Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
1Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Tarumanagara, West Jakarta City, Jakarta 11440, Indonesia
*Corresponding author. Email: meiskey@fpsi.untar.ac.id, Jessica@fpsi.untar.ac.id,
stella.705160088@stu.untar.ac.id
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to find out whether there is a correlation between self-control and youth risk
behavior. The hypothesis proposed is that there is a negative and significant correlation between self-
control and youth risk behavior. The subjects in this study were teenagers with age ranging from 15 years
old – 18 years old with total number of 78 subjects. Data collection techniques used was purposive
sampling techniques. Measuring instruments used in this study are: a) self-control scale and; b) youth risk
behavior surveillance system scale. The analysis in this study uses Pearson Correlation analysis. Based on
the results of the correlation test, the results obtained is r (78) = -0.335, p = 0.003 < 0.05. Then it can be
concluded that there is a negative and significant correlation between self-control with youth risk
behavior. Where the higher the self-control, the lower the youth risk. Conversely, the lower the self-
control, the higher the youth risk behavior.
Keywords: Self-control, youth risk behavior, correlation
1. INTRODUCTION
Adolescence is a developmental transition that
involves physical, cognitive, emotional, and
social changes and has varied forms according to
social, cultural, and economic conditions.
Teenagers are individuals aged 11-19 or 11-20
years. Adolescence is considered as a risky
period and according to psychologists the
tendency to engage in risky behavior might be
the result of the immaturity of adolescent brain.
Erik Erikson as a developmental psychologist
and psychoanalyst theorized regarding
psychosocial development of human beings.
One of the psychosocial development stages
that will be experienced by humans is identity
versus identity confusion which happens during
adolescence and is the fifth stages of the
psychosocial development. In this stage,
teenagers are in the process of searching for
identity. Erikson defines identity as a coherent
self-conception of self, consisting of goals,
values, and beliefs that form the basis of one's
commitment [1]. At this stage, individuals are
faced with the challenge of finding out who they
are, how they will turn out, and which direction
they want to go in their lives [2]. The expected
outcome of this stage is that the individual is
able to find his identity. A good identity is
characterized by individuals having a belief in
an ideology, an individual's ability to freely
determine his actions, trust in peers or adults
who provide advice on goals and aspirations and
belief in choices about work in the future.
Meanwhile, an identity crisis is characterized by
a divided self-image, an inability to build
intimacy, inability to have a sense of urgency in
time, a lack of concentration on the tasks
required and a rejection of family or community
standards [3].
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) in 1990 created the Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System (YRBSS) which aims to
monitor health behaviors that make a major
contribution to the leading causes of death,
disability, and social problems among
adolescents and adults in America Union.
According to the CDC, these behaviors often
form during early childhood and adolescence.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
Proceedings of the 2nd Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of
Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2020)
Relationship Between Self-Control and Youth Risk
Behavior in Teenagers
Stella Wijaya1*, Meiske Yunithree Suparman1, Jessica Chandhika1
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press SARL.
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license -http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. 636
Behaviors that is being concerned are: a)
Behaviors that contribute to unintentional
injuries and violence; b) Sexual behaviors
related to unintended pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV infection; c)
Alcohol and other drug use; d) Tobacco use; e)
Unhealthy dietary behaviors and; f) Inadequate
physical activity. In addition, YRBSS also
monitors the prevalence of obesity and asthma
as well as other health-related behaviors as well
as sexual identity and sex of sexual contacts [4].
Averill defines self-control as the ability to
control themselves in order to prevent or reduce
the impact of impulse that is only for a moment,
so that individuals are able to create better
conditions [5]. Aristoteles stated that the most
important thing in adolescence is forming the
ability to make a choice. This ability is a sign of
maturity. Aristotle believed in early adolescence,
teenagers are unstable and unsatisfied due to the
lack of self-control needed to be a mature
individuals [6]. In addition, dramatic changes in
brain structure involved in emotions, judgment,
behavior regulation, and self-control occur
between puberty and young adulthood. Risk
taking behavior seems to be the result of the
interaction of two brain networks, namely: a) a
socio-emotional network that is sensitive to
social and emotional stimuli, such as peer
influence and; b) cognitive-control network that
regulates responses to stimuli. Socio-emotional
networks become more active during puberty
while cognitive-control networks become
mature gradually until early adulthood. These
findings can help explain the tendency of
adolescents to have emotional outbursts and risk
behaviors and why risk taking often occurs in
groups [1]. Travis Hirschi and Gottfredson
stated that individuals with low self-control tend
to be impulsive, risky and narrow-minded [7].
The hypothesis proposed in this study is that
there is a negative and significant correlation
between self-control and youth risk behavior.
2. METHODS
A. Participants and Procedure
The data used in this study is obtained
from 78 subjects using two questionnaires
that are shared online. Subjects in this study
are teenagers with the age ranging from 15-
18 years old and the data collection method
used in this study is purposive sampling
method. The online questionnaires were
shared around early June to mid June.
Subjects were asked to complete the two
questionnaires consisting of Self-Control
Scale and Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance
System (YRBSS).
B. Measurements
Self-Control Scale consists of 23 items
(10 positive items and 13 negative items) in
the form of statements and is used to
measure individuals’ self-control. This
questionnaire is developed by Averill (1973)
[5]. There are 3 dimensions in this
questionnaire: a) Behavioral Control; b)
Cognitive Control and; c) Decisional
Control. Self-Control Scale is a scale
consists of 6 answer choices from 1 (never)
to 6 (always). The 13 negative items are
scored by reversing the responses. “When
I'm angry, I'm able to refrain from cussing”
is an example of the items from Self-Control
Scale. A higher score indicates a higher
level of self-control and a lower score
indicates a lower level of self-control.
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance
System (YRBSS) consists of 63 questions
with 3 answer choices (A,B,C). This
questionnaire was created in 1990 by
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
aim is to measure individuals’ health
behaviors [4]. It is consisted of 6 dimensions
which are: a) Behaviors that contribute to
unintentional injuries and violence; b)
Sexual behaviors related to unintended
pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases,
including HIV infection; c) Alcohol and
other drug use; d) Tobacco use; e)
Unhealthy dietary behaviors and; f)
Inadequate physical activity. Each answer
choices has its own score. A equals to 0, B
equals to 1 and C equals to 2. “Have you
ever been forced to have sex?” is an
example of the items from Youth Risk
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
637
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS).
The higher the score the higher the
individual's risk behavior and the lower the
score the lower individual’s risk behavior.
3. RESULTS
The subjects in this study will be described in
6 categories which are: a) Age; b) Gender; c)
Ethnicity; d) Height; e) Weight and f) Body
Mass Index (BMI). Subjects with the age of 15
years amounted to 11 people (14.1%), subjects
aged 16 years were 11 people (14.1%), subjects
aged 17 years were 18 people (23.1%) and
subjects aged 18 years were 38 people (48.7%).
In addition, the subjects are consisted of 15 male
(19.2%) and 63 female (80.8%). Based on the
ethnic category, 1 person (1.3%) is Acehnese, 3
people (3.8%) with Ainu ethnicity, 1 person
(1.3%) is Balinese, 9 people (11.5%) is
Bataknese, 4 people (5.1%) with Betawi
ethnicity, 2 people (2.6%) with Bugis ethnicity,
23 people (29.5%) with Javanese ethnicity, 2
people (2.6%) is Manadonese, 1 person (1.3%)
with Mestizo ethnicity, subjects with Minahasa
ethnicity amounted to 1 person (1.3%), 2 people
(2.6%) with Minang ethnicity, 4 people (5.1%)
is Sundanese, 1 person (1.3%) with Tamil
ethnicity and 24 people (30.8%) is Chinese.
Based on the height category, 1 person
(1.3%) with the height of 148 cm, 5 people
(6.4%) with the height of 150 cm, 3 people
(3.8%) with the height of 151 cm, 1 person
(1.3%) with the height of 152 cm, 3 people
(3.8%) with the height of 153 cm, 2 people
(2.6%) with the height of 154 cm, 2 people
(2.6%) with the height 155 cm, 1 person (1.3%)
with the height of 156 cm, 7 people (9.0%) with
the height of 157 cm, 5 people (6.4%) with the
height of 158 cm, 1 person (1.3%) with the
height of 159 cm, 9 people (11.5%) with the
height of 160 cm, 3 people (3.8%) with the
height of 161 cm, 1 person (1.3%) with the
height of 162 cm, 3 people (3.8%) with the
height of 163 cm, 2 people (2.6%) with the
height of 164 cm, 8 people (10.3%) with the
height of 165 cm, 2 people (2.6%) with the
height of 166 cm, 2 people (2.6%) with the
height of 167 cm, 3 people (3.8%) with the
height of 168 cm, 5 people (6.4%) with the
height of 170 cm, 2 people (2.6%) with the
height of 171 cm, 1 person (1.3%) with the
height of 172 cm, 1 person (1.3%) with the
height of 173 cm, 2 people (2.6%) with the
height of 174 cm, 1 person (1.3%) with the
height of 176 cm, 1 person (1.3%) with the
height of 180 cm and 1 person (1.3%) with the
height of 187 cm.
Based on the weight category, 1 person
(1.3%) weighed 39 kg, 2 people (2.6%) weighed
40 kg, 2 people (2.6%) weighed 42 kg, 3 people
(3.8%) weighed 44 kg, 3 people (3.8%) weighed
45 kg, 1 person (1.3%) weighed 46 kg, 5 people
(6.4%) weighed 47 kg, 3 people (3.8%) weighed
48 kg, 7 people (9.0%) weighed 49 kg, 9 people
(11.5%) weighed 50 kg, 2 people (2.6%)
weighed 51 kg, 2 people (2.6%) weighed 52 kg,
6 people (7.7%) weighed 53 kg, 1 person (1.3%)
weighed 54 kg, 1 person (1.3%) weighed 55 kg,
1 person (1.3%) weighed 56 kg, 2 people (2.6%)
weighed 57 kg, 1 person (1.3%) weighed 58 kg,
3 people (3.8%) weighed 59 kg, 4 people (5.1%)
weighed 60 kg, 2 people (2.6%) weighed 62 kg,
4 people (5.1% ) weighed 63 kg, 1 person
(1.3%) weighed 65 kg, 2 people (2.6%) weighed
67 kg, 1 person (1.3%) weighed 68 kg, 1 person
(1.3%) weighed 70 kg, 2 people (2.6%) weighed
71 kg, 3 people (3.8%) weighed 75 kg, 1 person
(1.3%) weighed 77 kg, 1 person (1.3%) weighed
78 kg and 1 person (1.3%) weighed 80 kg.
There are 5 category to classify subjects
based on their Body Mass Index (BMI) which
are: a) Severely underweight; b) Underweight;
c) Normal; d) Overweight and; e) Severely
overweight. There are 3 people (3.8%) classified
as severely underweight, 16 people (20.5%) is
underweight, 51 people (65.4%) is normal, 4
people (5.1%) is overweight and 4 people
(5.1%) classified as severely overweight.
Table 1: Participant Characteristics
Characteristics
Frequency
Percentage
Age
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
638
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
15 years old
11
14.1
16 years old
11
14.1
17 years old
18
23.1
18 years old
38
48.7
Gender
Male
15
19.2
Female
63
80.8
Ethnicity
Aceh
1
1.3
Ainu
3
3.8
Bali
1
1.3
Batak
9
11.5
Betawi
4
5.1
Bugis
2
2.6
Jawa
23
29.5
Manado
2
2.6
Mestizo
1
1.3
Minahasa
1
1.3
Minang
2
2.6
Sunda
4
5.1
Tamil
1
1.3
Tionghoa
24
30.8
Height Range
145 cm – 150 cm
6
7.7
151 cm – 155 cm
11
14.1
156 cm – 160 cm
23
29.5
161 cm – 165 cm
17
21.8
166 cm – 170 cm
12
15.4
171 cm – 175 cm
6
7.7
176 cm – 180 cm
2
2.6
181 cm – 185 cm
0
0
186 cm – 190 cm
1
1.3
Weight Range
36 kg – 40 kg
3
3.8
41 kg – 45 kg
8
10.3
46 kg – 50 kg
25
32.1
51 kg – 55 kg
12
15.4
56 kg – 60 kg
11
14.1
61 kg – 65 kg
7
9.0
66 kg – 70 kg
4
5.1
71 kg – 75 kg
5
6.4
76 kg – 80 kg
3
3.8
Body Mass Index (BMI)
Severely
underweight
3
3.8
Underweight
16
20.5
Normal
51
65.4
Overweight
4
5.1
Severely
overweight
4
5.1
Total
78
100
To decide the correlation test method to be
used later, the data normality test must first be
performed. Data normality test will show
whether the data distribution is normal or not.
Normality test is carried out using Kolmogorov-
Smirnov analysis and is considered normal if the
significance score is above 0.05. The result of
the data normality test shows that the
significance score of Self-Control Scale is p =
0.513 > 0.05 and the significance score of Youth
Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) is
p = 0.101 > 0.05 which means the data
distribution of both questionnaires are normal.
Table 2: Data Normality Test
Questionnaire
Sig.
Distribution
Self-Control Scale
0.513 >
0.05
Normal
Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System
(YRBSS)
0.101 >
0.05
Normal
Linearity test is performed to determine
whether the two variables form a straight line
relationship or not. The two variables are
considered linear if the significance score is
above 0.05. The result of the linearity test shows
that the significance score is F = 1.086, p =
0.397 > 0.05 which indicates that the two
variables form a straight line or linear.
Table 3: Linearity Test
Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System (YRBSS)
Statement
Self-
Control
Scale
F
P
Linear
1.086
0.397
Correlation analysis used in this study is
Pearson Correlation analysis. There is a
significant correlation between self-control and
youth risk behavior if the significance score is
below 0.05. The result of the correlation analysis
shows that r(78) = -0.335, p = 0.003 < 0.05. This
indicates that there is a negative and significant
correlation between self-control and youth risk
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
639
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
behavior. This means that the higher the self-
control the lower the risk behavior and the lower
the self-control the higher the risk behavior.
Table 4: Correlation Analysis
Variables
Self-
Control
Youth
Risk
Behavior
Self-
Control
Pearson
Correlation
1
-0.335
(**)
Sig. (2-
tailed)
0.003
N
78
78
Youth
Risk
Behavior
Pearson
Correlation
-.0335
(**)
1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
0.003
N
78
78
4. DISCUSSION
Based on the data obtained, subjects with
very low self-control are 0 people (0%), subjects
with low self-control are 6 people (7.7%),
subjects with moderate self-control are 16
people (20.5%), subjects with high self-control
are as many as 44 people (56.4%) and subjects
with very high self-control are as many as 12
people (15.4%). In addition, subjects with very
low youth risk behaviors are 74 people (94.9%),
subjects with low youth risk behaviors are 4
people (5.1%) and there are no subjects with
moderate, high or very high youth risk
behaviors. This may be caused by several
questions that are asked in the Youth Risk
Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) are not
often done by teenagers and not easy to find or
get.
Based on the theory regarding the factors that
influence youth risk behavior, it is stated that
gender plays a role in risk behavior [8]. The
result of homogeneity test shows that there is a
significant difference of youth risk behavior in
male and female. This means that the result of
the homogeneity test is in line with the theory
stated. It is also stated in the factors that
influence self-control, that age plays a role in
self-control [9]. The result of homogeneity test
shows that there is no significant difference of
self-control in terms of age. This means that the
result of the homogeneity test is not in line with
the theory stated.
As for the limitations in this study, due to
SARS-CoV-2 that is spreading in Indonesia
which requires everyone to do a self-quarantine
at their respective homes, this affects this study
in which the number of participants in this study
is limited. In addition, two of the six dimensions
of youth risk behavior (unhealthy dietary
behavior and inadequate physical activity) have
the internal consistency reliability coefficient
value below 0.6. This can also be caused by the
limited number of participants in this study.
5. CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTIONS
5.1. CONCLUSION
The result of this study shows that there is a
negative and significant correlation between
self-control and youth risk behavior. This means
that the higher the self-control the lower the
youth risk behavior and the lower the self-
control the higher the youth risk behavior. The
hypothesis proposed in this study is accepted.
5.2. SUGGESTIONS
A. Theoretical Suggestions
The next researcher is expected to conduct
this research with a greater number of
participants than the number of participants in
this study so that the data obtained is more
stable. It is also hoped that next researchers will
get more diverse subjects so that the scope of
further research is not only for certain groups.
B. Practical Suggestions
For teenagers, to consider increasing the self-
control so that it is less likely to engage in youth
risk behaviors. For authorized institutions, may
consider conducting several trainings to improve
self-control or trainings to reduce the number of
youth risk behaviors in teenagers for example
providing education regarding the dangerous of
engaging with risk behavior.
REFERENCES
[1] Papalia, D.E., & Martorell, G. (2014).
experience human development (13th ed.).
New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
[2] Santrock, J.W. (2016). Adolescence (16th
ed.). New York, NY. Mc-Graw-Hill.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
640
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
[3] Feist, J., Feist, G.J., & Roberts, T. (2013).
Theories of personalities (8th ed.).
New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Division of Adolescent and School Health,
National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral
Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. (2018).
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System
(YRBSS). Retrieved from https://
www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/
index.htm
[5] Pratama, S.D.G. (2018). Perilaku konsumtif
dan kontrol diri belanja online pada
mahasiswa. Skripsi.
[6] Santrock, J. W. (2005). Perkembangan
remaja. Jakarta: Erlangga.
[7] Aroma, I.S., & Suminar, D.R. (2012).
Hubungan antara tingkat kontrol diri
dengan kecenderungan perilaku kenakalan
remaja. Jurnal Psikologi Pendidikan dan
Perkembangan, 1(2).
[8] Lestary, H., & Sugiharti. (2011). Perilaku
berisiko remaja di Indonesia menurut survey
kesehatan reproduksi remaja Indonesia
(SKRRI) tahun 2007. Jurnal Kesehatan
Reproduksi, 1(3), 136-144.
[9] Marsela, R.D., & Supriatna, M. (2019).
Kontrol diri: Definisi dan faktor. Journal of
Innovative Counseling: Theory, Practice &
Research,3(2).
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478
641
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 478