How much risk can you stomach? Individual differences in the tolerance of perceived risk across gender and risk domain

Abstract

Research within the psychological risk–return framework, namely, using the Domain‐Specific Risk‐Taking scale, has led to a conclusion that risk attitude—measured as an individual's sensitivity to the risk they perceive—is stable across people (e.g., gender) and domains (e.g., recreational, social, financial, & health). Risk taking differences across gender and domain have been interpreted in terms of differences in the magnitude of risk perceived (and expected benefit). Yet the Domain‐Specific Risk‐Taking scale items, contrived by researchers rather than decision makers themselves, may have failed to detect differences in perceived risk attitude by failing to adequately represent all combinations of risks and benefits across gender and domains. In Study 1, participants generated their own examples of activities, which we selected among in Studies 2 and 3 to construct a new scale representing various levels of perceived risk and expected benefit. Our findings reveal that women are more sensitive than men to risk they perceive (i.e., are less tolerant of risk) in the recreational, social, and financial domains but not in the health domain. Risk attitude also differed across domains, with participants tolerating more risk in some domains than in others. We conclude that gender and domain differences in risk taking stem partly from gender and domain differences in people's sensitivity to perceived risks. Our findings have theoretical implications for the psychological risk–return framework and bridge with other theoretical approaches, such as the expected utility framework. Our studies also provide a new scale for assessing differences in attitudes toward risk that overcomes shortcomings of existing scales.

Perceived vulnerability to COVID-19 infection from event attendance: Results from Louisiana, USA, two weeks preceding the national emergency declaration

“…with a significant jump in this perception compared to the first study day occurring at the 2 9 9 beginning of the second week of the study (March 9). National Likelihood that align with the previous literature, e.g., women perceive a national 3 0 2 public health crisis as more likely than men [23][24]. Other significant associations have no and national public health perceptions that we are unable to disentangle given the post-hoc nature those desiring to eat healthier have been exposed to wide-spread nutrition misinformation in the media, which has recently included unfounded claims that healthy eating or certain supplements…”

How people know their risk preference

“…In initial support of this notion, our coders—aged between 23 and 36—were equally accurate when inferring the preference of older respondents or those of the opposite gender. Given that people can agree on perceptions of risk 47 , 65 , as we found in our online rating study, they can also agree on what taking specific risks implies for a person’s risk preferences. Regarding the measurement of stated preferences, this interpretation leads to a more optimistic conclusion than does the widespread idea that people always anchor themselves to a social reference group (which would change according to age, location, and time).…”

“…Gender and age differences in risk perception and conception (i.e., focusing on favourable or unfavourable outcomes 64 ) might raise doubt that there is a common denominator that allows for comparing stated risk preferences across age groups and genders. We suggest the opposite: Risk perception and conception are cues to people’s risk preference too 64 , 65 . In initial support of this notion, our coders—aged between 23 and 36—were equally accurate when inferring the preference of older respondents or those of the opposite gender.…”

How people know their risk preference

“…We think it is actually the other way around: Risk perception and conception are cues to people's risk preference too. 61,62 In initial support of this notion, our coders-aged between 23 and 36-were equally accurate when inferring the preference of older respondents or those of the opposite gender. Given that people can agree on perceptions of risk, 45,62 as we found in our online sample, they can also agree on what taking specific risks implies for somebody's risk preferences.…”

“…61,62 In initial support of this notion, our coders-aged between 23 and 36-were equally accurate when inferring the preference of older respondents or those of the opposite gender. Given that people can agree on perceptions of risk, 45,62 as we found in our online sample, they can also agree on what taking specific risks implies for somebody's risk preferences. This interpretation leads to a more optimistic conclusion than the widespread idea that people always anchor themselves to a social reference group (which would change according to age, location, and time).…”