The Spectrum of Risk-Taking

Risk is a general construct that is not restricted to illegal or dangerous behaviors. Based on neuroeconomic models of decision making (Mohr, Biele, & Heekeren, 2010; Van Duijvenvoorde & Crone, 2013), risk can be defined broadly by three components: 1) potential for both rewards and costs, 2) variability in the likelihood of potential outcomes being realized, and 3) uncertainty about the outcomes (Holton, 2004). Thus, a risky act is a behavior for which the likelihood of its outcome, good or bad, is uncertain (Crone, van Duijvenvoorde, & Peper, 2016), with high-risk behaviors evincing greater variability in, and uncertainty about, the outcomes (Figueredo & Jacobs, 2010).

Within this broad classification, risk behaviors can be thought of as falling along a spectrum of desirability. At one end are positive risks: socially acceptable and constructive risks such as trying out for a sports team, enrolling in a challenging course, or initiating a new friendship. At the other end are negative risks: illegal or dangerous behaviors such as fighting, drinking, or stealing (we use the term negative because these risks may be unsafe or harmful, though we recognize that not all negative risks are bad1). Although various risks may be constructive for development (Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 1989), in our framework, positive risks are unique in that they are also legal and socially acceptable. Positive risks are risky because of the variability and uncertainty of their potential outcomes (Figueredo & Jacobs, 2010), not as a consequence of the severity of their potential costs. In fact, a behavior is risky even if all the potential outcomes are positive (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992), in which case the cost is the less-desired outcome (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992).2

A Note on Terminology

Although we use the term positive risk taking, other researchers have described this phenomenon as prosocial (i.e., socially acceptable or the opposite of antisocial) or adaptive (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001; Wood, Dawe, & Gullo, 2013). We choose the term positive because the term prosocial may be confounded with behaviors solely intended to benefit others (e.g., Do, Guassi Moreira, & Telzer, 2017). Arguably, prosocial risks (e.g., defending a peer from a bully) are one category of positive risks because they yield uncertain outcomes and a potential cost to the risk taker (cf., Do et al., 2017). However, not all positive risk taking is prosocial. In contrast, the term adaptive may be confounded with behaviors that serve (or may have served previously) an evolutionary purpose. For example, fighting may stem from an evolutionarily adaptive desire to demonstrate dominance in a social hierarchy, but it would not be considered positive risk taking in the sense that it is described here. Thus, any antisocial risk, regardless of its adaptive purpose, is not a positive risk.

Elements of Positive Risk Taking

To clarify the nature of positive risks, we suggest three features that theoretically characterize positive risks. We acknowledge these features are broad and are not without potential exceptions. However, we hope this preliminary conceptualization of positive risk taking helps advance the field’s understanding of these behaviors. As researchers explore positive risk taking, we expect that empirical work will sharpen the theoretical framework we propose.

First, positive risks benefit adolescents’ well-being. Despite the potential costs of a positive risk, the adolescent stands to gain something from taking the risk. For example, an adolescent who enrolls in a challenging course may earn a poor grade in the class, become overwhelmed by the material, or be teased by his peers for being a nerd. Despite these potential costs, the adolescent may still benefit in various ways (e.g., learning new skills and becoming more competitive for college admission). Furthermore, it is generally considered developmentally constructive to challenge oneself to facilitate self-growth.

Second, positive risks carry potential costs that are mild in severity, at least relative to those associated with negative risks. In our framework, costs associated with positive risk taking do not harm the adolescent’s health, safety, or well-being. This characteristic distinguishes positive risks from negative risks (even negative risks serving an adaptive purpose), which by definition have potentially harmful consequences. For example, trying out but not being selected for the high school soccer team may be distressing and diminish an adolescent’s social status, but this cost does not threaten her safety or health. In contrast, overdosing on ecstasy or having an accident while speeding pose immediate and long-term threats to adolescents’ lives.

And third, positive risks are legal and socially acceptable. In the case of positive risk taking, social acceptability refers to the views of adults rather than those of other adolescents (although the positive risks youth take are often supported by their peers).We acknowledge that the social acceptability of certain positive risks can still be controversial. For example, protesting might be viewed as civil disobedience by some and civic engagement by others. Identifying and clarifying the nature of positive risks may allow youth development initiatives (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005) to develop programs that create opportunities for youth to take positive risks (e.g., trying new sports or making new friends).

To put the elements of risk into context (acknowledging there may be exceptions in which not all three elements apply to a particular risk), consider an adolescent initiating a friendship with a new peer group. First, this is a risk because it has the potential reward of establishing a new friendship and the potential cost of rejection (among other potential rewards and costs). Furthermore, the adolescent does not know whether this group will accept her, as this outcome depends on factors such as her social desirability and the status of the peer group. Applying the three elements described previously, we can characterize this risk as positive because 1) seeking out new friendships benefits adolescents’ well-being and development, 2) the potential cost of being rejected does not threaten adolescents’ safety or health, and 3) initiating friendships is legal and socially acceptable.

Research on Positive Risk Taking

Few studies have explored positive risk taking in adolescents (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001; Wood et al., 2013). Each of these studies used its own definitions and examples of positive risk taking (see Table 1), although none laid out a clear conceptual framework for the construct. Generally, studies of positive risk taking share the idea that positive risks are socially acceptable behaviors involving some potential for loss or harm.

Table 1

Terms, Definitions, and Examples of Positive and Negative Risk Taking Used in the Positive Risk-Taking Literature

Two compelling findings have emerged from studies of positive risk taking: 1) greater positive risk taking is associated with greater negative risk taking, and 2) sensation seeking is linked to higher rates of both positive and negative risk taking. The positive association between positive and negative risk taking is consistent with findings that youth who engage in socially acceptable behaviors, such as team sports, also engage in socially unacceptable behaviors, such as substance use (Veliz, Boyd, & McCabe, 2015) and delinquency (Rutten et al., 2007). These findings indicate that adolescents may evince a domain-general propensity for risk taking that can be manifested in both positive and negative forms. This association may also indicate shared correlates between both forms of risk taking.

Sensation seeking—the tendency to seek novel and thrilling experiences—is one such trait shared by positive and negative risk taking (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001). That greater sensation seeking is associated with greater positive and negative risk taking is consistent with research demonstrating that greater sensation seeking among adolescents is associated with both antisocial behavior and positive ambitions, such as pursuing intense and altruistic occupations (e.g., saving people from danger) or novel (e.g., very creative) careers (Mallet & Vignoli, 2007). If adolescents are given more opportunities to channel their sensation-seeking proclivities toward positive activities (and limited opportunities to take negative risks), communities may be able to help reduce negative risk taking among youth who rate high in sensation seeking (D’Silva et al., 2011).

Self-regulation, or impulse control, has also been implicated in both positive and negative risk taking. Although findings are less clear, research suggests that self-regulation may evince opposite associations with negative and positive risk taking. Whereas low self-regulation is linked to greater negative risk taking (see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), recent work suggests that higher self-regulation is associated with higher levels of certain types of positive risk taking (Wood et al., 2013; but see Fischer & Smith, 2004). In one study of adolescents, positive risks were separated into performance (e.g., public speaking) scales and physical (e.g., extreme sports) scales (see Table 1); higher performance, but not physical, positive risk taking, was associated with greater impulse control (Wood et al., 2013). These results suggest that the link between self-regulation and positive risk taking may depend on the type of positive risks in question (e.g., those requiring planning and impulse control, like public speaking). More research is needed to clarify the role of self-regulatory processes in positive risk taking, but studies suggest it may be one psychological factor that distinguishes positive from negative risk taking (Fischer & Smith, 2004).

Measuring Positive Risk Taking

The positive risk-taking scales in the aforementioned studies are limited in two ways. First, many of the items on the scales reflect physical thrill seeking rather than risk taking, such as riding a roller coaster (Fischer & Smith, 2004) or playing extreme sports (Wood et al., 2013); this may have conflated the association between positive risk taking and sensation seeking. That most of the thrill-seeking items are primarily physical thrills also may have limited endorsement to people interested in physical activities rather than those who took positive risks. Relatedly, many of the items on the positive risk-taking scales lacked language emphasizing the riskiness of the behaviors. Wording scale items to emphasize their riskiness may enhance the validity of positive risk-taking scales and prevent including behaviors that are socially acceptable but not necessarily risky. For example, modifying the item played a sport to tried a new sport where you may have embarrassed yourself emphasizes an uncertain outcome and a potential for loss.

Using the working model of positive risk taking we have presented and building on previous measures of positive risk taking (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Monahan, VanDerhei, & Amemiya, 2013), we developed a self-report scale of positive risk taking that addresses these limits. This scale includes socially acceptable and developmentally constructive risks from various life domains, including social risks (e.g., spent time with a new group of people when you were not sure you would fit in), academic risks (e.g., took a class in a subject you knew nothing about or that seemed challenging), and extracurricular risks (e.g., joined a new club or activity when you were not sure you would like it).

Although studies have used frequency scores to measure positive risk taking (e.g., Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001), we prefer variety scores. Whereas frequency scores measure the number of times someone has engaged in a risk within a given timeframe, variety scores measure the number of different types of risks taken. An adolescent has only so many opportunities to take a positive risk (e.g., enrolling in a challenging course), and it is not always better for an adolescent to take the same risk repeatedly. Thus, variety scores may capture the propensity for positive risk taking more accurately.

Applications to Current Models of Adolescent Risk Taking and Beyond

Studies of positive risk taking, which have examined sensation seeking and self-regulation as correlates of positive risk taking, are largely consistent with contemporary dual systems models (Steinberg, 2008) of adolescent risk taking. According to dual systems theories, development in subcortical brain regions implicated in reward processing is more or less complete by adolescence, whereas development in prefrontal brain regions implicated in executive control is more protracted (Spear, 2013; Steinberg, 2008). Furthermore, connections between these regions are not fully established until early adulthood (Casey, 2015). In effect, adolescents are drawn to novel, exciting experiences—reflected by high sensation seeking—before they have the mature self-regulatory capacities to rein in impulsive behavior (Steinberg, 2008). The combination of high sensation seeking and immature self-regulation in adolescence is thought to contribute to a heightened interest in, and tolerance for, risk taking.

Dual systems theories are a useful starting point for developing testable hypotheses about positive risk taking, but they are not sufficient. We suggest several theoretical correlates of positive risk taking for researchers to consider. Given the dearth of research on antecedents and consequences of positive risk taking, we do not make causal claims about the direction of the associations between positive risk taking and its theoretical correlates. Indeed, many of the factors proposed in our model may be related bidirectionally with positive risk taking.

Since positive risk taking is a pattern of behavior rather than a personality type, there may be few fundamental personality differences between youth who take positive risks and those who take negative risks, especially because most adolescents probably engage in both forms of risk taking (Fischer & Smith, 2004). That said, youth inclined to take positive risks may internalize their families’ values and have strong bonds to society (via social control theory; Hirschi, 1969). Positive risk takers may also have important and socially desirable long-term goals (academic or otherwise), and feel they have more to lose by taking negative risks (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992), which motivates them to pursue risk taking in socially acceptable forms. Furthermore, youth who take positive risks may associate with and be influenced by peers who also take positive risks (e.g., Youngblade et al., 2007). Of course, this discussion is speculative, and further empirical work is necessary to identify adolescents’ motives for taking positive risks.

As with other forms of risk taking, positive risk taking can help youth achieve developmental milestones such as autonomy and the acquisition of skills (Ellis et al., 2012; Spear, 2013). Positive risk taking may also create opportunities for youth to develop a sense of purpose (Malin, Liauw, & Damon, 2017) and identity (e.g., by standing up for one’s beliefs), personal responsibility (e.g., by playing sports on a team), and social competence (e.g., by initiating friendships), as well as to set goals (e.g., by taking challenging courses). Over time, and combined with other positive influences, these may yield additional benefits such as school engagement and academic success (e.g., Wood et al., 2013), perseverance or grit (Duckworth & Gross, 2014), or positive socioemotional functioning (e.g., Crone & Dahl, 2012).

Positive risk taking may yield the unique benefit of offering youth opportunities to fulfill their desires for exciting and risky activities through behaviors that can be facilitated with adult support and societal resources. For example, an adolescent running for school president is likely to receive support from his parents, and students interested in the performing arts are likely to find opportunities for training and performing at their schools. In contrast, adolescents seeking opportunities to drink, cut class, or shoplift are unlikely to receive support for these endeavors from their parents or schools. In other words, positive risk taking allows adolescents to form stronger bonds to their parents and communities, which has numerous benefits to adolescents’ well-being (for a review, see Blum & Rinehart, 2000).

Conclusions and Directions

In this article, we have offered a theoretical model of positive risk taking in adolescence and described the literature on this topic. We suggested that positive risks are characterized by three elements: 1) benefit to adolescents’ well-being, 2) potential costs that are mild in severity, and 3) social acceptability. Based on research on positive risk taking, positive and negative risk taking are apparently driven by a similar domain-general propensity for risk taking and may share certain psychological correlates such as sensation seeking. Further empirical work is needed to identify additional psychological and contextual factors associated with positive risk taking, as well as to determine how positive and negative risk taking overlap and diverge as behavioral patterns.

Studies of positive risk taking offer a useful foundation for ongoing research, but the information from these studies is limited because positive risk taking has not been defined clearly or consistently. To advance the field’s understanding of positive risk taking, we must establish a clearer conceptual framework of positive risk taking, perhaps using some of the ideas we have discussed. The field should also develop valid and reliable methods to measure positive risk taking. In this article, we have mentioned only self-report scales; the extent to which positive risk taking can be measured using experimental tasks is an important question for research.

Link to Article

The Spectrum of Risk Taking

Risk, as a broad construct, transcends the limitations of solely encompassing illegal or dangerous behaviors. Neuroeconomic models of decision making (Mohr, Biele, & Heekeren, 2010; Van Duijvenvoorde & Crone, 2013) provide a framework for understanding risk through three primary components: (1) the inherent potential for both rewards and costs, (2) variability in the probability of outcomes, and (3) uncertainty surrounding potential outcomes (Holton, 2004). Consequently, risky actions are characterized by uncertainty regarding the likelihood of their outcomes, whether positive or negative (Crone, van Duijvenvoorde, & Peper, 2016). High-risk behaviors, in particular, exhibit greater variability and uncertainty in their potential outcomes (Figueredo & Jacobs, 2010).

Within this broader definition, risk behaviors can be categorized along a spectrum of desirability.

Positive Risks

On one end of the spectrum lie positive risks: socially sanctioned behaviors that promote personal growth. These include endeavors such as:

• Trying out for a sports team

• Enrolling in a challenging course

• Initiating new friendships

Negative Risks

Conversely, negative risks occupy the opposite end of the spectrum. These behaviors, often illegal or dangerous, may include:

• Fighting

• Substance abuse

• Theft

(Note: The term "negative" is employed to denote potential harm or danger associated with these risks, acknowledging that not all negative risks inherently lack positive aspects.)

Although diverse forms of risk can contribute constructively to development (Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 1989), positive risks are distinguished by their legality and social acceptability. Their risk lies in the inherent uncertainty and variability of their outcomes (Figueredo & Jacobs, 2010), rather than the severity of potential negative consequences. Notably, a behavior can be categorized as risky even if all potential outcomes are positive (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992), with the "cost" representing a less desirable outcome within a range of positive possibilities (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992).

A Note on Terminology

While this article employs the term "positive risk taking," it's important to acknowledge alternative terminology used within the field:

• Prosocial: This term emphasizes behaviors that are socially acceptable, contrasting with "antisocial" behaviors (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001; Wood, Dawe, & Gullo, 2013). However, "prosocial" might be misinterpreted as solely encompassing actions intended to benefit others (e.g., Do, Guassi Moreira, & Telzer, 2017). While prosocial risks, such as defending someone from bullying, fall under the umbrella of positive risks, not all positive risks are inherently prosocial.

• Adaptive: This term suggests behaviors that serve (or previously served) an evolutionary purpose. For instance, fighting, while potentially stemming from an evolutionarily adaptive drive for dominance, does not align with the definition of positive risk taking employed here.

Therefore, antisocial risks, irrespective of their adaptive function, are not considered positive risks within this framework.

Elements of Positive Risk Taking

To delineate the nature of positive risks, this article proposes three defining characteristics:

1. Benefit to adolescents' well-being: Despite potential costs, positive risks offer the potential for gains that contribute to an adolescent's overall well-being. For example, enrolling in a challenging course, despite the risks of a poor grade or social stigma, can lead to valuable skill development and enhanced academic competitiveness.

2. Mild potential costs: In contrast to negative risks, the potential negative consequences associated with positive risks are relatively minor and do not jeopardize the individual's health, safety, or well-being. While rejection from a desired social group might lead to disappointment or social discomfort, it does not pose a direct threat to physical or psychological safety.

3. Legality and social acceptability: Positive risks are distinguished by their alignment with societal norms and legal frameworks. It's important to note that the social acceptability of certain positive risks might be subject to debate (e.g., protesting).

By understanding and identifying positive risks, youth development initiatives (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005) can create environments that encourage and support adolescents in taking positive risks (e.g., exploring new activities, expanding social circles).

To illustrate these elements: consider an adolescent choosing to befriend a new peer group. This qualifies as a risk due to the potential reward of friendship and the potential cost of rejection. Applying the three elements:

1. Well-being benefit: Forming new friendships is developmentally beneficial for adolescents.

2. Mild potential costs: Social rejection, while potentially upsetting, does not pose a direct threat to the adolescent's well-being.

3. Socially acceptable: Initiating friendships is a socially acceptable behavior.

Research on Positive Risk-Taking

Research specifically focusing on positive risk-taking in adolescents remains limited (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001; Wood et al., 2013). Existing studies have employed diverse definitions and examples of positive risk-taking (Table 1), lacking a unified conceptual framework. Generally, these studies converge on the understanding that positive risks are socially acceptable behaviors with an inherent possibility of loss or harm.

Table 1

Terms, Definitions, and Examples of Positive and Negative Risk Taking Used in the Positive Risk-Taking Literature

(Please refer to the original article for Table 1)

Two key findings emerge from this research:

1. Correlation between positive and negative risk taking: Individuals engaging in greater positive risk taking tend to engage in more negative risk taking. This aligns with findings that adolescents participating in socially acceptable activities (e.g., team sports) might also engage in less acceptable behaviors (e.g., substance use, delinquency) (Veliz, Boyd, & McCabe, 2015; Rutten et al., 2007). This suggests a potential domain-general propensity for risk taking that manifests across contexts, potentially influenced by shared correlates.

2. Sensation seeking: This trait, characterized by the pursuit of novel and intense experiences, appears linked to both positive and negative risk taking (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001). This suggests that individuals high in sensation seeking might benefit from opportunities to channel their proclivities towards positive activities, potentially mitigating negative risk taking (D'Silva et al., 2011).

Self-regulation, or impulse control, also appears to play a role, albeit with less clear findings. While low self-regulation is associated with greater negative risk taking (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), some research suggests that higher self-regulation might be linked to specific types of positive risk taking (Wood et al., 2013). This suggests that the relationship between self-regulation and positive risk taking might be contingent on the specific type of risk and the degree of planning or impulse control involved.

Measuring Positive Risk-Taking

Current positive risk-taking scales suffer from limitations:

1. Conflation with physical thrill-seeking: Many items on existing scales focus on activities like roller coasters or extreme sports, potentially confounding the relationship between positive risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Wood et al., 2013). This emphasis on physical thrills might also limit the scale's applicability to individuals interested in other domains of positive risk-taking.

2. Lack of emphasis on risk: Scales often lack language that explicitly highlights the element of risk inherent in the behaviors described.

Addressing these limitations requires developing scales that encompass a broader range of socially acceptable and developmentally constructive risks across various life domains (e.g., social, academic, extracurricular), while clearly framing these behaviors within the context of potential uncertainty and loss.

Furthermore, employing variety scores, which measure the number of different types of risks taken, might provide a more accurate assessment of an individual's propensity for positive risk-taking compared to frequency scores, which measure the number of times a specific risk is taken within a timeframe. This is particularly relevant as individuals have a limited number of opportunities to engage in certain positive risks.

Applications to Current Models of Adolescent Risk-Taking and Beyond

The current research on positive risk-taking, particularly its focus on sensation seeking and self-regulation, aligns with contemporary dual systems models of adolescent risk-taking (Steinberg, 2008). These models posit that the adolescent brain undergoes asynchronous development, with reward-related subcortical regions maturing earlier than prefrontal regions responsible for executive control (Spear, 2013; Steinberg, 2008). This discrepancy, coupled with developing connections between these regions (Casey, 2015), contributes to adolescents' heightened sensitivity to rewards and their increased risk-taking tendencies.

While dual systems theories provide a valuable framework, they are insufficient for fully understanding positive risk-taking. This article suggests additional theoretical correlates that warrant further exploration:

• Internalized values and social bonds: Youth inclined towards positive risk-taking might have strong social bonds and internalized prosocial values (Hirschi, 1969).

• Long-term goals: Positive risk-takers might prioritize long-term goals and perceive greater potential losses associated with negative risks, motivating them to pursue more socially acceptable forms of risk-taking (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992).

• Peer influence: Associating with peers who engage in positive risk-taking can influence an individual's own behaviors (e.g., Youngblade et al., 2007).

These are speculative propositions requiring empirical investigation to determine the motives driving positive risk-taking in adolescents.

Similar to other forms of risk-taking, engaging in positive risks can facilitate adolescent development, fostering autonomy, skill acquisition, and the development of a sense of purpose, identity, responsibility, and social competence (Ellis et al., 2012; Spear, 2013; Malin, Liauw, & Damon, 2017). These experiences can contribute to long-term benefits such as academic success (Wood et al., 2013), perseverance (Duckworth & Gross, 2014), and positive socioemotional functioning (Crone & Dahl, 2012).

Uniquely, positive risk-taking offers adolescents a pathway to satisfy their desires for novel and exciting experiences within a framework of social support and societal resources. This stands in contrast to negative risk-taking, which often lacks such support. As a result, positive risk-taking can strengthen bonds between adolescents, their families, and their communities, promoting overall well-being (Blum & Rinehart, 2000).

Conclusions and Directions

This article proposes a theoretical framework for understanding positive risk taking in adolescence. It highlights the need for a clearer conceptualization of positive risks, characterized by their benefits to well-being, mild potential costs, and social acceptability. While existing research suggests a complex interplay between positive and negative risk-taking, potentially driven by shared factors such as sensation seeking, further research is needed to:

1. Identify additional psychological and contextual correlates of positive risk taking.

2. Delineate the specific ways in which positive and negative risk-taking overlap and diverge.

3. Develop more robust and comprehensive measures of positive risk-taking that address the limitations of existing scales.

By advancing our understanding of positive risk-taking, we can develop more effective interventions and create environments that support adolescents in navigating risks in ways that foster their healthy development and well-being.

Link to Article

The Spectrum of Risk-Taking

Risk is a broad concept that applies to more than just dangerous or illegal activities. Using neuroeconomic models of decision-making, we can define risk as having three main components: (1) potential rewards and costs, (2) varying likelihood of those outcomes, and (3) uncertainty about what will happen (Holton, 2004; Mohr, Biele, & Heekeren, 2010; Van Duijvenvoorde & Crone, 2013). This means a risky action has an unpredictable outcome, either good or bad (Crone, van Duijvenvoorde, & Peper, 2016). Riskier behaviors involve more variability and uncertainty (Figueredo & Jacobs, 2010).

Within this broad definition, risky behaviors can be classified on a spectrum of desirability. On one side, we have positive risks: actions that are socially acceptable and beneficial, like trying out for a sports team, taking a difficult class, or making new friends. On the other side are negative risks: illegal or dangerous actions such as fighting, drinking alcohol, or stealing. We use the term negative because these risks can be harmful, although we acknowledge that some negative risks may not be inherently bad.

While various risks contribute to development (Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 1989), positive risks are distinct because they are both legal and socially acceptable. These actions are still risky due to the unpredictable nature and uncertainty of their outcomes (Figueredo & Jacobs, 2010), not because of potentially severe consequences. It's important to note that a behavior can be risky even if all potential outcomes are positive (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992), where the "cost" is simply the less desirable outcome (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992).

A Note on Terminology

While we use positive risk-taking, other researchers use terms like prosocial (meaning socially acceptable or the opposite of antisocial) or adaptive (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001; Wood, Dawe, & Gullo, 2013). We prefer positive because prosocial may be confused with behaviors solely meant to help others (e.g., Do, Guassi Moreira, & Telzer, 2017). While prosocial risks (like defending someone from a bully) fall under positive risks, not all positive risks are necessarily prosocial (cf., Do et al., 2017).

The term adaptive can be mistaken for behaviors that serve (or previously served) an evolutionary purpose. For example, fighting might be seen as an evolutionarily adaptive way to assert dominance within a social hierarchy, but we wouldn't consider it positive risk-taking as defined here. Therefore, any antisocial risk, regardless of its potential evolutionary function, is not a positive risk.

Elements of Positive Risk-Taking

To better define positive risks, we propose three key characteristics. These are broad features and may have exceptions, but we believe they offer a starting point for understanding these behaviors. As research progresses, empirical findings will refine this framework.

First, positive risks benefit adolescent well-being. Despite potential downsides, adolescents stand to gain something from these risks. For instance, a student taking a difficult class might get a low grade, feel overwhelmed, or be teased by peers. However, they could also benefit by learning new skills and becoming a more competitive college applicant. Challenging oneself for personal growth is generally considered developmentally beneficial.

Second, positive risks have mild potential costs compared to negative risks. In our framework, these costs don't jeopardize an adolescent's health, safety, or well-being. This distinction separates positive risks from negative ones (even those with an adaptive purpose) which inherently carry the potential for harm. For instance, trying out for a sports team and not making it might be emotionally difficult and impact social standing, but it doesn't threaten physical well-being. In contrast, drug overdoses or car accidents due to speeding pose serious risks to health and safety.

Third, positive risks are both legal and socially acceptable. Here, social acceptability refers to the perspective of adults rather than peers (though adolescent peer groups often support positive risks). We acknowledge that the social acceptability of some positive risks can be debated. For example, protesting might be considered civil disobedience by some and civic engagement by others.

Defining and clarifying positive risks can help youth development programs (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005) create opportunities for youth to engage in them (e.g., trying new sports or making friends).

To illustrate these elements (keeping in mind that not all elements might apply in every situation), consider a teenager trying to make friends with a new peer group. This is a risk because it offers the reward of belonging and the risk of rejection (among other possibilities). There's also uncertainty about whether the group will accept them, depending on factors like social skills and the group's dynamics.

Applying our three elements, we can categorize this as a positive risk: (1) Seeking new friendships is good for development, (2) Potential rejection doesn't threaten safety or well-being, and (3) Making friends is legal and socially acceptable.

Research on Positive Risk-Taking

There haven't been many studies on positive risk-taking in adolescents (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001; Wood et al., 2013). Each study used its own definition and examples (see Table 1), and none provided a comprehensive framework. The common thread is that positive risks are socially acceptable actions with a possibility of loss or harm.

Two main findings have emerged from this research: (1) Positive risk-taking is linked to negative risk-taking, and (2) Sensation-seeking is connected to higher rates of both types of risk-taking.

The connection between positive and negative risk-taking aligns with findings that youth involved in socially acceptable activities, like team sports, also engage in unacceptable behaviors, like substance use (Veliz, Boyd, & McCabe, 2015) and delinquency (Rutten et al., 2007). This suggests that adolescents might have a general tendency for risk-taking, manifested in both positive and negative ways. This association could also point to shared underlying factors.

One such factor is sensation seeking—the drive for novel and exciting experiences—which is linked to both positive and negative risk-taking (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001). The fact that higher sensation seeking is associated with both antisocial behavior and positive ambitions (e.g., dangerous or creative careers) (Mallet & Vignoli, 2007) supports this link. Providing more opportunities for sensation-seeking through positive activities (and limiting opportunities for negative risks) might help reduce negative risk-taking in these individuals (D’Silva et al., 2011).

Self-regulation, or impulse control, has also been studied in relation to both forms of risk-taking. While findings are less clear-cut, research suggests opposite associations. While low self-regulation is linked to greater negative risk-taking (see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), recent work shows that higher self-regulation is associated with certain positive risks (Wood et al., 2013; but see Fischer & Smith, 2004). One study categorized positive risks as either performance-based (like public speaking) or physical (like extreme sports) (see Table 1); higher performance-based risk-taking, but not physical risk-taking, was linked to better impulse control (Wood et al., 2013). This suggests that the relationship between self-regulation and positive risk-taking might depend on the type of risk (e.g., those requiring planning and impulse control, like public speaking). More research is needed to understand the role of self-regulation in positive risk-taking, but it appears to be a potential factor that differentiates it from negative risk-taking (Fischer & Smith, 2004).

Measuring Positive Risk-Taking

Existing scales for positive risk-taking have limitations. Firstly, many items focus on physical thrills rather than risk-taking, like riding roller coasters (Fischer & Smith, 2004) or extreme sports (Wood et al., 2013), potentially conflating positive risk-taking with sensation seeking. This emphasis on physical thrills might also limit responses to those interested in physical activities. Secondly, many items don't explicitly mention the risk involved. Highlighting the risk in the wording could improve the scales' validity and avoid including behaviors that are socially acceptable but not necessarily risky. For example, changing “played a sport” to “tried a new sport where you might embarrass yourself” emphasizes the uncertainty and potential for loss.

Building on existing measures (Fischer & Smith, 2004; Monahan, VanDerhei, & Amemiya, 2013) and using our working model, we created a self-report scale that addresses these limitations. It includes socially acceptable and developmentally beneficial risks across different areas of life, such as social risks (e.g., "spent time with a new group of people when unsure of fitting in"), academic risks (e.g., "took a class in a completely unfamiliar or challenging subject"), and extracurricular risks (e.g., "joined a new club or activity without knowing if you would enjoy it").

While previous studies used frequency scores to quantify positive risk-taking (e.g., Fischer & Smith, 2004; Hansen & Breivik, 2001), we prefer variety scores. Frequency tracks how often someone takes a risk, while variety tracks the number of different risks taken. Opportunities for a specific positive risk might be limited (like taking a challenging course), and repeating the same risk might not always be beneficial. Therefore, variety scores might be a more accurate reflection of someone's tendency for positive risk-taking.

Applications to Current Models of Adolescent Risk-Taking and Beyond

Studies on positive risk-taking, particularly those examining sensation seeking and self-regulation, generally align with dual systems models of adolescent risk-taking (Steinberg, 2008). These theories suggest that brain regions involved in reward processing (subcortical areas) are mostly developed by adolescence, while those responsible for executive control (prefrontal areas) mature more slowly (Spear, 2013; Steinberg, 2008). The connections between these areas are not fully established until early adulthood (Casey, 2015). Consequently, adolescents are drawn to novelty and excitement—reflected in high sensation seeking—before having the mature self-regulation to control impulsivity (Steinberg, 2008). This combination is thought to contribute to their heightened interest in and tolerance for risk-taking.

While dual systems theories offer a valuable starting point for generating hypotheses about positive risk-taking, they are not sufficient. We suggest additional theoretical factors to consider, but given the limited research on the causes and consequences of positive risk-taking, we do not propose causal relationships. Many factors in our model likely have a bidirectional relationship with positive risk-taking.

Since positive risk-taking is a behavior pattern rather than a personality trait, there might be few fundamental personality differences between those who take positive risks versus negative risks, especially since most adolescents probably engage in both (Fischer & Smith, 2004). However, individuals inclined towards positive risks might have internalized strong family values and feel connected to society (based on social control theory; Hirschi, 1969). They might also have ambitious long-term goals and feel they have more to lose by taking negative risks (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992), motivating them to seek out socially acceptable forms of risk. Furthermore, their peers might also be positive risk-takers, influencing their behavior (e.g., Youngblade et al., 2007). Of course, this is speculation, and empirical research is needed to understand the motivations behind positive risk-taking.

As with other forms of risk-taking, positive risk-taking can help adolescents achieve developmental milestones such as autonomy and skill development (Ellis et al., 2012; Spear, 2013). It might also contribute to a sense of purpose (Malin, Liauw, & Damon, 2017) and identity formation (e.g., through standing up for beliefs), personal responsibility (e.g., through team sports), and social competence (e.g., through making friends). It can also encourage goal setting (e.g., taking challenging classes). Over time, combined with other positive factors, these experiences can lead to benefits like school engagement, academic success (e.g., Wood et al., 2013), perseverance (Duckworth & Gross, 2014), and positive social-emotional development (e.g., Crone & Dahl, 2012).

Positive risk-taking might offer a unique benefit: allowing youth to satisfy their desires for excitement and risk through behaviors supported by adults and societal resources. For example, a student running for class president will likely receive support from parents, and those interested in the arts can likely find opportunities for training and performance at school. However, adolescents seeking to drink alcohol, skip school, or shoplift are unlikely to receive support for these activities. Essentially, positive risk-taking allows adolescents to strengthen bonds with their families and communities, which has numerous benefits for their well-being (see Blum & Rinehart, 2000 for a review).

Conclusions and Directions

This article presents a theoretical model of positive risk-taking in adolescence and summarizes the existing research. We propose that positive risks are defined by three key elements: (1) benefit to adolescent well-being, (2) mild potential costs, and (3) social acceptability. Research suggests that both positive and negative risk-taking might stem from a similar general tendency and share psychological factors like sensation seeking. Further research is needed to identify other factors associated with positive risk-taking and explore how they overlap and diverge from negative risk-taking.

Existing studies on positive risk-taking offer a valuable foundation, but information is limited due to inconsistent definitions. Advancing our understanding requires a clearer framework, perhaps incorporating some of the ideas presented here. We also need valid and reliable measurement tools. This article focuses on self-report scales, but future research should explore the feasibility of measuring positive risk-taking through experimental tasks.

Link to Article

Taking Risks the Right Way

We all know that taking risks is a part of life, but did you know there are different kinds of risks? Some are bad, like doing something dangerous or illegal. But some risks can be good for you! This article is about those good risks – we call them positive risks.

What Counts as a Positive Risk?

It can be confusing figuring out which risks are okay and which ones aren't. Here's how we think about positive risks:

1. They're good for you in the long run. Even though positive risks might seem scary or have downsides, they usually help you grow and learn. For example, joining a new club might mean feeling awkward at first, but you could end up making awesome friends and discovering a new passion.

2. The bad stuff isn't that bad. Positive risks don't put your health or safety in danger. So, while not making the soccer team would be a bummer, it's not the same as, say, drinking and driving, which can have really serious consequences.

3. They're cool with grown-ups. Positive risks are things that most adults wouldn't have a problem with. Things like trying out for the school play or taking a challenging class are usually seen as good things by parents and teachers.

What We Know (and Don't Know) About Positive Risks

Not a lot of research has been done on positive risk-taking, but here are some interesting things we've learned so far:

• People who take positive risks also tend to take negative ones. This suggests that some people are just more drawn to risks in general.

• Enjoying new and exciting experiences is linked to both types of risks. This personality trait, called "sensation-seeking," seems to play a role in whether someone is up for taking a risk, good or bad.

How Can We Study Positive Risks?

Right now, the way we measure positive risk-taking isn't perfect. We need to create better ways to study it so we can understand it better.

Positive Risks and Adolescence

Positive risks can be super helpful during the teenage years. They can help a teen:

• Become more independent: Trying new things on their own helps them figure out who they are and what they want.

• Learn important skills: Joining a debate team can help them think critically and speak confidently in front of others.

• Build strong relationships: Putting themselves out there socially, even if it feels risky, can lead to meaningful friendships.

Basically, taking positive risks is like leveling up in real life. It can be challenging, but it's how they grow and learn.

So What Now?

We need to do more research to really get a handle on positive risk-taking. But, hopefully, this article has given you a better understanding of what positive risks are and why they're important.

Link to Article

Taking Chances: The Good Kind!

You might think taking risks is bad, but it's actually a normal part of life! It just means trying something when you don't know if the result will be good or bad. There are different kinds of risks: some are good, and some are not so good.

Good Risks, Bad Risks, What's the Difference?

Good risks are like trying out for the school play even though you might not get the part. You might feel sad if you don't get in, but it's not dangerous, and you might learn something new or make new friends! These risks are okay because they could help you grow and they don't hurt anyone.

Bad risks are things like trying to ride your bike really fast on a busy street. This is dangerous and could hurt you badly.

Even though they're called "good" and "bad" risks, remember that even good risks can have downsides, and not all bad risks are totally bad all the time! But in general, it's good to think about the possible good and bad things that could happen before taking any risk.

What Makes a Risk a Good Risk?

Here are three things that usually make a risk a good risk:

1. It's good for you! Even though there might be some downsides, the good things should outweigh the bad.

2. The bad stuff isn't that bad. Good risks don't put you in danger or hurt you in a serious way.

3. Grown-ups think it's okay. Good risks are usually things that adults think are okay for kids to do, like joining a new club or trying a new food.

What Have We Learned About Good Risks?

Scientists have been studying good risks, and they've found some interesting things!

• Kids who take good risks are more likely to try new things in general. This means they might also be more likely to try things that are not so good.

• Kids who like exciting things are more likely to take both good and bad risks.

This means it's important for kids to have lots of chances to try new and exciting things that are good for them!

How Do We Know Who Takes Good Risks?

Scientists are still figuring out the best way to measure good risk-taking. They have surveys where kids can say if they've done things like try a new sport or talk to a new group of kids. They think it's better to count how many different good risks a kid takes, rather than how often they take the same risk.

How Does This Help Us Understand Teenagers?

Understanding good risks helps us understand how teenagers make decisions. Their brains are still developing, and they love trying new things. But they're also learning to control their impulses and make good choices.

Good risk-taking could be really important for teenagers because it can help them:

• Become more independent.

• Learn new skills.

• Figure out who they are.

• Feel good about themselves.

When teenagers have the chance to take good risks, they're more likely to grow up happy and successful!

What's Next?

Scientists are still learning about good risk-taking! They want to know more about:

• What makes some kids more likely to take good risks?

• What are the best ways to measure good risk-taking?

• How can we help teenagers take more good risks and fewer bad risks?

By learning more about good risk-taking, we can help teenagers make the most of their potential!

Link to Article