Development and validation of the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS)

Zhang, Don C.; Highhouse, Scott; Nye, Christopher D.

doi:10.1002/bdm.2102

Cited by 76 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Individual difference characteristics outside of the traditional Big Five such as resiliency, risk propensity, and mindfulness should also be considered (Dubas, Baams, Doornwaard, & van Aken, 2017;Grevenstein et al, 2018;Zhang, Highhouse, & Nye, 2018). A third limitation of the study is the demographic characteristics of the sample, which consisted of mostly female undergraduate students in psychology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality and College Student Subjective Wellbeing: A Domain-Specific Approach

Zhang

Renshaw

2019

J Happiness Stud

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domain-specific measures of subjective wellbeing are valuable tools for assessing the mental health of college students. In this study, we examined relations between Big Five personality traits and college students' subjective wellbeing (SWB) using a college-specific measure: The College Student Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire (CSSWQ). Using a latent variable modeling approach called bifactor analysis, we found that the general college wellbeing factor was best predicted by agreeableness and extraversion whereas the specific dimensions of college SWB were differentially predicted by conscientiousness and neuroticism. Specifically, conscientiousness best predicted academic satisfaction and efficacy whereas neuroticism best predicted students' connectedness to the university. The results suggest that the profile of a flourishing college student is extraverted and agreeable. This study illustrates the methodological advantage of using a domain-specific measure of SWB and bifactor modeling to shed light on the unique relations between personality and various aspects of college students' mental health.

show abstract

“…The instrument for financial knowledge was adopted from research (Perry and Morris, 2005) and consisted of six items. The risk attitudes questionnaire was comprised of eight items (Zhang et al, 2019). Further, the Lown scale of financial selfefficacy was adopted to measure the financial self-efficacy of the investors (Lown, 2011), which contained six items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Investors Attitudes Shape Stock Market Participation in the Presence of Financial Self-Efficacy

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to investigate how investor's money attitudes shape their stock market participation (SMP) decisions. This study followed the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and a survey was conducted to collect the responses from active investors. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for the analysis of proposed relationships among the constructs, and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to check the interrelation of the variables and validity of the constructs. This research has concluded that investor's money attitudes are significant to affect their stock market participation decisions. Further, it was found that risk attitudes partially mediate the relationship between money attitudes and stock market participation. Moreover, financial knowledge and financial self-efficacy positively moderated the relationship between money attitudes and stock market participation. This research is one of the early attempts at studying the money attitudes of investors and introduces financial self-efficacy as a moderating construct between money attitudes and stock market participation. The sample size for this study was 250 respondents which can be increased in future research, and the same relationships can be tested by using a larger sample. Moreover, this study has used money attitudes as predictors of stock market participation. Still, many other variables, like personal value, can also be taken to investigate their influence on stock market participation.

show abstract

“…This study also explores the propensity for risk taking as possible predictors of willingness to fly during the presence of the novel coronavirus. Risk taking was measured by the General Risk Propensity Scale (GriPS) ( Zhang et al, 2018 ), which is an eight-item assessment measured using a five-point Likert scale. Its primary purpose is to measure an individual's risk-taking behaviors and inclinations toward certain activities, such as gambling and extreme sports.…”

Section: Background and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors that predict passengers willingness to fly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

Lamb

Winter

Rice

et al. 2020

Journal of Air Transport Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Prior research has examined consumer willingness to fly in a variety of situations, including during disease outbreaks. However, to date, no study that we know of has identified what type of person is willing to fly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Six hundred and thirty-two participants from the United States were asked to complete a survey designed to capture demographics, personality measures, emotional states and travel purposes. The data were collected in two stages in order to both develop a descriptive regression equation and a predictive model. Results Regression equations were created for both business and pleasure travel, and the following predictors were significant for both scenarios: perceived threat from COVID-19, agreeableness, affect, and fear. These models accounted for 66–67% of the variance in willingness to fly. Conclusion Airlines and governments could use these findings to help control the message to potential passengers on actions being taken to provide a safe flying experience, such as mask wearing policies and aircraft disinfectant procedures.

show abstract

“…The first issue concerns the psychometric structure of risk preference, with an ongoing debate whether this construct should be modeled as a broad and unidimensional trait, potentially explaining variance in risk taking across diverse behaviors and situations of life (Weber, 1999;Zhang, Highhouse, & Nye, 2018), or rather as a multidimensional construct, implying that risk taking may vary substantially across different domains (e.g., finance, health; Blais & Weber, 2006;Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002). Recent psychometric investigations have suggested that these two views may not be mutually exclusive: risk preference appears to be best modeled by simultaneously accounting for general and domain-specific dimensions (Frey et al, 2017;Highhouse, Nye, Zhang, & Rada, 2016)-much like the general factor of intelligence ("g") and its various facets (Deary, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a typology of risk preference: Four risk profiles describe two thirds of individuals in a large sample of the U.S. population

Frey¹,

Duncan²,

Weber

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A longstanding goal in the behavioral sciences has been to model people’s risk preferences. Previous approaches tended to measure risk preference either as a general or domain-specific construct, and typically assumed that it is necessary to describe different individuals separately on (possibly) multiple dimensions of risk preference. Here, we pursue a different approach and ask: Do different types of individuals with similar configurations of general and domain-specific dimensions of risk preference exist, and thus, can a substantial proportion of people be described with a small set of basic risk profiles? To answer this question we modeled data of a large and diverse sample of the U.S. population (N = 3,123) in a comprehensive and novel way. Our contribution is twofold: first, using data of the Domain-Specific Risk- Taking Scale (DOSPERT) we establish a multidimensional trait space of risk preference including general and domain-specific components. Second, model-based cluster analyses in this space indicated that 66% of participants in our sample can be described with four basic risk profiles, which are systematically related to socio-demographic indicators. Our typological approach has implications for current theories of risk preference as well as potential policy implications.

show abstract

“…Propensity measures. To assess participants' domain-general risk preferences, we used the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS; Zhang, Highhouse, & Nye, 2018), and the general risk item of the German Socioeconomic Panel Study (SOEP; e.g., Dohmen et al, 2011). In addition, we assessed participants' domain-specific risk preferences using the domainspecific risk items of the SOEP.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representative Design in Psychological Assessment: A Case Study Using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)

Steiner¹,

Frey²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representative design refers to the idea that experimental stimuli should be designed such that they represent the environments to which measured constructs are supposed to generalize. In this paper, we investigate the role of representative design in achieving valid and reliable psychological assessments, by focusing on a widely used behavioral measure of risk taking—the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). We argue that the original implementation of the BART violates the principle of representative design, and by reanalyzing existing data demonstrate that people's expectations conflict with the task's stochastic structure—hence potentially hampering valid assessments. Moreover, we implemented two extensive studies (N = 772 and N = 632), aimed at experimentally testing the effects of improved representative designs in the BART. Although participants acquired more accurate beliefs about the optimal behavior due to these task adaptions, improving representative design proved to be no sufficient condition to boost the BART's psychometric properties (e.g., convergent validity, test–retest reliability). It follows that for the development of valid behavioral measurement instruments—as are needed, for instance, in neuroimaging studies—our field has to overcome the philosophy of the “repair program“ (i.e., fixing existing tasks). Instead, in order to develop valid tasks we suggest that ecological assessments are required to identify those real-life behaviors and associated psychological processes that lab-tasks are supposed to capture and generalize to.

show abstract

Development and validation of the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS)

Cited by 76 publications

References 94 publications

Personality and College Student Subjective Wellbeing: A Domain-Specific Approach

How Investors Attitudes Shape Stock Market Participation in the Presence of Financial Self-Efficacy

Factors that predict passengers willingness to fly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

Towards a typology of risk preference: Four risk profiles describe two thirds of individuals in a large sample of the U.S. population

Representative Design in Psychological Assessment: A Case Study Using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About