Positive and negative risk-taking behaviors in adolescents: Distinct characteristics, interrelationships, and influencing factors

Abstract

Adolescence is a crucial period marked by significant developmental changes, during which risk-taking behaviors can be both a normative part of development and a potential source of concern. However, prior research has focused predominantly on the adverse aspects of risk-taking (i.e., negative risk-taking), overlooked the positive counterpart (i.e., positive risk-taking), and lacked a detailed examination of both. This study aims to elucidate the distinct characteristics and interrelationships of positive and negative risk-taking behaviors among adolescents and to identify the key factors that influence these behaviors. Through a comprehensive synthesis of theoretical and empirical literature, we explore the multifaceted nature of risk-taking, highlighting its complex influencing factors, including individual traits, family dynamics, peer influence, school environment, and broader community contexts. By identifying the shared and unique factors contributing to positive and negative risk-taking behaviors, we can enable adolescents to navigate this complex stage of life and design targeted interventions. Future research directions include the application of person-centered approaches, the implementation of longitudinal tracking and the interactive effects of influencing factors, among other aspects.

Key Words: Adolescence; Positive risk-taking; Negative risk-taking; Distinct characteristics; Interrelationships; Influencing factors

Core Tip: This review distinguishes between positive risk-taking and negative risk-taking in adolescents, and identifies shared and unique influencing factors across individual traits, family dynamics, peer influence, school climate, and community contexts. Key theoretical advancements include advocating for person-centered approaches to address behavioral heterogeneity, and for longitudinal studies to track dynamic interactions. The findings underscore the need for targeted interventions that redirect risk propensity toward positive risk-taking while mitigating negative risk-taking, offering a multi-system framework for fostering adolescents’ healthy development.

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence represents the peak period for individual risk-taking behaviors, showing an upward trend from childhood to adolescence and a downward trend from adolescence to adulthood, a pattern that is relatively consistent across multiple countries and regions[1]. To a certain extent, risk-taking behaviors are indispensable for adolescents to attain developmental milestones, including identity formation, autonomy development, and social bonding[2,3]. They may also facilitate learning and goal-directed behaviors[4,5]. However, extensive research has also demonstrated that the most significant threat to healthy development in adolescents stems from their own risk-taking behaviors, such as reckless driving, smoking, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse[6-10]. In contrast to childhood, adolescence is characterized by significant increases in morbidity and mortality rates, with approximately 75% of these deaths linked to the aforementioned risk-taking behaviors[11].

To elucidate the multifaceted effects of risk-taking behaviors, researchers have suggested dividing them into two categories: Positive risk-taking behaviors and negative risk-taking behaviors[12,13]. Positive risk-taking behaviors, which are socially acceptable and have fewer adverse outcomes, can foster individual growth and development, such as engaging in sports or tackling demanding academic courses[14,15]. Negative risk-taking behaviors typically arise from the desire for thrill and risk, involving actions that breach social norms and entail substantial potential consequences[12,16]. Given the extensive adverse effects of negative risk-taking behaviors, the majority of prior research has concentrated on negative risk-taking behaviors[17], neglecting the beneficial aspects of risk-taking (i.e., positive risk-taking behaviors). This has resulted in a trend of pathologizing adolescent risk-taking behaviors and a failure to accurately grasp their significant and varied roles in this crucial developmental stage. Thus, grounded in a comprehensive review of theoretical and empirical literature, this study seeks to delve into the distinct characteristics, and interrelationships of adolescent positive and negative risk-taking behaviors, as well as the shared and unique influencing factors across multiple dimensions.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RISK-TAKING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

Negative risk-taking in adolescents

The study of negative risk-taking behaviors has a long history, and in earlier contexts, risk-taking behaviors predominantly denoted diverse negative risk-taking behaviors, which are choices or decisions resulting in detrimental outcomes[18]. Furthermore, negative risk-taking behaviors are strongly associated with problem behaviors, including smoking, excessive drinking, and aggressive behavior, which can be categorized as both negative risk-taking behaviors and problem behaviors[19,20]. The primary distinction between the two is that problem behaviors typically encompass internalizing problem behaviors (e.g., depression) and externalizing problem behaviors (e.g., school bullying), whereas negative risk-taking behaviors are similar to externalizing problem behaviors, which frequently entail potential adverse consequences, although these consequences can be somewhat mitigated by perceived positive benefits[21].

There is some divergence among researchers concerning the specific content of negative risk-taking behaviors. For example, the definition of such behaviors may differ depending on cultural background and age group. Activities such as participating in social protests might be viewed as positive risk-taking behaviors in some cultures or groups but as negative risk-taking behaviors in others[14]. Nonetheless, behaviors like smoking, excessive drinking, substance abuse, and bullying are widely regarded as negative risk-taking behaviors across various cultural settings, particularly among adolescents[1,22]. In general, negative risk-taking behavior can be characterized as behaviors motivated by the pursuit of thrills and risks, but lacking proper assessment of consequences and risk management, breaching social norms, and posing threats to the physical and mental well-being of oneself or others[13,23]. In addition to the disabilities or fatalities previously mentioned, negative risk-taking behaviors are also significant contributors to externalizing disorders (e.g., substance abuse, conduct disorders) and internalizing problems (e.g., depression, suicidal ideation)[24,25]. Various negative risk-taking behaviors often tend to cooccur[25,26]. For instance, sexual risk-taking behaviors, smoking, excessive drinking, and substance abuse are commonly observed in the same adolescent[27], further amplifying their detrimental effects. Additionally, numerous studies suggest that adolescent negative risk-taking behaviors can trigger a series of negative developmental cascading effects in subsequent life stages. That is, it has a diffusion effect that adversely impacts healthy development across various domains, including detrimental effects on long-term academic and career development and an increased probability of criminal behavior in adulthood[26,28-30].

Positive risk-taking in adolescents

Compared with negative risk-taking behavior, the concept of positive risk-taking behavior has evolved over a considerable period, shaped by the contributions of numerous scholars[14,31]. Although positive risk-taking behaviors are universally recognized as socially acceptable and lawful, early definitions focused primarily on sports-related risk behaviors such as rock climbing, kayaking, and rafting[23]. Subsequently, Fischer and Smith[15] broadened the concept to encompass social, extracurricular, and academic activities, such as dating, trying a new sport, and taking challenging courses. Özmen and Sümer[32] suggested that positive risk-taking behaviors should be socially acceptable, a theme echoed by Romer et al[33], who advocated for the need to examine the benefits of risk-taking behavior for adolescent healthy development. Following this line of thought, Maslowsky et al[34] further highlighted that a notable proportion of adolescent risk-taking behavior may be strategic and planned in advance. These behaviors are, to some degree, deliberate and rational rather than impulsive and reactive. More recently, Duell and Steinberg[14] elaborated on the concept of positive risk-taking behaviors, defining them in three dimensions: Developmental advantages, social acceptability, and outcome predictability. Drawing on theoretical constructs and empirical studies[12-14], positive risk-taking behavior can be defined as goal-directed explorations involving three key components: Calculated risk-benefit analysis, social approbation, and minimal adverse consequences. Typical manifestations include engaging in diverse sports, exploring novel experiences, and pursuing challenging academic courses. In contrast, negative risk-taking behaviors are impulsively driven actions with disproportionately high potential harm relative to perceived benefits. While societal norms influence the categorization of these behaviors, this distinction emphasizes behavioral intentionality and outcome valuation rather than cultural acceptability alone.

A distinct subtype of positive risk-taking behavior - prosocial risk-taking - emerges when individuals undertake risks specifically to benefit others. Unlike other positive risk-taking behaviors motivated by self-interest (e.g., enrolling in rigorous courses to improve academic qualifications), prosocial risk-taking behavior exhibits two defining characteristics: First, the behavioral intent is primarily directed toward the benefit of others rather than being self-oriented; second, the action inherently involves accepting potential unpredictable costs (social, physical, or emotional)[35]. Representative examples of adolescent prosocial risk-taking behaviors encompass intervening in school bullying to protect peers, even at personal risk. Such positive risk-taking behaviors could play a crucial developmental role for adolescents, potentially mitigating psychosocial health risks and enhancing holistic well-being[36].

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSITIVE RISK-TAKING AND NEGATIVE RISK-TAKING

Research on the relationship between positive and negative risk-taking behaviors is still nascent, and the limited studies incorporating both types of behavior often indicate a close link between them. For example, a survey among college students revealed a significant positive correlation between positive and negative risk-taking behaviors[15]. Similarly, a recent study of American adolescents aged 16-20 revealed a significant positive relationship between these behaviors[12], and a comparable result was observed in a survey of individuals aged 12-25 in Poland[37]. These findings bolster the idea that adolescents possess a domain-general propensity toward risk-taking, manifested as both positive and negative risk-taking behaviors[13]. Nevertheless, inconsistent findings do exist. For example, a recent online survey of 660 individuals aged 16-30 found no association between positive and negative risk-taking behaviors[38]. Importantly, researchers have noted that positive risk-taking behaviors can strengthen adolescents’ personal responsibility, enhance their interpersonal abilities, and facilitate goal achievement[5,13,39], thereby reducing their engagement in negative risk-taking behaviors. Thus, these findings may indicate that the relationship between positive and negative risk-taking behaviors differs across age and developmental stages, and more likely, that there are inter-individual differences and group heterogeneity in these behaviors[40]. However, the aforementioned studies employing a variable-centered approach assume that all individuals within the sample possess identical traits, failing to discern the potential heterogeneity of individuals’ risk-taking behaviors. Consequently, in forthcoming studies, a person-centered approach (e.g., latent profile analysis) could be implemented to identify subgroups within the sample with similar relationships or patterns within the sample[41] to better elucidate the distinctions, connections, and interactions between positive and negative risk-taking behaviors, and to develop targeted intervention strategies based on these insights.

We speculate that there may be at least four categories of adolescents on the basis of their combinations of positive and negative risk-taking behaviors: Those with high positive risk-taking behavior (characterized by high positive risk-taking and low negative risk-taking), those with high negative risk-taking behavior (marked by high negative risk-taking and low positive risk-taking), individuals exhibiting high risk-taking behavior (demonstrating high levels of both types), and those showing low risk-taking behavior (with low levels of both domains). While empirical investigations are warranted to validate this hypothesized typology, should the proposed heterogeneous configurations of positive and negative risk-taking behaviors be empirically substantiated, intervention strategies would need to be applied differentially according to distinct adolescent risk-taker profiles to enhance efficacy. For example, adolescents displaying high-risk patterns (high negative/low positive) might benefit from dual-focus interventions aimed at mitigating negative risk-propensity while redirecting their tendencies toward positive domains. Conversely, those demonstrating high negative risk-taking with high positive engagement may require nuanced reinforcement strategies that amplify protective factors while addressing behavioral disinhibition. Crucially, developmental neuroscience evidence points to differential neurocognitive maturation patterns in reward processing and cognitive control systems[42], suggesting the need for age-sensitive adaptations in intervention timing and approaches. Additionally, cross-cultural validation remains essential due to documented variations in risk perception across societies[1]. Ultimately, person-centered interventions emerging from such empirical verification could optimize resource allocation through matching preventive strategies to specific risk-taking profiles, thereby potentially disrupting maladaptive trajectories while fostering positive risk-taking crucial for developmental growth.

Notably, notable differences exist between positive and negative risk-taking behaviors, which could suggest that established theories explaining negative risk-taking behavior, such as dual systems theory[43] or problem behavior theory[21], may not be directly applicable to understanding positive risk-taking behavior. Thus, as Duell and Steinberg[12] indicated, future studies require the development of new theories specific to the attributes of positive risk-taking behaviors. Furthermore, existing research incorporating both positive and negative risk-taking behaviors is largely cross-sectional. While this approach can, to some degree, showcase the developmental features of risk-taking behaviors across various age groups, its inherent limitations hinder the ability to depict the dynamic developmental trajectories of these behaviors over time or to elucidate the reciprocal influences between positive and negative risk-taking behaviors throughout the developmental process, thus constraining the validity, interpretability, and generalizability of research findings[24]. Especially in adolescence, individuals’ risk-taking behaviors tend to undergo substantial fluctuations rather than remaining static at a certain level[22]. Consequently, it is essential to conduct longitudinal follow-up research on adolescents’ positive and negative risky behaviors using multi-method assessments (e.g., behavioral tasks, neuroimaging, ecological momentary assessment).

The inclusion of the temporal dimension allows for a comprehensive depiction of three key features of the development of positive and negative risk-taking behaviors: Initial status, rate of change, and their interrelationship. Specifically, the initial status reflects the baseline level of adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors; the rate of change captures the upward or downward trend of these behaviors during their development, and the relationship between initial status and rate of change reveals their correlation. These metrics can effectively portray how individual differences in the initial states of positive and negative risk-taking behaviors either expand or contract as time progresses. Crucially, by longitudinally tracking adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors across multiple time points and utilizing advanced statistical methods such as growth curve modeling[44] or growth mixture modeling[45], researchers can thoroughly investigate the overall developmental characteristics of both, developmental disparities among individuals, and potential reciprocal influences between the two: Does the evolution of positive risk-taking behaviors over time impact the trajectory of negative risk-taking behaviors, or does the other way around? This information is essential for gaining a profound understanding of the developmental trajectories of adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors, their intricate mutual influence, and for identifying critical intervention windows (e.g., early vs late adolescence) when targeted programs may be most effective.

INFLUENCING FACTORS OF ADOLESCENT POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RISK-TAKING

In terms of the factors that shape adolescents’ positive/negative risk-taking behaviors, on the one hand, as highlighted by ecological theory of human development, adolescent development is influenced by multiple factors operating within diverse contexts, including family, peers, school, and community[46]. On the other hand, as developmental neuroscience theories such as dual systems theory suggest, adolescent risk-taking behaviors are further driven by individual factors, such as increased reward sensitivity and underdeveloped impulse control[43]. Hence, building on prior research, we review five key dimensions - individual differences, family dynamics, peer influence, school environment, and broader community contexts - and discuss potential directions for future research.

Individual factors

Compared with adults, adolescents are more prone to the influence of environmental factors, yet their susceptibility to external influences varies across individuals[47]. Adolescents with particular traits may be more vulnerable to certain external factors, thereby either intensifying or attenuating their risk-taking behaviors[48]. For instance, impulsivity[49], negative urgency[50], dark personality traits[51] and experiential avoidance[52] are associated with a greater propensity for adolescents to engage in negative risk-taking behaviors. Furthermore, research indicates that heightened reward sensitivity and reduced harm avoidance are key drivers of adolescent risk-taking behaviors[53]. Specifically, when confronted with a risky situation that could result in either gains or losses, adolescents are more responsive to changes in potential rewards but less responsive to changes in potential losses[54]. Additionally, they frequently fail to assess rewards appropriately and anticipate disproportionately high returns[55]. Adolescents’ risk perceptions also differ from those of adults, often leading them to overestimate their capabilities and underestimate the severity of risk[56,57].

As previously noted, current research on adolescent risk-taking behaviors predominantly centers on negative risk-taking behaviors, whereas studies on the individual factors affecting positive risk-taking behaviors remain scarce. A small number of studies that concurrently analyze positive and negative risk-taking behaviors indicate that sensation-seeking has a significantly positive correlation with both types of behavior[12,15,38], and reward sensitivity might also drive both positive and negative risk-taking behaviors[58]. These factors likely represent shared influences on both positive and negative risk-taking behaviors. Studies examining the distinct factors influencing adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors reveal that, relative to negative risk-taking behavior, positive risk-taking behavior is linked to lower reward sensitivity and higher punishment sensitivity[12]. Moreover, impulse control is negatively related to negative risk-taking behaviors but is not associated with positive risk-taking behaviors[12]. Low sensitivity to punishment is exclusively related to negative risk-taking behaviors and not to positive risk-taking behaviors[58]. Other research also demonstrates that greater self-regulation is positively related to positive risk-taking behaviors[59], whereas reduced self-regulation is linked to various forms of negative risk-taking behaviors[60]. In addition to these individual-trait factors, there may be additional shared and unique factors at the individual level that shape adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors, necessitating more thorough and nuanced research for identification.

In summary, current research on the individual factors affecting adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors implies that, although both types of behaviors are motivated by the desire for novelty and excitement, negative risk-taking behaviors are more strongly driven by impulsivity. With proper control and regulation, it may be feasible to steer risk-prone adolescents toward positive risk-taking behaviors rather than negative ones. From this viewpoint, the adolescent environment can serve two functions: First, by reducing the likelihood of adolescents engaging in negative risk-taking behaviors, and second, by providing safe and organized opportunities for positive exploration, fulfilling their need for stimulation while fostering their development in socially beneficial directions.

Family factors

Families represent the most influential and immediate environmental element in the ecological context shaping adolescent development[61], and a detrimental family environment can result in maladaptive developmental outcomes[62]. Research on the impact of family factors on adolescent risk-taking behaviors is relatively extensive. Numerous studies indicate that family environment is among the most critical predictors of adolescent risk-taking behaviors. For instance, as a vital measure of family environment, healthy family functioning can decrease adolescent substance abuse[63], whereas a dysfunctional family is directly associated with increased negative risk-taking behaviors in adolescents[64]. Apart from family functioning, parent-child interactions in the family are crucial factors affecting adolescent risk-taking behaviors[65-68]. A healthy parent-child relationship offers adolescents a robust emotional foundation rooted in secure attachment and constructive interactions, potentially aiding them in developing appropriate behaviors as they mature[69]. The quality of the parent-child relationship serves as a predictor of adolescent risk-taking behaviors. A negative parent-child relationship increases the likelihood of adolescents engaging in negative risk-taking behaviors, whereas a supportive and positive relationship can reduce their reward sensitivity toward risk-taking activities, thereby decreasing their involvement in such behaviors[70,71].

The association between parental control and adolescent risk-taking behaviors necessitates a differentiated analysis. Parental behavioral control has been recognized as a protective factor against negative risk-taking behaviors in adolescents, whereas parental psychological control may act as a risk factor, increasing the likelihood of negative risk-taking behaviors[72]. For example, studies have shown that elevated levels of psychological control are linked to more pronounced behavioral problems in adolescents[73]. In contrast to positive parenting approaches such as warmth and autonomy support, negative parenting styles, including authoritarianism, permissiveness, and neglect, are correlated with increased externalizing problems (e.g., aggression and impulsivity) in children and adolescents[74]. Furthermore, research has revealed differences in how fathers’ and mothers’ parenting styles influence adolescent risk-taking behaviors: Paternal rejection and overprotection are positively associated with adolescent risk-taking behaviors through coping efficacy, whereas maternal warmth and maternal rejection are negatively and positively related to adolescent risk-taking behaviors, respectively, through coping efficacy[75].

Studies have also demonstrated that sustaining positive family relationships could decrease the reactivity of adolescents’ socio-emotional systems and improve the functionality of their cognitive control systems, thus lowering the probability of their involvement in negative risk-taking behaviors[76]. Conversely, poor parental relationships or family breakdown are more likely to result in increased negative risk-taking behaviors among adolescents. For instance, a meta-analysis involving 24854 divorced families indicated that parental conflict is a major predictor of adolescents’ negative risk-taking behaviors[77]. Additionally, adolescents from families with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to engage in negative risk-taking behaviors[78]. This might be attributed to family environmental stress prompting adolescents to adopt a fast life history strategy, emphasizing immediate gratification at the expense of long-term gains, thereby increasing their risk-taking behaviors[79].

Currently, research on the connection between family factors and adolescents’ positive risk-taking behaviors remains limited. A recent study conducted among individuals aged 12-25 in Poland revealed that family support suppresses positive risk-taking behaviors, particularly among younger adolescents (approximately 12 years old)[37]. In a separate study analyzing both positive and negative risk-taking behaviors, a survey of 1012 Chinese adolescents aged 11-18 revealed that negative paternal parenting, marked by inadequate monitoring and inconsistent discipline, heightened both positive and negative risk-taking behaviors, whereas negative maternal parenting had no significant effect on either[80]. Furthermore, negative paternal parenting had a stronger influence on boys’ positive risk-taking behaviors than on that of girls[80]. Recently, a six-month longitudinal study in China also demonstrated that parental positive parenting significantly and positively predicted adolescents’ engagement in prosocial risk-taking (a subtype of positive risk-taking behaviors)[81]. These results provide initial insights into the complex effects of family factors on adolescents’ positive risk-taking behaviors and highlight the need to account for the distinct parenting approaches of different family members (e.g., fathers and mothers), as well as variations in adolescents’ gender and age, when understanding and addressing these behaviors.

Peer factors

From childhood through adolescence, the amount of time individuals spend with peers increases progressively, reaching its peak in mid-adolescence (around age 14)[82]. Simultaneously, the influence of peers on their behavior continues to strengthen[83]. During adolescents’ transition from parental attachment to emotional maturity, peers serve as a key supportive factor[84]. Interacting with peers can provide adolescents with both social and emotional support[85,86]. Adolescents are typically highly concerned with their peers’ opinions and strive for acceptance within their peer groups[87]. The desire for peer approval and a sense of belonging could have a two-fold impact: They may either encourage adolescents to participate in risk-taking behaviors or deter them from doing so[88]. Moreover, adolescents’ susceptibility to peer influence may stem from their dependence on peers to gauge the potential outcomes of risk-taking behaviors[89].

A multitude of research underscores the substantial impact of peers on adolescent risk-taking behaviors. Peer-related factors, such as peer presence[90], peer encouragement[91], and peer bullying[92,93], are critical in shaping adolescents’ decisions to participate in negative risk-taking behaviors. Neuroscientific studies have further revealed that peer presence increases activation in reward-related brain regions, including the ventral striatum and prefrontal cortex[55]. Furthermore, studies indicate that, compared with parenting styles, adverse peer interactions may serve as a more immediate predictor of adolescents’ negative risk-taking behaviors[94,95]. When peer norms are linked to behaviors such as smoking and drinking, they frequently heighten adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors and their negative consequences[96,97]. The cycle of violence theory also posits that adolescents who experience bullying may internalize aggressive tendencies, resulting in increased engagement in negative risk-taking behaviors (e.g., risky thrill-seeking or self-injury) as a coping mechanism for bullying-related trauma[98]. It is important to note that the influence of peers on risk-taking behaviors may differ at various stages of an individual’s development. Relative to adulthood, peer influence is more pronounced during mid-to-late adolescence[99]. Additionally, the presence of same-sex peers is more likely to elevate risk-taking behaviors in males than is the presence of opposite-sex peers[100]. Future studies should delve deeper into the specific mechanisms by which peer influence shapes adolescent risk-taking behaviors across various developmental stages.

Most of the studies mentioned above concentrate on negative risk-taking behaviors, yet some research indicates that the degree of peer influence on adolescent risk-taking behaviors varies depending on whether the behavior is antisocial or prosocial[88]. Thus, peer factors may have distinct effects on positive and negative risk-taking behaviors. This finding is corroborated by a recent study revealing that among Polish adolescents aged 12-18, positive risk-taking behaviors are correlated with peers’ positive risk-taking behaviors, whereas negative risk-taking behaviors are associated with peers’ negative risk-taking behaviors[37]. A similar pattern was observed in a survey of Chinese adolescents aged 11-18: Greater prosocial peer affiliation fosters positive risk-taking behaviors, whereas deviant peer affiliation results in increased negative risk-taking behaviors[80]. Notably, the impact of peers on adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors could also arise from selective associations and reciprocal influences, where adolescents tend to associate with peers who exhibit similar risk-taking behaviors and, through interactions, further converge in their levels of risk-taking behaviors[101]. Future research should employ longitudinal dyadic designs to disentangle the bidirectional dynamics of peer selection and socialization processes, as well as their temporal interplay in shaping the developmental trajectories of both positive and negative risk-taking behaviors during adolescence.

School factors

As adolescents age, they spend an increasing amount of time in school. As a key setting for their lives and education, schools exert a proximal and lasting influence on their psychological and behavioral development[102]. Numerous studies have shown that school climate[103,104], school support[105], school belonging[106], and school engagement[107] can influence the likelihood of adolescents participating in risk-taking behaviors to some extent. These factors within the school environment play a significant role in shaping the decisions that adolescents make regarding risk-taking.

Early studies suggest that, owing to the limited ability of parents in large families to support each child, school quality is especially important for adolescents in these households. Thus, investments in enhancing the quality of public high schools can yield positive outcomes for adolescents, both academically and socially[108]. Recent studies have revealed that a strong sense of belonging in the school setting is a key factor in achieving positive educational outcomes and is linked to decreased engagement in negative risk-taking behaviors[106,109]. More precisely, healthy teacher-student relationships in schools contribute to a decrease in adolescents’ negative risk-taking behaviors. For instance, a positive relationship with teachers has a buffering effect on the sexual risk-taking behaviors of bullying victims[110], and strong teacher-student bonds decrease the probability of adolescents participating in weapon-related violence, smoking, excessive drinking, and marijuana use[111]. Weak teacher-student relationships may reduce school belonging, leading to increased risk-taking behaviors such as alcohol use and bullying, especially among vulnerable students[106]. Furthermore, poor academic performance has been found to be strongly linked to multiple forms of negative risk-taking behaviors, especially substance use and disciplinary violations[112]. Recent research has shown that adolescents’ school engagement is linked to increased positive risk-taking behaviors and reduced negative risk-taking behaviors, implying that the positive relationship between positive risk-taking behaviors and school engagement may significantly lower the likelihood of engaging in negative risk-taking behaviors[12]. This also opens avenues for school-based interventions: Given that adolescents spend the majority of their waking time in school, schools serve as a beneficial setting for cultivating positive risk-taking behaviors and leveraging their advantages.

Importantly, the school system, as a significant backdrop for adolescent development, may interact with other ecosystems and collectively shape adolescents’ development. For example, schools and families represent the two main environments for adolescent development, and they not only individually impact adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors but also may interact with one another. This is supported by a recent longitudinal study involving adolescents aged 12-15. The study revealed that a supportive school environment can mitigate the adverse effects of poor parental supervision on adolescents’ self-control, thus reducing their negative risk-taking behaviors[113], indicating that school factors interact with family factors to jointly influence the occurrence and development of adolescent risk-taking behaviors.

Community factors

As more families with both parents working and single-parent households become more common, many adolescents are left without adult supervision after school[114]. Adolescents lacking adult supervision and guidance are more susceptible to harmful environments[115] and are more prone to exhibit risk-taking behaviors[116]. Some studies have pointed out that a secure and well-organized community environment, as a critical aspect of adolescents’ daily lives, can significantly curb their aggressive and bullying behaviors[117]. Especially for adolescents in large families with scarce resources, a stable living environment serves as a strong protective factor against their risk-taking behaviors[108]. For children with low socioeconomic status or who are left behind, a community environment with high cohesion can act as a crucial compensatory resource[118]. Other research has shown that involvement in community groups can significantly decrease risk-taking behaviors in females[119]. However, lower neighborhood social capital is linked to increased adolescent risk-taking behaviors[120], and adolescents exposed to community violence are more likely to display externalizing problem behaviors[121].

When communities are deficient in resources such as stable housing, a robust economic base, sufficient schools, and basic public safety, adolescents are unlikely to access opportunities for personal development or positive role models to participate in healthy activities[108]. Consequently, adolescents raised in resource-scarce communities struggle more to achieve academic success, prevent early unwed pregnancies, and develop the skills necessary for economic independence as adults[122]. Intervention programs targeting adolescent risk-taking behaviors tailored to local community contexts have demonstrated that community factors can have a positive impact on adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors[123]. A recent community-based youth development initiative revealed that developing identity security through engaging in activities that explore youth identity, practicing authenticity in daily interactions, and fostering dynamic intergenerational friendships can promote positive risk-taking among adolescents and adults[124]. Duell and Steinberg[12] further highlighted that communities could contribute in two ways: By reducing the chances of adolescents engaging in negative risk-taking behaviors and by offering them safer, structured opportunities for positive exploration. This not only meets their need for stimulation but also promotes their healthy development, which aligns with societal expectations. However, there is still a lack of research that considers and contrasts the distinct impacts of various community factors on adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors. Future research should explore this issue in more detail.

As previously discussed, the factors affecting adolescent risk-taking behaviors are multifaceted, spanning from individual characteristics to various layers of their ecological environments. The ecological theory of human development further highlights that adolescent development is shaped by multiple factors within diverse environments, including family, school, and community, and that these factors are interrelated and interact to exert combined effects[46]. However, most previous studies have treated individual, family, peer, school, and community factors as independent elements, examining the relationships between a single factor and adolescent risk-taking behaviors separately. This absence of a comprehensive systemic approach hinders a thorough understanding of the multi-dimensional nature of risk-taking behaviors and restricts the ecological validity and applicability of the findings. In addition, the factors affecting risk-taking behaviors may evolve from early to late adolescence[125]. Nevertheless, most existing studies focus on a specific developmental stage of adolescents, with few encompassing the entire developmental process. This limits the ability to pinpoint the core influencing factors at distinct stages, such as early adolescence (10-12 years), middle adolescence (13-15 years), and late adolescence (16-18 years)[126]. Thus, it is also difficult to determine the key intervention points for each developmental stage of adolescents. Future studies urgently need to integrate factors from multiple levels (individual, family, peer, school, and community) that affect adolescent risk-taking behaviors, and include adolescents from multiple developmental stages (early, middle, and late). This will enable us to better explore and elucidate the complex mechanisms underlying adolescent risk-taking behaviors, uncover the interactions and influence paths among different factors, and identify the dominant factors at each developmental stage, offering a scientific foundation for formulating targeted prevention and intervention strategies. Table 1 summarizes the shared and distinct factors influencing adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors across ecological domains.

Table 1 Summary of influencing factors associated with adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors.

Domain	Factors	Positive risk-taking	Negative risk-taking	Shared/distinct	Ref.
Individual	Sensation-seeking	↑	↑	Shared1	[12,15,38]
	Reward sensitivity	↑	↑	Shared1	[58]
	Impulse control	No significant association	↓	Distinct2 (negative)	[12]
	Low sensitivity to punishment	No significant association	↑	Distinct2 (negative)	[58]
	Self-regulation	↑	↓	Shared1	[59,60]
Family	Family support	↓ (context-dependent3)	↓	Shared1	[37]
	Negative paternal parenting	↑	↑	Shared1	[80]
	Positive parenting	↑ (context-dependent3)	↓	Shared1	[75,81]
Peer	Prosocial peer affiliation	↑	No significant association	Distinct2 (positive)	[37,80]
	Deviant peer affiliation	No significant association	↑	Distinct2 (negative)	[37,80]
	Peer encouragement	↑ (prosocial contexts)	↑ (antisocial contexts)	Shared1	[90,101]
School	School engagement	↑	↓	Shared1	[12,107]
	Teacher-student relationship	↑	↓	Shared1	[110,111]
	Academic performance	↑	↓	Shared1	[112]
Community	Neighborhood safety/resources	↑	↓	Shared1	[117]
	Exposure to community violence	No significant association	↑	Distinct2 (negative)	[121]
	Community cohesion/support	↑	↓	Shared1	[118,124]

¹Factors influencing both types of risk-taking.

²Factors uniquely influencing one type.

³Effects vary based on participants’ age, behavioral categories, and situational or cultural factors.

↑: Associated with increased likelihood of the behavior; ↓: Associated with decreased likelihood of the behavior.

Beyond the factors discussed above, the advent of the artificial intelligence era has made it essential to examine the influence of pervasive digital environments on adolescent development, including risk-taking behaviors. Virtual microsystems, which refer to the patterns of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relationships experienced by individuals on specific digital platforms[127], are particularly worthy of in-depth exploration for their potential effects on adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors. Furthermore, culture may also play a role in shaping adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors. For example, in Western cultures, adolescent risk-taking behaviors are frequently seen as positive expressions that foster independence and skill development[2]. In contrast, Eastern cultures, such as those in China, place more emphasis on safety and stability and stress the importance of rule adherence[128]. This cultural difference may lead to distinct characteristics and developmental trajectories in adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors. Therefore, future research should conduct more detailed and nuanced explorations of both the influence of digital environments and cultural backgrounds on these behaviors.

The intricate relationships among multiple factors across different levels that influence adolescent risk-taking behaviors can be characterized by two patterns: Clustering effects and cumulative effects[129,130]. Specifically, configurations of various factors can exhibit clustering effects, meaning that certain patterns of combinations of individual, family, peer, school, and community factors may correspond to particular types of adolescent risk-taking behaviors. The superposition of multiple types of factors can have cumulative effects, which means that as factors from individual, family, peer, school, and community are added up, certain types of adolescent risk-taking behaviors may either increase or decrease accordingly. Applying methods such as latent profile analysis to various influencing factors is an effective approach to ascertain the presence of clustering effects[129], and hierarchical regression analysis and similar techniques can be employed to elucidate and clarify the details of cumulative effects[131]. Furthermore, methods such as multiple linear regression analysis[132] or machine-learning approaches[80] can be used to examine the relative contributions of multiple factors to adolescent risk-taking behaviors.

In practical terms, since adolescent development is shaped by multiple ecological subsystems, such as family, peers, school, community, the Internet, and culture, adolescents are influenced by a variety of environmental factors rather than a single one. Research that focuses only on one or a few factors does not reflect the actual lives of adolescents, lacks ecological validity and generalizability, and cannot effectively mobilize all relevant parties for targeted prevention or intervention. For adolescents, the most effective prevention and promotion strategies should integrate the efforts of schools, families, communities, and society at large[133]. Specifically, a dual approach combining bottom-up and top-down strategies can be used to leverage the positive aspects of adolescent risk-taking behaviors and minimize their negative impacts[134]. Integrated prevention and promotion efforts involving schools, families, and communities, which are grounded in systematic research, can offer a robust basis for developing and implementing relevant policies, creating a comprehensive system for addressing adolescent risk-taking behaviors through the integration of “research, practice, and policy”. Considering the significant adverse consequences and long-term negative effects of adolescents’ negative risk-taking behaviors[11,135] and the adventurous nature of adolescents[136], policies should prioritize early intervention for negative risk-taking behaviors and provide environmental support for positive risk-taking behaviors, setting the overarching goal and finding a rational perspective of fostering adolescent positive development under the premise of safety. Families can foster autonomy-supportive parenting and mitigate economic stressors linked to negative behaviors, while schools embed positive risk-taking curricula (e.g., innovation challenges) and peer mentorship to channel thrill-seeking into positive risk-taking activities. Communities should establish intergenerational hubs for collaborative projects (e.g., youth-led initiatives) and digital risk mitigation alliances, creating safe platforms for creative exploration. Cross-level collaboration, such as school-family partnerships for skill-building programs or community-funded recreational spaces, ensures resource synergy and consistent messaging, transforming adolescent adventurousness into pathways for resilience and societal contribution.

CONCLUSION

Adolescence represents a high-risk period for engaging in risk-taking behaviors. While risk-taking behaviors can hinder academic progress, cause externalizing and internalizing issues, and result in injury or death, they may also aid adolescents in establishing identity, fostering autonomy, and developing social bonds. Recent studies have differentiated adolescent risk-taking behaviors into negative risk-taking behaviors - characterized by thrill-seeking, lack of assessment of consequences, violation of social norms, and harm to oneself or others - and positive risk-taking behaviors - which foster personal growth and development, are socially acceptable, and have minimal adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, the unique relationships between these behaviors remain unclear, and there are few detailed analyses of the shared and unique factors that influence them. Grounded in a synthesis of prior research and empirical data, we delve into the differences and connections between adolescent positive and negative risk-taking behaviors and highlight future research directions: Employing a person-centered approach that focuses on individual differences and group heterogeneity to elucidate the static relationships between positive and negative risk-taking behaviors and utilizing longitudinal tracking across multiple time points to determine how positive and negative risk-taking behaviors evolve and their potential dynamic interactions during development. Moreover, we systematically analyzed the common and distinct factors affecting adolescents’ positive and negative risk-taking behaviors across five dimensions: Individual, family, peer, school, and community. Future studies should integrate multiple levels of influencing factors to improve the ecological validity of their results. Additionally, we recommend analyzing the intricate mechanisms and combined effects of multiple factors across different levels on adolescent risk-taking behaviors through the lens of clustering effects and cumulative effects.