Heterogeneous Patterns of Positive and Negative Risk‐Taking in Chinese Adolescents: Understanding the Multidimensional Adaptive Value of Positive Risk‐Taking

ABSTRACT Adolescent risk‐taking behaviors, encompassing both positive and negative dimensions, play a pivotal role in shaping psychosocial adaptation. As prior research has predominantly adopted variable‐centered approaches, the heterogeneity patterns of risk‐taking behaviors and their differential associations with multidimensional adaptation remain underexplored, particularly in non‐western contexts. This study employed a person‐centered approach to identify distinct classes of positive and negative risk‐taking behaviors among Chinese adolescents and examined their linkages with multidimensional adaptations. A sample of 2261 adolescents ( M age = 12.61, SD age = 0.80, 43.83% girls) completed measures assessing both positive and negative risk‐taking behaviors, alongside adaptation outcomes (emotional, academic, interpersonal). Latent class analysis identified four distinct risk‐taking classes: low risk‐taking actors (18.53%, minimal engagement in both behaviors), high risk‐taking actors (6.55%, elevated dual‐domain involvement), positive risk‐taking actors (51.92%, high positive/low negative), and mixed risk‐taking actors (23.00%, high positive/moderate negative). Regression mixture modeling demonstrated that positive risk‐taking actors exhibited optimal adaptation, characterized by the highest life satisfaction, academic engagement, and performance, alongside lower levels of depressive/anxiety symptoms, as well as minimal cyberbullying. Conversely, high risk‐taking actors and mixed risk‐taking actors displayed heightened psychopathology, poorer academic outcomes, and increased cybervictimization/cyberbullying. Low risk‐taking actors , while protected from emotional distress, reported suboptimal life satisfaction and academic performance. These findings underscore the dual nature of adolescent risk‐taking: positive risk‐taking behaviors foster holistic adaptation, whereas negative risk‐taking behaviors exacerbate maladjustment, even when they coexist with positive ones. Thus, this study advances theoretical models of adolescent risk‐taking behaviors, challenges monolithic “risk‐as‐pathology” frameworks, and advocates for developmentally tailored interventions that amplify positive risk‐taking while mitigating negative risk‐taking.