Why Do We Take Risks? Perception of the Situation and Risk Proneness Predict Domain-Specific Risk Taking

Abstract

Risk taking (RT) is a component of the decision-making process in situations that involve uncertainty and in which the probability of each outcome – rewards and/or negative consequences – is already known. The influence of cognitive and emotional processes in decision making may affect how risky situations are addressed. First, inaccurate assessments of situations may constitute a perceptual bias in decision making, which might influence RT. Second, there seems to be consensus that a proneness bias exists, known as risk proneness, which can be defined as the propensity to be attracted to potentially risky activities. In the present study, we take the approach that risk perception and risk proneness affect RT behaviours. The study hypothesises that locus of control, emotion regulation, and executive control act as perceptual biases in RT, and that personality, sensation seeking, and impulsivity traits act as proneness biases in RT. The results suggest that locus of control, emotion regulation and executive control influence certain domains of RT, while personality influences in all domains except the recreational, and sensation seeking and impulsivity are involved in all domains of RT. The results of the study constitute a foundation upon which to build in this research area and can contribute to the increased understanding of human behaviour in risky situations.

A Qualitative Exploration of Pharmacists' Perspectives and Attitudes Towards the 2021 Down-scheduling of Melatonin in Australia

“…These views may stem from public beliefs around 'naturalness' and presumed safety of melatonin [38,39], coupled with the lack of public awareness around the conditions entailing S3 supply of melatonin from a pharmacist [40]. In this context, patients may underestimate the risk associated with melatonin use [41], thus in uencing them to circumvent the eligibility criteria to access melatonin, as observed by our participants [42]. This has important safety implications; the physiological effects of melatonin extend beyond sleep and may affect the endocrine, reproductive, cardiovascular, immunologic, and metabolic systems, particularly among patients with comorbidities [43,44].…”

Pharmacists’ perspectives and attitudes towards the 2021 down-scheduling of melatonin in Australia using the Theoretical Domains Framework: a mixed-methods study

“…These views may stem from public beliefs around ‘naturalness’ and presumed safety of melatonin [ 51 , 52 ], coupled with the lack of public awareness around the conditions entailing the S3 supply of melatonin from a pharmacist [ 53 ]. In this context, patients may underestimate the risks associated with melatonin use [ 54 ], thus influencing them to circumvent the eligibility criteria to access melatonin, as observed by our participants [ 55 ]. This has important safety implications; the physiological effects of melatonin extend beyond sleep and may affect the endocrine, reproductive, cardiovascular, immunologic, and metabolic systems, particularly among patients with comorbidities [ 56 , 57 ].…”

A Mixed‐Methods Approach to Refining and Measuring the Construct of Positive Risk‐Taking in Adolescence

“…With regard to extraversion and openness to experience, associations with negative risk‐taking (e.g., health/safety risks) have been mixed and inconsistent (Gullone & Moore, 2000; Ljubin‐Golub et al., 2017; Miller & Lynam, 2001; Skeel et al., 2007). Additionally, in a sample of adults, social risk‐taking was associated with openness to experience even after accounting for associations with sensation seeking (de‐Juan‐Ripoll et al., 2021). Though limited, this evidence may indicate that Big Five traits are relevant for differential engagement in positive and negative risk‐taking.…”