The number of studies and theoretical contributions on emotion regulation has grown rapidly. In this article we describe the concept of flexible emotion regulation. We argue that the effectiveness of specific emotion regulation strategies depends on the interaction of the features of a situation and personality characteristics of the individual regulating his/her emotions. We review a few recent theoretical contributions and studies that have attempted to capture some aspects of the flexibility of emotion regulation rather than distinguish between overly adaptive and maladaptive strategies. Moreover, we discuss potential personality determinants of effectiveness of particular regulatory strategies. We claim that further studies should address the interaction of situational and dispositional factors in shaping the effectiveness of particular emotion regulation strategies. So far, situational and personality determinants have been studied rather separately.

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Abdellaoui, 2000;Gonzalez & Wu, 1999;Prelec, 1998;Tversky & Wakker, 1995;Wakker, 2003). Permanent repository linkThe nonlinear impact of probability on decisions is exemplified by the fourfold pattern of risk preferences predicted by Cumulative prospect theory (Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). Thus, because people overweight small probabilities, both low probability gains and low probability losses loom large relative to certain payoffs with the same expected value. This results in risk seeking for gains and risk aversion for losses at low probability -for example, people are tempted to buy lottery tickets (seeking unlikely gains) and insurance (attempting to avoid unlikely losses). Also, as people underweight moderate and large probabilities, they show a contrasting risk aversion for high probability gains and risk seeking for high probability losses compared to certain payoffs with the same expected value. Risky Decision-Making and PrecautionsTversky & Kahneman's (1992) studies reporting under-and over-weighting of probability measured respondents' binary choices between monetary gambles.However, there is some reason to believe that people's choices about monetary gambles may not correspond with their preponderance for risk in situations where they need to consider decisions regarding other kinds of risks. Several studies have reported increased attractiveness of decision prospects when framed as insurance decisions; specifically, there is evidence for a context effect in which prospects presented in an insurance context are judged with greater risk aversion than mathematically identical choices presented as standard gambles (Connor, 1996; EXAGGERATED RISK 5 Hershey & Schoemaker, 1980;Schoemaker & Kunreuther, 1979;Slovic, Fischhoff, Lichtenstein, Corrigan & Combs, 1977). This finding has prompted the suggestion that people have a relatively favorable attitude towards insurance because, unlike gambling, insurance is viewed as an investment as well as a means of risk reduction (Slovic, Fischhoff & Lichtenstein, 1987).Given the suggestion that there may be differences in people's decision behavior as a function of the type of risks they may be contemplating, we propose that there is a need to be sensitive to possibly different psychological types of risky decision.Accordingly, we identify and define precautionary decisions and behavior as those occasions where people aim to minimize or avoid risks by taking protective actions and where the benefits of taking precautions exemplify risk-averse behavior (Baron et al., 2000;Hershey & Schoemaker, 1980). Protective behavior and decisions in the face of risk have been the subject of a number of studies (e.g., Baron, Hershey & Kunreuther, 2000;Huber & Huber, 2008;Johnson, Hershey, Meszaros & Kunreuther, 1993;Kunreuther, 2001;Slovic et al., 1987;Wakker, Thaler & Tversky, 1997) and yet, to our knowledge, no study has attempted to asses the probability-...

Financial risky decisions and evaluations pervade many human everyday activities. Scientific research in such decision-making typically explores the influence of socio-economic and cognitive factors on financial behavior. However, very little research has explored the holistic influence of contextual, emotional, and hormonal factors on preferences for risk in insurance and investment behaviors. Accordingly, the goal of this review article is to address the complexity of individual risky behavior and its underlying psychological factors, as well as to critically examine current regulations on financial behavior.

A quantitative behavioural online study examined a set of hazards that correspond with security-and privacy settings of the major global online social network (Facebook). These settings concern access to a user's account and access to the user's shared information (both security) as well as regulation of the user's information-sharing and user's regulation of others' information-sharing in relation to the user (both privacy). We measured 201 non-student UK users' perceptions of risk and other risk dimensions, and precautionary behaviour. First, perceptions of risk and dread were highest and precautionary behaviour was most common for hazards related to users' regulation of information-sharing. Other hazards were perceived as less risky and less precaution was taken against these, even though they can lead to breaches of users' security or privacy. Second, consistent with existing theory, significant predictors of perceived risk were attitude towards sharing information on Facebook, dread, voluntariness, catastrophic potential and Internet experience; and significant predictors of precautionary behaviour were perceived risk, control, voluntariness and Internet experience. Methodological implications emphasise the need for non-aggregated analysis and practical implications emphasise interventions to promote safe online social-network use.

We investigated whether financial risk preferences are dependent on the financial domain (i.e., the context) in which the risky choice options are presented. Previous studies have demonstrated that risk attitudes change when gambles are framed as gains, losses, or as insurance. Our study explores this directly by offering choices between identical gambles, framed in terms of seven financial domains. Three factors were extracted, explaining 68.6% of the variance: Factor 1 (Positive)-opportunity to win, pension provision, and job salary change; Factor 2 (Positive-Complex)-investments and mortgage buying; Factor 3 (Negative)-possibility of loss and insurance. Inspection of the solution revealed context effects on risk perceptions across the seven scenarios. We also found that the commonly accepted assumption that women are more risk averse cannot be confirmed with the context structure suggested in this research; however, it is acknowledged that in the students' population the variance across genders might be considerably less. These results suggest that our financial risk attitude measures may be tapping into a stable aspect of "context dependence" of relevance to real-world decision making.