4.5 Article

A risk-taking set in a novel task among adolescents with serious conduct and substance problems

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/01.chi.0000188893.60551.31

关键词

conduct disorder; impulsivity; drug dependence

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R37 DA009842, DA 014699, DA 009842, DA 012845, R01 DA012845, P60 DA011015, DA 011015, R01 DA009842] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Adolescent patients' conduct disorder and substance use disorder symptoms are risky behaviors with unpredictable rewards and punishments. The authors asked whether such youths also take excessive risks in new situations without prior learning, peer pressure, or intoxication. Method: Subjects were 20 adolescent patients in a program treating conduct disorder and substance use disorder and 20 controls. All were substance free >= 7 days; underwent substance-related, psychological, and social assessments; and performed the Balloon Analogue Risk Task: mouse presses inflated a computerized balloon image, each press earning 1 cent. The 30 balloons popped at unpredictable sizes; earnings from popped balloons were lost. A Collect response saved current earnings and advanced to the next balloon. Results: Mean number of inflating presses: patients, 1021 and controls, 705 (p = .001); group differences were stable from the task's beginning. Mean inflating presses before a collect response: patients, 38.6 and controls, 24.0 (p = .0005). Mean balloons popped: patients, 9.8 and controls, 6.3 (p = .001). Patients (versus controls) reported more aggressiveness and substance use and perceived less risk from substances. Patients' responses were significantly slower than those of controls. Conclusions: From the beginning of this novel task, conduct disorder and substance use disorder patients (compared with controls) took more risks, indicating an initial risk-taking propensity, although patients' slower responses argued against impulsive, thoughtless behavior.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据