Posts in category: Dating Tips, Guide and Advice

Risk-taking behavior refers to engaging in actions or activities that have the potential to be harmful or dangerous, increasing the risk of unintentional injuries and violence. This can include misusing alcohol, binge drinking, taking illicit substances, driving under the influence, or engaging in unprotected sex. 

Here we discuss the potential causes of risk-taking behaviors. We also explore several risk-taking examples that can harm a person’s health and well-being, along with providing a few tips for getting help.

Causes of Risk-Taking Behaviors

There are a number of reasons why people might engage in risky behaviors. Understanding these reasons can be helpful when it comes to addressing them.

Thrill-Seeking

Given that risk-taking behaviors are potentially dangerous, some people wonder why anyone would take part. On one hand, the behaviors put those individuals in harm’s way. On the other hand, they also give participants the chance to experience a thrill followed by emotions of relief or triumph.

Driving fast, for example, may lead to a car accident that harms the individual who is driving and others on the street. In the moment and directly after, however, it may bring about positive feelings from the thrill of a fast ride followed by relief in not getting caught by the police.

Social Influences

Risky behaviors can sometimes be a way to gain social approval or acceptance. Peer pressure, for example, can play a significant role in risk-taking behaviors. If someone sees their friends or peers doing risky things and wants to feel accepted by them, they might engage in those behaviors too.

This is particularly true during late adolescence when teens typically feel that conforming to their social group is important. With their friends’ influences, teens often engage in some amount of testing their abilities and exploring limits as they forge their own identities. This becomes problematic when it puts their health and well-being at risk.

Mental Health

Certain mental health conditions can contribute to risk-taking behaviors. For example, individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are more likely to engage in risky behaviors because they tend to be more impulsive. People with bipolar disorder are also more likely to take risks during manic and hypomanic episodes.

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse is in and of itself a risky behavior, but using alcohol and other substances can also contribute to additional risk-taking. For example, research indicates that people with alcohol dependence engage in more high-risk behaviors, especially after bouts of heavy drinking, due to both impulsivity and sensation seeking.

Risk-Taking Examples

Risk-taking behavior can include a range of actions. Some carry more serious consequences than others and, in some cases, may involve the occurrence of more than one high-risk behavior at a time.

Examples of risk-taking behaviors that people may engage in include:

• Criminal activity such as stealing, vandalism, or trespassing
• Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or engaging in dangerous driving, such as street racing or texting while driving
• Engaging in extreme sports that have a high risk of injury or death
• Gambling, often betting more than they can afford to lose
• Getting into physical fights or altercations
• Having sex with strangers, or engaging in sex without using protection against sexually transmitted diseases or unplanned pregnancies
• Sexting or sharing sexually explicit content on social media apps
• Skipping school
• Tobacco use 

Even when risk-takers engage in widely practiced behaviors, such as drinking or smoking cigarettes, they put their lives at risk as deaths associated with these behaviors are higher than deaths associated with illicit drug use. Still, risk-takers tend to ignore the consequences of their behaviors.

Who Engages in Risk-Taking Behaviors?

There are a number of factors that can make it more likely that people will engage in risky behavior. Here are some of the demographics with higher rates, according to research.

Young Adults

Age can play a role in how likely a person is to engage in risky behaviors. While these behaviors are present throughout the lifespan, young adults are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors than older adults.

Some studies have found that these behaviors are the most prevalent in 19 to 29-year-olds. Others suggest that risk-taking behaviors peak in the teen years and decline with age, as people become more risk-averse.

The brain is still developing and maturing in the early years of life. As a result, teens and young adults are often more impulsive, more likely to take risks, and less likely to consider the consequences.

Males

A person’s biological sex may also have an impact on whether they engage in risk-taking behavior. Some research indicates that males are more likely to be risk-takers than females. This difference may be due to having higher levels of testosterone.

Social factors, like the pressure to conform to gender norms, can also play a role. For example, males might feel pressure to take risks to appear “masculine” while females might feel pressure to avoid risk-taking to appear “feminine.”

People With Certain Genes

Genetics appear to play a role in risk-taking behaviors as well. Some researchers have identified certain genes that tend to be more present in individuals who engage in risky behaviors.

Other studies have made this connection by studying the genes of twins. According to one piece of research, financial risk-taking was determined to be roughly 29% inherited while safety-related risk-taking had a 55% heritability rate.

Impulsive and Adventurous Personalities

Certain personality traits may also influence risk-taking behaviors. For example, people who are more impulsive, sensation-seeking, or adventurous are more likely to take risks. Additionally, if a person’s Big 5 personality traits change, their level of engagement in risky behaviors tends to change as well.

Individuals With Mental Health Conditions

Certain mental health conditions may also contribute to an increased risk for risk-taking. One is post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A study of 234 military veterans with PTSD and mild traumatic brain injury found that these individuals were more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior, especially when in a negative state.

According to the study, this is due in part to veterans with PTSD often being more impulsive. They also tend to be more sensation-seeking, feel a sense of invincibility, and are prone to a higher level of boredom.

Getting Help for Risky Behaviors

If we find ourselves engaging in risky behaviors such as drug abuse, unprotected sex, or gambling, it’s time to get help. Risk-taking behavior can cause us physical harm, such as by contracting a sexually transmitted infection, or lead to financial losses that we can’t recover from without some heavy lifting. 

Working with a psychotherapist can help address the underlying causes that might be contributing to risk-taking behaviors. Support groups can provide access to others who are going through similar experiences.

Social support is also important. Consider confiding in a close friend or family member who can reinforce accountability when the urge to engage in risky behaviors strikes. 

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a dual-process, or two-fold, model of persuasion that describes how people manage information. It was originated by Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo in the 1980s.

The ELM suggests there are two routes to persuasion.

First is the central route, which involves the motivated processing and evaluation of messages, or the peripheral route, which involves more superficial aspects of the message. The central route involves thinking about the merits of the argument and weighing the pros and cons. Persuasion via the central route leads to long-lasting change.

Second it the peripheral route, which involves other elements of the argument, such as how attractive the speaker is or their success at articulating the message, not the merits of the argument itself.

Two Routes to Change Someone’s Mind

Though the two routes to persuasion suggest there are only two ways to evaluate a message, the theory incorporates the notion of elaboration likelihood, or the likelihood that message receivers are to elaborate on a message. As a result, message receivers actually move along an elaboration continuum from expending considerable effort elaborating on a message to expending no effort on elaboration.

A person may occupy various points in between the two ends of the spectrum, however.. In other words, people may occupy the central route or the peripheral route exclusively, but may also be somewhere in the middle, where the two are combined.

The Central Route to Persuasion

The central route to persuasion is used when elaboration is high. When we think about the merits of an argument, focus on the logic and quality of what’s being said, and carefully weigh the pros and cons of an argument we are persuaded through the central route. This route, according to Avigail Lev, PsyD, founder and director of the Bay Area CBT Center, “involves deep thinking and understanding of the argument.”

This route is used when motivation and ability are high. When people are persuaded through the central route, attitudes are particularly strong.

The Peripheral Route to Persuasion

The peripheral route to persuasion is used when elaboration is low. As elaboration gets lower, we’re more likely to use peripheral cues, such as rules of thumb or the way something looks, in the persuasion process.

That is, we’re influenced by cues “that don’t really have much to do with the argument itself,” says Lev, “like how attractive the speaker is or how confidently they speak, rather than what they’re actually saying.” This creates attitude change that tends not to last.

This route may not seem as good as the central route, however it exists for a valuable reason: it would be impossible to carefully think through every decision that presents itself to us. Not every decision is equally important, and using the peripheral route for decisions that aren’t as important frees up mental space for when a decision must be considered more carefully.

Real-World Examples and Applications of the ELM

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health officials and pundits used a variety of tactics to persuade people to, for instance, wear masks consistently. When health officials used appeals that matched the individual’s values—and those values are important to the individual—they would wear a mask. An example of this might be appealing to the desire to protect vulnerable children or elderly relatives.

However, when using appeals that don’t match the individual’s values, that person would be unlikely to wear a mask. An example of this might be insisting that wearing a mask is actually fashionable.

If, however, the values health officials argue for are unimportant to the individual, they may wear a mask but their willingness to do so may not last long. Because this uses the peripheral route, one’s attitude may be easily persuaded to be against masking if the individual hears another, better argument.

While there is a reason for the peripheral route of persuasion, today there is so much information, we’re picking the peripheral route more and more. “In today’s world,” argues Lev, “with social media, pundits, and a lot of division in the country, it’s getting harder and harder to take that central route.”

Criticisms and Limitations of the Model

There are several criticisms and limitations of the ELM. First the descriptive nature of the model has been critiqued, especially for not clearly articulating its hypothesized processes. This lack of a clear and consistent framework make it very difficult to test and falsify the ELM.

Second, since its introduction in 1983, the elaboration continuum, which claims that the central route and the peripheral route are two sides in a continuum of elaboration, hasn’t undergone comprehensive testing.

Third, the dual-path nature of the model has been an issue since the ELM was first introduced. Specifically, the fact that central and peripheral processing does not appear to take place at the same time in the ELM has led to criticisms and the introduction of other models that account for both routes being used simultaneously.

Finally, mediating variables in the ELM remain an issue. For instance, the variable of affect has been shown to be used in both the central and peripheral route, yet much research still views affect as solely the domain of the peripheral route.

What role do genetic and environmental influences play in determining intelligence? This question has been one of the most controversial topics throughout the history of psychology and remains a hot topic of debate to this day.

In addition to disagreements about the basic nature of intelligence, psychologists have spent a great amount of time and energy debating the various influences on individual intelligence. The debate focuses on one of the major questions in psychology: Which is more important—nature or nurture?

Do Genetics or Intelligence Play a Bigger Role in Determining Intelligence?

Today, psychologists recognize that both genetics and the environment play a role in determining intelligence.

It now becomes a matter of determining exactly how much of an influence each factor has.

One important thing to note about the genetics of intelligence is that it is not controlled by a single “intelligence gene.” Instead, it is the result of complex interactions between many genes (or polygenic). Next, it is important to note that genetics and the environment interact to determine exactly how inherited genes are expressed, a concept known as epigenetics.

For example, if a person has tall parents, it is likely that the individual will also grow to be tall. However, the exact height the person reaches can be influenced by environmental factors such as nutrition and disease.

A child may be born with genes for exceptional brightness, but if that child grows up in a deprived environment where they are malnourished and lack access to educational opportunities, they may not score well on measures of IQ.

What Kind of Intelligence Do You Have? Try Our Quiz

If you’re curious about which type of multiple intelligence style you have, our fast and free quiz can help you learn more about what makes you tick.

This quiz was reviewed by Amy Morin, LCSW.

Evidence of Genetic Influences on Intelligence

All traits are heritable, with intelligence being one of the most researched. If genetics were the only factor to consider when predicting intelligence, we would expect identical twins to have identical IQ scores. The research shows:

• Studies show that IQ scores of identical twins are strongly correlated, and are more similar than those of fraternal twins. Identical twins’ test scores also correlate highly when given assessments that measure reading, mathematics, and language skills.
• Siblings who were raised together in the same environment have more similar IQs than those of unrelated adopted children who were brought up in the same household.

In addition to inherited characteristics, other biological factors such as maternal age, prenatal exposure to harmful substances, and prenatal malnutrition may also influence intelligence.

Evidence of Environmental Influences on Intelligence

Historically, some theorists believed humans are born with a blank slate, and capable of becoming any type of person with any type of career, influence, and social status. The research shows:

• Identical twins who were raised separately have less similar IQs than those of identical twins who grew up in the same household.
• School attendance has an impact on IQ scores.
• Children who were breastfed for 12 months or longer had a higher IQ (about 3.7 points) at age 30.
• Vitamin and nutrient deficiencies are linked with lower IQ.

In one example, studies have found that first-born children tend to have higher IQs than later-born siblings. Why? Many experts believe that this is because first-born children receive more attention from their parents. Research also suggests that parents expect older children to perform better on a variety of tasks, whereas later-born siblings face less task-focused expectations.

The ethyl glucuronide (EtG) test is widely used to detect the presence in the urine of ethyl glucuronide. EtG is a breakdown product of ethanol, the intoxicating agent in alcohol. The test can also screen for EtG in the blood, hair, and nails, but the urine test is the most widely used. The main purpose of the EtG test is to document​ alcohol abstinence.

Learn why the EtG test is used, how accurate it is, and the truth behind EtG alcohol test facts and myths.

EtG Test Uses

The EtG test is used to detect alcohol abstinence in situations that do not allow drinking. These may include:

• Alcohol treatment programs
• Court cases (for example, child custody)
• DUI or DWI programs
• Liver transplant patients
• Probation programs
• Professional monitoring programs (for example, airline pilots, healthcare professionals, attorneys)
• Schools or the military

One of the primary benefits of an EtG test, compared to blood or breath alcohol tests, is that EtG can be detected longer in the urine than in blood or breath.

Detection Time Frame

The EtG test strips are quite sensitive and can detect even low levels of EtG in the urine. (Remember, the test measures EtG specifically—not alcohol.) The test can confirm that there has been alcohol in the body up to five days after consumption.

EtG Test Accuracy

There are some limitations to this test. The EtG test strips can produce a positive result from exposure to the alcohol that’s present in many daily use products. Environmental or home products that contain alcohol include:

• Aftershave
• Breath sprays
• Cleaning products
• Cosmetics
• Foods prepared with or flavored with alcohol
• Hair dye
• Hand sanitizers
• Hygiene products like antiperspirant
• Mouthwashes

There are hundreds of household products that contain ethanol, according to the Consumer Product Information Database, and exposure to them could possibly lead to a false positive on the EtG test.

But the EtG test strips accurately detect when a person has recently consumed alcohol 70% or more of the time. One study showed that for moderate to heavy drinking, this number jumps to 85%.

EtG Test Results

The following cutoff values have been proposed for test results.

High Positive

A “high” positive EtG test (for example, >1,000ng/mL) may indicate:

• Heavy drinking on the same day or the previous day
• Light drinking on the same day as the test

Low Positive

A “low” positive EtG test (for example, 500 to 1,000ng/mL) may indicate:

• Heavy drinking within the last one to three days
• Light drinking within the last 24 hours
• Recent intense exposure to environmental products containing alcohol (within the last 24 hours)

Very Low Positive

“Very low” positive EtG test (for example, 100 to 500 ng/mL) may indicate:

• Heavy drinking within the last one to three days
• Light drinking within the last 12 to 36 hours
• Recent exposure to environmental products containing alcohol

How EtG Is Eliminated From the Body

EtG is eliminated from the body over time after you drink water and other fluids that flush it out when you urinate. Although drinking water does help flush EtG out of your system, it’s a myth that you can use this method to reliably manipulate drug test results.

Research has suggested that by measuring urinary creatinine (a chemical compound and waste product of urine), health professionals can identify when a urine sample has been diluted or when someone tried to disguise their EtG levels by drinking a lot of water.

It’s also a myth that one drink won’t show up on the EtG test. Whether the test detects one drink depends on many factors, like how recently you drank, your metabolism, and the alcohol percentage of your drink. But if you drank any alcohol in the past five days, there is a high chance the EtG test will detect it.

Remember, EtG tests don’t measure the number of drinks you had. Its job is to indicate whether you’ve had any alcohol at all—not the specific amount.

The SUDs Rating Scale, or Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDs) as it is officially known, is used to measure the intensity of distress or nervousness in people with social anxiety. The SUDs is a self-assessment tool rated on a scale from 0 to 100.

The SUDs is a subjective tool often used by therapists and healthcare providers to evaluate patient progress and the success of treatment plans. When used this way, it is used regularly throughout treatment to gauge different areas of distress or disturbance that require additional work.

SUDs Rating Process

A common technique in cognitive therapy is using the SUDs tool to gauge distress or emotional state. Guidelines for the SUDs include rating the intensity of your anxiety as it is experienced in the moment verus while tightening or tensing of the body.

Below is a simplified version of the scale with different guide points:

Precise accuracy of measurement is not important. Rather, the SUDs is a broad guide to give your therapist an idea of what you are experiencing.

For many, it can be difficult to share the intensity of what you are feeling. In this way, the SUDs give you a simple way to express the severity of your emotions. It is especially important to share your SUDs scale rating with your therapist because it reflects how you feel, rather than how someone else interprets your fear or anxiety.

It is common for those with social anxiety to feel emotions and fears more intensely than others. What could be a minor incident to someone else can feel like a catastrophe to you. Social anxiety influences your perspective and how you view yourself and those around you. Sharing how you feel based on the SUDs can help therapists and healthcare providers better understand how social anxiety may be affecting you.

SUDs and Therapy

Use of the SUDs can help you and your therapist track improvements or setbacks in treatment. Be sure to complete the scale honestly to allow your therapist to appropriately judge which treatment methods are working and which are not.

Based on your SUDs assessment, your therapist may have you work through techniques such as disputation, during which you recognize irrational thoughts and work to replace them with more rational ways of looking at situations.

This and other cognitive skills are learned in therapy, but continue to develop as you begin to apply them to your daily routine. You may find that working through issues with cognitive strategies improves your SUDs rating.