No abstract

No abstract

Who takes risks, and why? Does risk-taking in one context predict risk-taking in other contexts? We seek to address these questions by considering two non-independent pathways to risk: need-based and ability-based. The need-based pathway suggests that risk-taking is a product of competitive disadvantage consistent with risk-sensitivity theory. The ability-based pathway suggests that people engage in risk-taking when they possess abilities or traits that increase the probability of successful risk-taking, the expected value of the risky behavior itself, and/or have signaling value. We provide a conceptual model of decision-making under risk-the relative state model-that integrates both pathways and explicates how situational and embodied factors influence the estimated costs and benefits of risk-taking in different contexts. This model may help to reconcile long-standing disagreements and issues regarding the etiology of risk-taking, such as the domain-generality versus domain-specificity of risk or differential engagement in antisocial and non-antisocial risk-taking.

Decision-making under risk has been variably characterized and examined in many different disciplines. However, interdisciplinary integration has not been forthcoming. Classic theories of decision-making have not been amply revised in light of greater empirical data on actual patterns of decision-making behavior. Furthermore, the meta-theoretical framework of evolution by natural selection has been largely ignored in theories of decision-making under risk in the human behavioral sciences. In this review, I critically examine four of the most influential theories of decision-making from economics, psychology, and biology: expected utility theory, prospect theory, risk-sensitivity theory, and heuristic approaches. I focus especially on risk-sensitivity theory, which offers a framework for understanding decision-making under risk that explicitly involves evolutionary considerations. I also review robust empirical evidence for individual differences and environmental/situational factors that predict actual risky decision-making that any general theory must account for. Finally, I offer steps toward integrating various theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on risky decision-making.

No abstract