Identifying robust correlates of risk preference: A systematic approach using specification curve analysis.

Frey, Renato; Richter, David; Schupp, Jürgen; Hertwig, Ralph; Mata, Rui

doi:10.1037/pspp0000287

Cited by 64 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the way one approaches risk is influenced in several ways. Frey, Richter et al (2020) studied the relationship of risk-seeking to six correlates: household income, sex, age, fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and years of education. With respect to gender, they concluded, -from the various theoretical perspectives, there exist a number of meta-analyses that provide support for the idea that men are more risk-seeking than women‖ (p. 4).…”

Section: Various Approaches and Considerations For Addressing Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk in Leadership and Management: Risk-seeking vs. Risk Averse

Dunn¹,

Jensen²

2021

IJBA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 21st century business environment is full of dangers and risk. At the same time, it is ripe with opportunities and rewards. As organizations continue to pursue opportunities and rewards with vigor, while minimizing unnecessary exposure to risk, leaders find themselves with one of two perspectives on risk: risk-seeking or risk averse. Leaders who are risk-seeking are not moved by the inherent dangers of risk, and understand risk to be a necessary part of the business landscape – and therefore engage risk head-on. Alternatively, leaders who are risk averse understand the implications of risk on the enterprise, and work to minimize, or even avoid risk altogether, or at least to the furthest extent possible. This paper examines risk from a leadership perspective. There are various types of risk that business leaders face, and those will be identified and described herein, along with a discussion of various approaches for addressing risk and how risk is manifested in the business environment. Finally, this paper will assist leaders in determining their own attitudes toward risk using various self-assessment tools.

show abstract

Section: Various Approaches and Considerations For Addressing Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Risk-seeking declines with advancing age. Multiple studies have so indicated, including the studies done by Frey, Richter et al (2020). Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain this phenomenon.…”

Section: Age and Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk in Leadership and Management: Risk-seeking vs. Risk Averse

Dunn¹,

Jensen²

2021

IJBA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alike, individuals who generally feel affected by electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS; Cousin & Siegrist, 2010b) may genuinely perceive any form of radiation (i.e., ranging from microwave ovens to 5G) as risky. Finally, systematic associations between sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, education) and interindividual differences in risk perception have been observed (e.g., lower risk perception in young men; Chauvin, 2018;Frey et al, 2020). Such indicators may thus prove useful as predictors of interindividual differences, despite that they typically do not offer any direct psychological insights.…”

Section: What Drives Interindividual Differences In People's Risk Permentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological drivers of individual differences in risk perception: A systematic case study focusing on 5G

Frey¹

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What drives people’s perceptions of risks and benefits associated with novel technologies? Although various psychological models of risk perception have been proposed, it has not yet been systematically tested how well such models can account for interindividual differences in large population samples, as well as for intraindividual variability that may occur across time. This article capitalizes on the current deployment of 5G—the latest generation of cellular network technology—as a topical case study to model the psychological drivers of risk perception and its associations with policy-related attitudes (e.g., voting intention). Study 1 collected a representative population sample (N = 2,919) to directly compare three psychological models of risk perception, finding that predictors such as trust, feelings of dread, and objective knowledge provide a good account for interindividual differences in perceived risk and benefit, which in turn were strongly associated with policy-related attitudes. Study 2 corroborated these findings in a cross-sectional sample (N = 960); moreover, in a longitudinal sample (N = 780), variations in the same psychological drivers were also systematically associated with intraindividual changes in perceived risk and benefit—and consequently, with policy-related attitudes. In sum, this article provides a systematic investigation of the drivers of risk perception at the level of individual participants, and corroborates the important role of risk perception in shaping policy-related attitudes.

show abstract

“…In using these two fMRI tasks, our aim is not to neurally dissociate experienced from described risk, for this question has already been addressed using well-suited and meticulously controlled experimental designs (FitzGerald et al, 2010). Instead, the aim of our two-task approach is to examine, at the level of brainbehavior associations for two ubiquitous fMRI risk-taking tasks, what has already been shown psychometrically (Frey et al, 2017(Frey et al, , 2020Pedroni et al, 2017), namely that risk-taking measures should not be used interchangeably.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain–Behavior Associations for Risk Taking Depend on the Measures Used to Capture Individual Differences

Tisdall

Frey

Horn

et al. 2020

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maladaptive risk taking can have severe individual and societal consequences; thus, individual differences are prominent targets for intervention and prevention. Although brain activation has been shown to be associated with individual differences in risk taking, the directionality of the reported brain–behavior associations is less clear. Here, we argue that one aspect contributing to the mixed results is the low convergence between risk-taking measures, especially between the behavioral tasks used to elicit neural functional markers. To address this question, we analyzed within-participant neuroimaging data for two widely used risk-taking tasks collected from the imaging subsample of the Basel–Berlin Risk Study ( N = 116 young human adults). Focusing on core brain regions implicated in risk taking (nucleus accumbens, anterior insula, and anterior cingulate cortex), for the two tasks, we examined group-level activation for risky versus safe choices, as well as associations between local functional markers and various risk-related outcomes, including psychometrically derived risk preference factors. While we observed common group-level activation in the two tasks (notably increased nucleus accumbens activation), individual differences analyses support the idea that the presence and directionality of associations between brain activation and risk taking varies as a function of the risk-taking measures used to capture individual differences. Our results have methodological implications for the use of brain markers for intervention or prevention.

show abstract

Identifying robust correlates of risk preference: A systematic approach using specification curve analysis.

Cited by 64 publications

References 79 publications

Risk in Leadership and Management: Risk-seeking vs. Risk Averse

Risk in Leadership and Management: Risk-seeking vs. Risk Averse

Psychological drivers of individual differences in risk perception: A systematic case study focusing on 5G

Brain–Behavior Associations for Risk Taking Depend on the Measures Used to Capture Individual Differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About