Additionally, we point to two implications of this research for clinical intervention: first, recognizing the integration of emotionality and rash action may clarify for clinicians the nature of some individuals’ dispositions to engage in risky behaviors. Second, interventions for those who participate in risky behaviors in response to extreme emotional states will likely differ from interventions for those who do so to seek new stimulation. In order to effectively treat individuals who engage in risky behaviors, a clinician must understand how emotions can lead to rash and ill-advised action. Treating such an individual for risk-taking without a focus on how emotion plays a role will be incomplete and will likely not yield therapeutic gains.
