What Drives Risky Behavior in ADHD: Insensitivity to its Risk or Fascination with its Potential Benefits?

Objective: ADHD is linked to increased engagement in risky behavior (ERB). Recent work suggests that this link is mediated by the perceived benefits of the behaviors, but not by the perceived risks or the attitudes toward the risks. Here we examine this hypothesis, using the psychological risk-return and psychometric multidimensional measurement models.

ADHD Is Associated With a Widespread Pattern of Risky Behavior Across Activity Domains.

ADHD has been linked to higher engagement in risky behaviors in circumscribed domains such as dangerous driving, substance abuse, and gambling. This study tests whether ADHD is associated with a pervasive tendency to engage in risky behavior across a spectrum of activities and domains, and whether this tendency is driven by comorbid disorders. A sample of 97 adults with ADHD and 103 typically developing controls completed a self-report questionnaire measuring the likelihood and frequency of engaging in a broad range of risky behaviors.

ADHD-associated risk taking is linked to exaggerated views of the benefits of positive outcomes.

Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often assumed to be associated with increased engagement in risk-taking behaviors. The current study sought to understand the mental processes underlying this association using a theory-driven behavioral economics perspective. Psychological risk-return models suggest that risk and benefit are inherently subjective, and risk taking is best understood as the interplay between cognitions and motivations regarding the benefits and risks of alternatives.

Agency and the construction of social preference: between inequality aversion and prosocial behavior.

The term social preference refers to decision makers' satisfaction with their own outcomes and those attained by comparable others. The present research was inspired by what appears to be a discrepancy in the literature on social preferences--specifically, between a class of studies demonstrating people's concern with inequality and others documenting their motivation to increase social welfare. The authors propose a theoretical framework to account for this puzzling difference.

Spurious consensus and opinion revision: why might people be more confident in their less accurate judgments?

In the interest of improving their decision making, individuals revise their opinions on the basis of samples of opinions obtained from others. However, such a revision process may lead decision makers to experience greater confidence in their less accurate judgments. The authors theorize that people tend to underestimate the informative value of independently drawn opinions, if these appear to conflict with one another, yet place some confidence even in the spurious consensus, which may arise when opinions are sampled interdependently.