Predicting domain‐specific risk taking with the HEXACO personality structure

Abstract

Although risk taking traditionally has been viewed as a unitary, stable individual difference variable, emerging evidence in behavioral decision-making research suggests that risk taking is a domain-specific construct. Utilizing a psychological risk-return framework that regresses risk taking on the perceived benefits and perceived riskiness of an activity (Weber & Milliman, 1997), this study examined the relations between risk attitude and broad personality dimensions using the new HEXACO personality framework (Lee & Ashton, 2004) across four risk domains. This personality framework, which has been replicated in lexical studies in over 12 natural languages, assess personality over six broad personality dimensions, as opposed to the traditional Five-Factor Model, or ''Big Five.'' Through path analysis, we regressed risk taking in four separate domains on risk perceptions, perceived benefits, and the six HEXACO dimensions. Across all risk domains, we found that the emotionality dimension was associated with heightened risk perceptions and high conscientiousness was associated with less perceived benefits. We also report several unique patterns of domain-specific relations between the HEXACO dimensions and risk attitude. Specifically, openness was associated with risk taking and perceived benefits for social and recreational risks, whereas lower honesty/humility was associated with greater health/safety and ethical risk taking. These findings extend our understanding of how individuals approach risk across a variety of contexts, and further highlight the utility of honesty/humility, a dimension not recovered in Big Five models, in individual differences research.

When the cat’s away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior

“…However, the opposite was the case as these individuals preferred the smaller gain that could be safely attained through cheating. These findings also further specify the conclusions of Weller and colleagues (Weller & Thulin, 2012;Weller & Tikir, 2011) who showed that individuals high in HonestyHumility are more risk-averse in gambling paradigms. As shown in the current experiment, this pattern may reverse once risky behavior is the option compatible with ''lead us not into temptation'' -in such situations, individuals high in Honesty-Humility will actually act in a more risk-seeking way than their counterparts low in Honesty-Humility.…”

“…Specifically, Weller and colleagues (Weller & Thulin, 2012;Weller & Tikir, 2011) recently showed that individuals low in Honesty-Humility are generally more risk-seeking. That is, they seem to be more willing to engage in risky behaviors, independent of how tempting or attractive the potential outcomes are.…”

Public Sector Motivationad fonts: Personality Traits as Antecedents of the Motivation to Serve the Public Interest

“…Although personality is rather new to the Public Administration literature, core personality traits have been extensively used to explain differences in individual and group behavior across the social sciences. For example, de Vries and van Kampen (2010) use core personality traits to explain why certain individuals are more egoistic, pretentious or immoral, and Weller and Thulin (2012) and Weller and Tikir (2011) relate personality to risk-taking behavior. Furthermore, for instance, personality has been used by political scientists to explain voting behavior (e.g., Gerber et al, 2010), and general management scholars have explored the impact of personality in the context of a wide range of organizational processes and outcomes (e.g., Boone et al, 2005).…”

Incapacitated Patients’ Wellbeing: Surrogate Decision Making

“…It measures risk-taking attitudes, the perception of risky situations and the expected benefits of risky situations. Weller and Tikir (2011) found correlations between DOSPERT and personality, as indexed by the HEXACO scale (Ashton & Lee, 2009). Their finding implies that personality could indirectly influence surrogate decision making.…”