Cited by 85Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Risky decision making in adults with ADHD

Matthies, S., Philipsen, A., Svaldi, J.·2012·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and objectives Risky decision making and disadvantageous choices constitute core characteristics of patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Consequences include negative psychosocial and health-related outcomes. However, risky decision making and its interrelations with emotional states in ADHD are poorly understood. Therefore, the authors investigated risky decision making without and after boredom induction in adults with and without ADHD.Methods In study 1, ADHD patients (n = 15) and age/education matched controls (CG; n = 16) were compared on the Game of Dice Task (GDT), an established task measuring decision making in unambiguous situations. In study 2, ADHD patients (n = 14) and CG (n = 13) underwent boredom induction prior to the GDT.Results In study 1, ADHD patients selected the disadvantageous alternatives significantly more often than CG. In study 2, no significant group differences were found due to an increase in risky decision making in CG following the boredom induction.Limitations Even if severity of depression did not affect our results, it may be necessary to compare GDT responses in ADHD patients with and without current depression.Conclusions Risk as a motor of disadvantageous decision making needs to be taken into account in therapeutic contexts as a maintenance factor of dysfunctional behaviour. The findings of study 2 are in line with postulated alterations of emotional state adjustment in ADHD. The link between decisions making and emotional regulation in ADHD needs further attention in research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.02.002

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of three studies assessing the GDT in adults with ADHD, only one found that adults with ADHD performed in a more risky fashion than NCs.

    “Of the three studies assessing the GDT in adults with ADHD [67], [68], only one study found that adults with ADHD performed in a more risky fashion than the NCs [67] (study 1).”
  • In the positive GDT study, adults with ADHD stayed less often with a safe option after positive feedback, and stayed more often with a risky option after negative feedback in comparison to NCs.

    “In that the adults with ADHD stayed less often with a safe option after positive feedback, and stayed more often with a risky option after negative feedback in comparison to the NCs.”
  • In the first Matthies et al. study, adults with ADHD compared to NCs stayed less often with a safe option after positive feedback and stayed more often with a risky option after negative feedback.

    “In their first study, Matthies et al. [67)] (study 1 found that adults with ADHD compared to NCs stayed less often with a safe option after positive feedback and stayed more often with a risky option after negative feedback.”
  • In the second GDT study with boredom induction, there was no difference between adults with ADHD and NCs in net score (Cohen's d = 0.70) or feedback use.

    “In contrast to the first study [67] (study 1), this study did not find any difference between adults with ADHD and the NCs in net score (Cohen’s d = 0.70) or feedback use.”
  • While one study observed (33%) increased risky behavior in adults with ADHD on the GDT, the other two studies failed to find any overall group differences between adults with ADHD and NCs.

    “While one study observed (1/3 = 33%) increased risky behavior in adults with ADHD [67] (study 1), the other two studies failed to find any overall group differences between adults with ADHD and NCs.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matthies, S., Philipsen, A., & Svaldi, J.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Matthies, S.
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
938-946
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1974370022
Cited by
85
References
76
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, risky decision making, emotion regulation, Game of Dice Task, adult ADHD, emotional state
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Boredom, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Risk-Taking, Case-Control Studies, Feedback, Psychological, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review