Convergence of Direct, Indirect, and Objective Risk-Taking Measures in Gambling

Abstract

Based on dual-process models, we assumed that risk taking depends on implicit and explicit risk attitudes and risk propensity. Specifically, we predicted that the convergence between these indicators would depend on the impulsiveness versus reflectiveness of risk behavior. Two objective personality tests (OPTs) of risk taking that measure risk behavior in standardized situations were employed. We predicted that the impulsive OPT would depend more on implicit risk dispositions. The reverse effect pattern was expected for the reflective OPT. Next, we expected that self-control would amplify the weight of explicit dispositions and attenuate that of implicit dispositions. At Time 1, two direct questionnaire measures of explicit risk proneness, three indirect measures of implicit risk proneness, and a self-control measure were administered. At Time 2, participants participated in a reflective and an impulsive gambling OPT. The assumed pattern of effects was obtained. We conclude with a discussion of future research avenues.

Using the Implicit Association Test to Assess Risk Propensity Self–Concept: Analysis of Its Predictive Validity on A Risk–Taking Behaviour in A Natural Setting

“…On the other hand, in a more recent study, Dislich et al () analysed the convergence between several direct, indirect and objective risk‐taking measures in gambling. These authors developed a SC‐IAT similar to Ronay and Kim's IRTs (), which assessed associations of the attributes ‘Gain’ versus ‘Loss’ with the category ‘Gambling’.…”

“…These authors developed a SC‐IAT similar to Ronay and Kim's IRTs (), which assessed associations of the attributes ‘Gain’ versus ‘Loss’ with the category ‘Gambling’. Most relevant to the present work, Dislich et al () also developed an IAT to indirectly assess the self‐concept of being a risk‐prone person. In their IAT‐RP, they used the categories ‘Me’ versus ‘Other’, and ‘Risky’ versus ‘Secure’.…”

“…In their IAT‐RP, they used the categories ‘Me’ versus ‘Other’, and ‘Risky’ versus ‘Secure’. Interestingly, Dislich et al () found their SC‐IAT correlated with what was considered an impulsive OPT (i.e. the BART, Lejuez et al, ), whereas direct measures (e.g.…”

“…We propose that IAT‐RPSC has differences and advantages over existing measurement instruments on the basis of IATs for several reasons. First, the IAT‐RPSC differs from Ronay and Kim's IRTs () and Dislich et al SC‐IAT () because the IAT‐RPSC is not a risk attitude measurement instrument. The IRTs and the SC‐IAT arguably provide more attitudinal measures because they include ‘Gain’ versus ‘Loss’ as attribute categories, and these categories may be interpreted as evaluative categories with a clear valence (positive vs. negative).…”

“…Thus, researchers have developed a multitude of indirect measurement procedures for different constructs, such as attitudes, stereotypes, self‐esteem or self‐concept (see Petty, Fazio, & Briñol, ), as well as for RP (e.g. the Dislich, Zinkernagel, Ortner, & Schmitt's, , Implicit Association Test (IAT) for assessing RP, IAT‐RP). At the same time, other instruments that are not based on individuals' self‐report have also been developed to overcome the limitations of self‐report measures, such as the objective performance tests (OPTs) [e.g.…”