The assessment of physical risk taking: Preliminary construct validation of a new behavioral measure

Abstract

Risk taking is a complex heterogeneous construct that has proven difficult to assess, especially when using behavioral tasks. We present an exploratory investigation of new measure–the Assessment of Physical Risk Taking (APRT). APRT produces a variety of different outcome scores and is designed as a comprehensive assessment of the probability of success and failure, and magnitude of reward and punishment of different types of simulated physically risky behaviors. Effects observed on the simulated behaviors are hypothesized to reflect similar effects on real world physical risks. Participants (N = 224) completed APRT in a laboratory setting, half of whom had a 1.5 s delay interposed between button presses. Exploratory analyses utilizing generalized estimating equations examined the main effects and two-way interactions among five within-subject factors, as well as two-way interactions between the within-subject factors and Delay across four APRT outcome scores. Results indicated that Injury Magnitude and Injury Probability exerted stronger effects than any of the other independent variables. Participants also completed several self-report measures of risk taking and associated constructs (e.g., sensation seeking), which were correlated with APRT scores to assess the preliminary convergent and divergent validity of the new measure. After correcting for multiple comparisons, APRT scores correlated with self-reported risk taking in thrilling, physically dangerous activities specifically, but only for those who did not have a delay between APRT responses. This promising exploratory investigation highlights the need for future studies comparing APRT to other behavioral risk taking tasks, examining the robustness of the observed APRT effects, and investigating how APRT may predict real-world physical risk taking.

The registration continuum in personality disorder studies: Theory, rationale, and template.

“…When the study is being designed, decisions about the stimuli, the responses, and any contingencies between stimuli and responses can be preregistered. The stimuli that will be used, their orders and durations, the intervals between stimuli, and the equipment used to present those stimuli may have substantial effects on the data that result (see Newman et al, 1987; Smith & Benning, 2021, e.g., in psychopathy and sensation seeking, respectively). To the extent that tasks and stimuli are openly available, researchers can reference them in their registrations.…”

Modelling the Impact of Emotional Intelligence, Career Success and Happiness on Turnover Intention Among Managerial-level Employees in the Information Technology Industry

“…Respondents rated their responses on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Simsek (2010), Babincak (2018), Smith and Benning (2021), and others have utilized and validated this measure extensively. Sample items of the construct include 'Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself more happy' and 'I always know whether I am happy or not'.…”

The Registration Continuum in Personality Disorder Studies: Theory, Rationale, and Template

“…When the study is being designed, decisions about the stimuli, the responses, and any contingencies between stimuli and responses can be preregistered. The stimuli that will be used, their orders and durations, the intervals between stimuli, and the equipment used to present those stimuli may have substantial effects on the data that result (see Newman et al, 1987 andBenning, 2021 for examples in psychopathy and sensation seeking, respectively). To the extent that tasks and stimuli are openly available, researchers can reference them in their registrations.…”