The Relative State Model: Integrating Need-Based and Ability-Based Pathways to Risk-Taking

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.

Associations Between Delay Discounting and Risk‐Related Behaviors, Traits, Attitudes, and Outcomes

“…That is, some individuals tend to engage in high levels of risk‐acceptance in some domains (e.g., criminal behavior), but not in others (e.g., financial speculation). In a recent review, Mishra, Barclay, and Sparks (in press) provide evidence suggesting that the “generality of deviance” appears to be inclusive only of antisocial forms of risk‐taking, and not asocial or prosocial forms of risk‐taking. The evidence from the present study suggests that various forms of risk‐acceptance that involve poor impulse control tend to co‐occur (and that antisocial forms of risk‐taking reflect this lack of impulse control).…”

“…Problem‐behavior theory (Jessor, ) suggests that general risk‐propensity and antisocial conduct is a product of environmental and developmental instigations (risk factors) and controls (protective factors). Evolutionary theorists have argued that domain‐general risk‐propensity is a response to competitive pressures (especially among those who are competitively disadvantaged) because of persistent embodied, situational, or environmental factors (e.g., Mishra, Barclay, & Lalumière, ; Mishra, Barclay, & Sparks, in press). Despite variability in proposed mechanisms, these theories all advance the idea of shared variance among various forms of risky and impulsive behavior.…”

“…Risk is most parsimoniously defined as outcome variance. This definition of risk as variance has been broadly used in the behavioral sciences, including biology, economics, and psychology (reviewed in Mishra, ; Mishra, Barclay, and Sparks, in press). Impulsive behaviors often involve exposure to relatively greater outcome variance, and thus are typically “riskier” than non‐impulsive behaviors.…”

Content, cost, and context: A framework for understanding human signaling systems

“…Future modeling work should help clarify the relationship between the sender's capital and the types of signal costs borne. For example, it may be that senders holding less capital are more likely to take on risked costs, because they do not have sufficient capital to spend . Alternatively, senders who hold more capital may be more willing to take on risked costs because of their greater ability to buffer in case of loss.…”

Age, Loss Minimization, and the Role of Probability for Decision-Making

“…The current study serves as a follow-up to Mather et al [19], specifically focusing on age differences in the effect of framing and the influence of the outcome probability associated with the risky option. For the purposes of our study, which includes decisions between a certain option and a risky option of varying probability (but always of the same expected outcome, i.e., equal utility), risk is defined as the range of the potential outcome variance [20, 21]. When comparing risky options of varying probabilities, the risky option in a scenario with a larger range of outcomes (e.g., 100% chance for a gain of 1 USD as the certain option vs. 10% chance of a gain of 10 USD as the risky option) is defined as being more risky when compared to a second risky option with a smaller range of possible outcomes (e.g., 100% chance for a gain of 1 USD as the certain option vs. 90% chance of a gain of 1.11 USD as the risky option).…”