Editorial A research agenda for adolescent risk-taking: where do we go from here? SUSAN MOORE AND JEFFREY PARSONS It is timely that this special issue comes quite soon after the publication of an important book edited by Richard Jessor (1998), New Perspectives on Adolescent Risk Behavior , which sets a research agenda for the study of adolescent risk-taking. In a concluding chapter, research priorities in the area are summed up by Silbereisen. He argues we should: (1) study adolescents as whole persons, emphasizing complexes of risk-related behaviours rather than concentrating on single risks; (2) isolate the different developmental pathways, and their risk-related characteristics, which are linked with long-term as opposed to short-term risk- taking; (3) study the biological underpinnings of risk behaviour and their interactions with other biopsychosocial processes; and (4) pay more attention to context, in particular, move beyond the study of adolescent risk in developed western nations to look at commonalities and differences in other cultures. Jessor himself emphasizes the complexity of the risk issues; for example, he stresses multicausality of risk and warns against the oversimplification implied in the search for single causes of risk-taking. He also asserts his ``renewed respect for developmental processes'', partly because of several studies which show that most young risk-takers do not ``fall by the wayside'' in later life. Or as Hagan (1998) puts it in another of the book's chapters, risk factors do not necessarily lead to poor life course capitalization. Thus longitudinal studies of ``normative transgressions'' are deemed important, as is longitudinal research among highly vulnerable adolescent subpopulations such as young people in poverty. How do these priorities relate to the ones we set for this special issue of the Journal of Adolescence, and to what extent have our contributors begun the fulfilment of this agenda? In our original call for papers, we requested empirical and theoretical articles addressing topics which extended the conceptualization of adolescent risk-taking. Some suggestions as to how this might occur were through analysis of: (1) the meaning of risk-taking, and its conception as both a positive (socially approved) and negative (deviant) behaviour; (2) the role of perceived benefits (attractions) and costs (dangers) of risky behaviour, and the implications of this role for interventions designed to alter the course of adolescent risk-taking; (3) the extent to which predictors of risky behaviour are generalizable across risks; and (4) a consideration of whether adolescent risk-taking forms part of a broader personality trait, such as sensation-seeking. Studies which employed innovative methodologies, such as qualitative studies, were particularly invited. The emphasis was to be on further conceptualization of risk-taking, rather than a cataloguing of risk behaviours or epidemiological-type studies of risk activity. In terms of the meaning of risk-taking, it is interesting that the Jessor book presents a definition of risk behaviours which greatly widens their scope to include risk factors in development (for example, poverty). Indeed, Jessor defines risk-taking itself as a risk factor in development. This may or may not prove useful to researchers searching for ways to put some 0140-1971/00/040371+06 $35Á00/0 # 2000 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents Journal of Adolescence 2000, 23, 371±376 doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0325, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on