry & Kiernan, 1976;
Eysenck, 1980; Grunberg, Winders, & Wewers, 1991; Jessor & Jessor, 1977;
Smith, 1970; Spielberger, 1986).
The Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS)

Zuckerman postulated four types of sensation seeking tendencies: Thrill and
Adventure Seeking (TAS), which is defined as a desire to engage in sports
or other activities involving speed or danger; Experience Seeking (ES),
which expresses the seeking of experience through the mind and senses,
travel, and non-conforming lifestyle; Disinhibition (DIS), which describes
a need to disinhibit social behaviors; and Boredom Susceptibility (BS),
which indicates an aversion to repetitive experiences and a restless
reaction to unvarying situations (Zuckerman, 1971).  The latest version of
SSS, Form V, consisted of 40 'forced' choice items, 10 items covering each
of the four sub-scales, and the SSS total score is obtained by simply
adding the 40 items. (Kraft & Rise, 1994).
        Zuckerman postulated sensation-seeking tendency based on approach and
withdrawal behavioral systems.  For example, over-activation in the
approach system may be an underlying contributor to sensation seeking
personality types and further its relation to substance use and
abuse.  Originally, the scale was developed in an earlier attempt to assess
individual differences in optimal levels of stimulation or arousal.  It was
postulated that the need for change, variety, and intensity of stimulation
would manifest itself in many aspects of behavior, including sensory,
social and thrill-seeking types of activity (Zuckerman, 1979). He argued
that sensation seeking can be used to explain a variety of behaviors, such
as drug use, aggression, sex, sky diving, bungee jumping, body-contact
sports, hiking and camping, or playing computer and video games (Zuckerman,
1979).  In particular, substance use research showed a strong correlation
with sensation seeking tendency; particularly Disinhibition. DIS is related
to the seeking of sensation through other people or partying, social
drinking, and sex. It is well documented that drinking, smoking, and use of
illicit drugs are highly correlated and that individual with substance use
exhibit the high levels of sensation-seeking (Jenks, 1992).
Problems Associated with SSS in Substance Use Research
         First, the original SSS already contained several items related to
substance use including drinking and drug use, and sexual behaviors. This
particular sub-scale was labeled as Disinhibition.  Many studies found a
strong correlation between SSS and risky behaviors.  However, this poses
some serious problems in validity of the scale simply because it just
manifests a tautological argument in that those who hold a favorable
attitude toward specific risky behaviors are more likely to exhibit those
risky behaviors or vice versa.  For example, items like "I often like to
get high (drinking liquor or smoking marijuana)," "Keeping the drinks full
is the key to a good party," "I feel best after taking a couple of
drinks,"  "A person should have considerable sexual experience before
marriage," "It's normal to get bored after a time with the same sexual
partner," etc. (Zuckerman, 1971)
Second, Zuckerman's original scale contains some items which might be
considered out dated, such as "I enjoy the company of real "swingers," "I
like to date members of the opposite sex who are physically exciting", "I
could conceive of myself seeking pleasures around the world with the "jet
set," and "I like people who are sharp and witty even if they do sometimes
insult others."
        Third, even though different factors in Zuckerman's sensation-seeking
scale were identified in the literature, the scale was developed
indiscriminately in terms of different factors as one sensation-seeking
scale. However, it was challenged that different behavioral types of
risk-taking should be considered separately because they might exhibit
different types of drives and reasons for their behavioral patterns and
decision-making (Ferguson, Valenti, & Melwani, 1991; Lee & Ferguson, 2002).
In conventional practices, in substance use research, some just excluded
the items related to targeted risky behaviors such as drinking and sexual
behaviors.  However, due to reliability issues associated with this
sub-scale, some items need to be modified and updated to better capture
this construct.
Proposed Scale
        Ferguson, Valenti, and Melwani (1991) identified several risk-taking types
based on the behaviors exhibited by the risk takers.  They focused on
risk-taking predisposition rather than on the origins of the behaviors such
as sensation-seeking.  They believed that risk-taking behavior has several
potential origins.  They argued that although the origins help to
understand why the behavior occurs (Ferguson, et al., 1991), the
risk-taking tendencies based on behavioral differences should be considered
by communicators who seek effective ways to communicate with different
types of risk-takers (Lee & Ferguson, 2002).  Based on their data from
seven different studies, Ferguson et al. explored different dimensions for
these factors because their body of work included unique items in addition
to items developed by Eysenck's impassivity indices (Eysenck, 1978) and
Zuckerman's SSS (1971). They believed that the factors they identified were
unique enough to make it difficult to be certain they were tapping the same
traits without more validation (Lee & Ferguson, 2002).
        They defined risk-taking predisposition as "a tendency to engage in
behaviors that an individual understands to have some likelihood of
resulting in a punishment or in the loss of a reward." Two types were
considered very relevant to substance use research: Rebelliousness (similar
to Zuckerman's Disinhibition) and Impulsiveness (similar to Eysenck and
Eysenck (1971)'s impulsiveness).
        Rebelliousness. This construct is similar to Zuckerman's Disinhibition in
that individuals of this type tend to seek sensation through other people
or partying, social drinking, and sex. Rebellious personality types tend to
take risks for the sake of opposing perceived social norms and tend to
enjoy being labeled as a "rebel" (Ferguson, Valenti, & Melwani,
1991).  Those who are smokers and ex-smokers tend to score high in this
area (Jex & Lombard, 1998; Lipkus, Barefoot, Williams & Siegler, 1994).
This personality type also tends to take risks not for perceived benefits,
but rather for notoriety among others for being rebellious or daring (Lee &
Ferguson, 2002). Rebellious adolescents also tend to respond to the
sensational aspects of a message rather than its perceived risks (Moore &
Gullone, 1995; Donohew, Lorch & Palmgreen, 1998).

Impulsiveness.
Eysenck and Eysenck (1971) report that impulsiveness is a construct
associated with many types of risk takers. Individual differences in
impulsiveness are found among children as young as six and this impulsive
behavior at ages 6 and 8 predict maternal and self-rating of externalizing
problem behavior across adolescence (Olson, Schilling, & Bates; 1999).
Impulsiveness is associated with a dislike of thinking (Ferguson, Valenti,
& Melwani, 1991). It was found that those predisposed to impulsive
risk-taking score low on cognitive involvement with health, have negative
feelings about health, do not feel in control of their health, and have
little concern about their health (Ferguson, Valenti, & Melwani, 1991).
Therefore, individuals with this tendency might be the hardest target
public to persuade regardless of message type (Lee & Ferguson, 2002).
        In sum, the rebellious risk taker often takes risks as a way of breaking
social norms, rules, and laws and prides himself/herself on being known as
a rebel while the impulsive risk takers take risks on the spur-of-the
moment and enjoy the excitement associated with being spontaneously risky
(Lee & Ferguson, 2002).
        It was argued that effective health campaign efforts should better target
individuals in terms of their specific needs (Austin, 1994; Christiansen,
Goldman, & Inn, 1982; Miller, Smith, & Goldman, 1989). Their different
types of risk-taking are considered as crucial interacting factors with
different types of messages (Lee & Ferguson, 2002). The fact that substance
use is highly correlated with other risky behaviors suggests that there
might be an underlying mechanism, such as a risk-taking tendency, that
tends to peak in the late teens and early twenties.
        In this paper, an attempt was made to examine the original
sensation-seeking scale and re-conceptualize the rebelliousness as
risk-taking tendency.  In particular, a newly proposed scale was tested and
re-conceptualized as the rebelliousness scale.  Several tests were
conducted to address validity issues related to this scale through seven
different studies from 1998 to 2002 among college students.  To validate
this new measure, the scale was compared with the existing measures and
other known behavioral indicators of risk-taking such as conduct problems
in school.
METHOD
        In this paper, a total of 1,449 participant data from seven separate
studies is reported.  These studies include lab experiments and a survey
administered to college students in three different universities from 1998
to 2002.  In the first six studies, slightly modified versions of the
original risk-taking questions (Ferguson, et al, 1991) were used.  Study 7
used a newly proposed scale and other known behavioral indicators to
address the validity issues.
Study 1
        The data analyzed in Study 1 are from three separate studies using
slightly different versions of the risk-taking questions and combined into
one database with those same questions in the three studies conducted
between 1997 and 1998.  322 college students' data were collected by
risk-taking scale created by Ferguson, Valenti, & Melwani (1991) to measure
subjects' risk-taking tendencies.  By using Principal Component Analysis
with Varimax rotation, the results of the components analysis of the 21
risk-taking items will be presented in further details.
Study 2
        This data set is part of an experiment conducted with college students in
the fall of 1998 at two different universities in the southeastern region
(See Lee & Ferguson, 2002).  Participants were asked to review different
types of advertisements.  The risk-taking measures were collected as the
part of the pretest.  223 participants' data were analyzed by Principal
Component Analysis with Varimax rotation.
Study 3
        The study was an experiment conducted in the fall of 2000 to measure
college students' drinking problems and message interpretation patterns
(See Lee & Shannon, 2002).  82 college students participated in this study
at a southeastern university.  The risk-taking measures were collected as
the part of the pretest.
Study 4 & 5
        This data set is combined between two different self-administered
surveys of 231 college students at a northwestern university in the summer
of 2002 (n = 91) and in the fall of 2002 (n = 140).
Study 6
        This study replicated Study 3 and was conducted at a northwestern
university in the fall of 2002. 248 students participated in this study.
This study contains 11 newly proposed items on top of the six original
rebellious risk-taking measures from the previous studies.
Study 7
        This study was based on a self-administered survey of 343 college
students in the spring of 2002 at a northwestern university.  This study
contains the same items as study 6 but three new additional items were
added.  In addition, participants' alcohol consumption behaviors as well as
the consequences of the drinking they experienced within the last month
were collected.
Data Analysis
        Instead of merging the data into one data set, the results from each study
are reported separately for the confirmatory reason.  First, the results
from study 1 were reported in great detail.  Note that Ferguson et al
(1991) originally used 52 items to drive five different factors, but ten
items were dropped due to reliability issues.  However, in this study, two
major factors (Rebelliousness and Impulsiveness) are considered highly
relevant for substance use research.  The results of Study 1 were reported
in great details with twenty-one original questions, resulting in three
factor solutions (including adventurousness).  However, the adventurousness
was dropped because earlier research suggested that it does not seem an
important factor in taking risks with one's health (Ferguson, et al.,
1991).  The focus of the project was the development and refinement of the
rebellious scale. The results from studies 2, 3, 4, and 5 were briefly
described to confirm the original components.  The final results from study
6 and 7 were reported in great detail to discuss this newly proposed
rebelliousness measure with consideration of its validity.
RESULTS
Study 1
        The 21 different questions were derived from Ferguson, Valenti, and
Melwani (1991).  These items were submitted to a principal component
analysis and according to the total variance explained for the factor
analysis, six factors with the eigenvalues that were greater than 1. These
six factors account for 62.2 % of the total variance. However, based on the
scree plot of the eigenvalues, it was concluded that there were three
factors before the second breaking point.  Therefore, a three-factor
solution was used.
        Based on this analysis, it was concluded that the three components
(factors) could be used for the analysis and 42.8 % of the total variance
was explained by these three factors. To verify that assumption, the same
number of items were resubmitted to a factor analysis forcing a
three-factor solution with the critical value > 2(.149) = 2.98.  Table 1
presents the factor loadings for the three-factor solution with a Varimax
rotation.





 Table 1. Rotated Component Matrix of Risk-Talking Measures
      Component a
Factor1
Factor 2
Factor 3
1. I'm  likely to do drugs when I want to party.
.76
2. I am at a party with other people. Someone lights a joint of marijuana
and begins to pass it around the party. A lot of people are trying it.  I
will try it.
.75
3. I like people who are partiers.
.70
4. Having lots of alcohol is the key to a real good   party.
.69
5. I like wild and uninhibited parties.
.65
.38
6. I am likely to drive after I have had several drinks.
.61
7. I am inclined to get nervous when others around me seem nervous.
.41
8. I mostly speak before thinking things out.
.78
9. I generally do and say things without stopping to  think.
.77
10. I often get into a jam because I do things without thinking.
.76
11. I get so "carried away" by new and exciting ideas, I never think of
possible snags.
.69
12. I often do things on the spur of the moment.
.63
.33
13. I often change my interests.
.41
14. I would make quite sure I had another job before giving up my old one.
-.41
15. I prefer to "sleep on it" before making decisions.
-.38
16. Usually stick to brands rather than find something better.
17. I enjoy or would enjoy skydiving.
.75
18. I welcome new and exciting experiences, even if they are a little
frightening.
.74
19. I sometimes like doing things that are frightening.
.33
.66
20. I enjoy or would enjoy scuba diving.
.59
21. I would be put off by a job involving quite a bit of danger.
-.32
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax
with Kaiser Normalization
a  Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

The first rotated factor has significant loadings on 8 variables.  The
variables loaded on the first component are the numbers 1 though 7 and 19
in Table 1.  Thus, this first rotated factor was labeled as rebelliousness,
referring to a profile individual who is highly rebellious and tends to
take risks in a party setting regarding to drugs or alcohol.
        The second rotated factor has significant loadings on 8 variables.  The
variables loaded on the second component are the numbers 8 through 15 in
Table 1.  This rotated factor tends to characterize a person who tends to
behave without much thinking.  Therefore it was labeled as
"impulsiveness."  That is, it reveals a profile individual who is highly
impulsive and tends to take a risk without thinking much about consequences.
        Seven variables were loaded on the factor 3.  They are the numbers 17
through 21 as well as numbers 5 and 12.  This factor tends to characterize
a person who seems to be athletic, who only takes a carefully planned
risk-taking activity such as scuba diving or sky diving.  Therefore, it was
labeled as "adventurousness." These components exhibited zero covariance
among them.
        The simple correlations among the variables were checked after the three
factors were derived.  It was revealed that most of the correlations are in
the moderate to fairly strong range for all three factors.
        Finally, three components were driven from this principal component
analysis and the three indices were created from these components
(Rebelliousness, Impulsiveness, and Adventurousness).  The reliability
tests of the variables loaded on each factor were conducted to see
inter-item reliability and whether creating indices is appropriate or
not.  The Cronbach's _ score of the eight variables ( rebelliousness) was
.83, and 0.71 for adventurousness. However, the initial Cronbach's _ score
of the eight variables for the factor 2 (impulsiveness) was only .61.  The
question 14, "I would make quite sure I had another job before giving up my
old one," was shown as an item that had low reliability with other
variables.  Therefore, the question 14 was discarded from the factor 2 and
Cronbach's alpha score became .73. The results of the analysis seem to
replicate the same constructs in Ferguson et al. (1991).
Study 2
        For the risk-taking items, a principal component analysis with Varimax
rotation revealed again three factors: the first is labeled rebelliousness
(29% of variance explained, Cronbach's _ = .85) and the second
impulsiveness (10% of variance explained, Cronbach's _ = .82)[1].
As shown in earlier studies, rebelliousness was highly correlated with
impulsiveness, r = .57, p < .01.
Study 3
        A factor analysis of seventeen items was conducted.  Principal component
analysis, with varimax rotation, revealed three factors, as expected, for
measuring risk-taking tendencies; rebelliousness (12.4% of variance
explained, Cronbach's a = .84), impulsiveness (15.8% of variance explained,
Cronbach's a = .85), and adventurousness (30.2% of variance explained,
Cronbach's a = .85). The item loadings were identical from study 1 and 2.
Study 4 & 5
        A factor analysis of the twenty-one identical items from study 1 yielded
the same results.   The three factor solutions were shown: rebelliousness
(12.3 % & of variance explained, Cronbach's a = .83), impulsiveness (8.9%
of variance explained, Cronbach's a = .75), and adventurousness (29% of
variance explained, Cronbach's a = .83).  The item loadings were very
similar to the previous studies.  In fact, the item loadings were identical
to study 2.
Study 6
        In study 6, 11 new items were added on the original six items for
rebelliousness to refine and update the rebelliousness scale.  Since the
new items were added to refine the rebellious measure, one factor solution
was forced.  Thirteen items were loaded as a factor (29% of variance was
explained, Cronbach's a = .82).  These items which marked as "c" are
presented in the Table 4 in study 7.
Study 7
        The total of 21 items including the 11 items in study 6, the original 6
items in previous studies, three new items were tested with 343
participants for rebelliousness.  One component was found with 17 items
(49.4% of variance was explained, Cronbach's a = .90). Note that all the
thirteen items tested in study 6 loaded similarly (Table 4).  In addition,
four more items were loaded on the factor in study 7.  To avoid including
items which directly ask attitudinal or behavioral tendencies regarding
substance uses, two items were excluded from the original loading: "Having
some alcohol is the key to a really good party" and "I'm likely to do drugs
when I party."  In turn, the summed factor score of the final fifteen items
was used to create a scale of rebelliousness.
 Table 4. One factor solution item loading of Rebelliousness Measure
Component a
I am rebellious. *cd
.81
I enjoy doing things that others find dangerous c
.76
I like wild parties. c
.76

I believe that rules are meant to be broken.* c
.76

Life with no danger in it would be too dull for me. c
.73

I sometimes like to do things that are frightening.
.73
I like people who are partiers. c
.73

Having some alcohol is the key to a really good party. b c
.65

I like driving fast (modified). c
.64

The best way to get me to do things is telling me not to do things.*
.60

I like to be the first to try new things among my friends.*
.58
I often do things on the spur of the moment.
.56
I like to be the center of attention.* c
.49

I don't like people who tell me what to do.* c
.45

I'm likely to do drugs when I party (modified). b
.42

I'm not concerned with the security of my life.*
.37

I don't care what others think of me.* c
.34

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. Components extracted.
b. Two items were dropped from this loading later.
c. Repeated items in study 6.
d. A similar item was excluded from the index (Ferguson et al., 1991)
*. Newly proposed item.


        To investigate its validity, several tests were conducted.  First, the
original six items identified as rebellious measures (studies 1 through 5)
were used to create the original scale after confirming the same factor
loading through a factor analysis resulting in one factor solution (57.6%
variance was explained, Cronbach's a = .85).  Those are: "I like wild
parties," "I like people who are partiers," "Having some alcohol is the key
to a really good party," "I sometimes like to do things that are
frightening," "I enjoy doing things that others find dangerous," "I'm
likely to do drugs when I party" and "I enjoyed d