Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits

Frey, Renato; Pedroni, Andreas; Mata, Rui; Rieskamp, Jörg; Hertwig, Ralph

doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701381

Cited by 431 publications

(595 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(153 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

506

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, when not specifically controlling the order of balloons (i.e., when administering a randomized order of balloons), this could strongly and differentially influence participants' behavior in the task and thus lead to attenuated correlations with other measures (e.g., smoking status). The data of Frey et al () support this idea: There, the explosion points were randomized between participants, and as Figure shows, the adjusted BART scores in this dataset were associated with participants' experience in the first trial (i.e., larger adjusted BART scores; this analysis excludes participants who did not experience an explosion in the first trial).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Adjusted Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) score as a function of the size at which the balloon exploded in Trial 1 (i.e., the first experienced explosion point; data from the Basel‐Berlin Risk Study; Frey et al, ; Pedroni et al, ). This analysis only includes participants who actually experienced an explosion in the first trial (i.e., 765 of all 1,507 participants).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also included two personality measures to capture sensation seeking: the Zuckerman Sensation‐Seeking Scale V (Zuckerman, ) and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (Barratt, ). These two personality characteristics have repeatedly been shown to be correlated with real‐life risk‐taking behavior in various domains such as drug use, financial decisions, and health decisions including smoking (see Frey, Pedroni, Mata, Rieskamp, & Hertwig, ; Lauriola et al, , for a review). Both measures were also included in the original study of Lejuez et al ().…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mapping risk perceptions in dynamic risk‐taking environments

Schürmann

Frey

Pleskac

2018

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk‐taking behavior is rarely a single action made in isolation but is often repeated and dynamic. Yet the role that risk perceptions play in risk taking have often been studied using descriptions of isolated single‐shot activities. To better understand the link between risk perceptions and risk‐taking behavior, we investigated risk perception in a dynamic choice environment, the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). In the BART, participants repeatedly inflate a virtual balloon earning points if the balloon does not explode. Across two studies, we measured risk perceptions by asking people to estimate the probability that the balloon would explode at different levels of inflation. Our results show that the probability ratings deviate both from the actual probabilities of an explosion and from those predicted by the most successful cognitive model of the BART. Yet the probability estimates correlated with the actual choice behavior. Moreover, we found that the very first experience in the BART was a critical factor in determining the perceptions of the risks in the task, and in turn subsequent risk‐taking behavior. Taken together, the results help reveal the critical role that risk perceptions play in risky behavior and potentially can be used to improve our ability to identify real‐world risk takers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mapping risk perceptions in dynamic risk‐taking environments

Schürmann

Frey

Pleskac

2018

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding suggests that domain specificity in perceptions of risks and benefits may have been exaggerated—in terms of dissociations across risk domains—in previous studies with the DOSPERT. Recently, researchers have questioned the extent of domain specificity in risk taking behavior (Frey, Pedroni, Mata, Rieskamp, & Hertwig, ; Highhouse et al, ; Zhang, Foster, & McKenna, ). Frey et al () assessed individual differences in risk taking across 39 measures of risk preference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, researchers have questioned the extent of domain specificity in risk taking behavior (Frey, Pedroni, Mata, Rieskamp, & Hertwig, ; Highhouse et al, ; Zhang, Foster, & McKenna, ). Frey et al () assessed individual differences in risk taking across 39 measures of risk preference. Their analysis revealed evidence of a general trait in risk preference across measures in addition to domain‐specific risk taking tendencies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Rolison

Shenton

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Computational Markers of Risky Decision-making for Identification of Temporal Windows of Vulnerability to Opioid Use in a Real-world Clinical Setting

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Opioid addiction is a major public health problem. Despite availability of evidence-based treatments, relapse and dropout are common outcomes. Efforts aimed at identifying reuse risk and gaining more precise understanding of the mechanisms conferring reuse vulnerability are needed.OBJECTIVE To use tools from computational psychiatry and decision neuroscience to identify changes in decision-making processes preceding opioid reuse. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA cohort of individuals with opioid use disorder were studied longitudinally at a community-based treatment setting for up to 7 months (1-15 sessions per person). At each session, patients completed a risky decision-making task amenable to computational modeling and standard clinical assessments. Time-lagged mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were used to assess the likelihood of opioid use between sessions (t to t + 1; within the subsequent 1-4 weeks) from data acquired at the current session (t). A cohort of control participants completed similar procedures (1-5 sessions per person), serving both as a baseline comparison group and an independent sample in which to assess measurement test-retest reliability. Data were analyzed between

show abstract

Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits

Abstract: On the basis of 39 risk-taking measures, this study finds evidence for a general and stable factor of risk preference.

Cited by 431 publications

References 105 publications

Mapping risk perceptions in dynamic risk‐taking environments

Mapping risk perceptions in dynamic risk‐taking environments

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

Computational Markers of Risky Decision-making for Identification of Temporal Windows of Vulnerability to Opioid Use in a Real-world Clinical Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About