When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity.

Abstract

Four studies demonstrate the importance of self-regulatory mechanisms for understanding risk-seeking behavior under loss. Findings suggest that risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity under 3 conditions: (a) when an individual is in a state of loss; (b) when the individual is in a prevention-focused regulatory state (E. T. Higgins, 1997); and (c) when the risky option alone offers the possibility of eliminating loss. In situations involving loss, prevention motivation but not promotion motivation (whether measured or manipulated) was uniquely associated with behaviors that served the motivation to maintain the status quo. When the risky option offered the sole possibility of returning to the status quo, prevention motivation predicted increased risk seeking. However, when a more conservative option was available that also offered the possibility to return to the status quo, prevention motivation predicted risk aversion. When neither option offered the possibility to return to the status quo, prevention motivation was not associated with risky choice. The authors discuss the benefits of complementing existing accounts of risky decision making under loss with regulatory focus motivational mechanisms.

Motivational Affordance and Risk-Taking Across Decision Domains

“…This provides direct evidence that the risky behaviors under all DOSPERT domains were perceived to involve significant potential for loss. And replicating earlier work (Scholer et al, 2010), neither promotion or prevention motivation was associated with perceived risk.…”

“…Recent study has further confirmed that prevention-focused individuals become risk-seeking in the financial domain only (a) when they experience themselves in a clear state of loss and (b) risk-seeking is the only way to return to the status-quo ante (Scholer et al, 2010). Prevention-focused individuals are not risk seeking when they are in a state of non-loss or as a way to increase gains (Zou et al, 2014).…”

“…In other words, perceived risk is not reducible solely to perceived losses. Prior work in the investment domain (Scholer et al 2010;Zou et al, 2014) has also shown that perceived risk does not differ as a function of regulatory focus motivation, even though risky behaviors do. Thus, it was important to measure perceived losses directly as our best analogue of perceived gains.…”

“…Whereas some individuals display consistent risk-taking propensity across domains, others may display systematic variability across domains. In this regard, recent studies on regulatory focus motivation (prevention, promotion;Higgins, 1997) have shown that stable individual differences can account for both stability and variability in risk preference under conditions of loss versus gain (Scholer, Zou, Fujita, Stroessner, & Higgins, 2010;Zou, Scholer, & Higgins, 2014). In this paper, we build upon the prior research on motivation and risk to examine the effects of promotion and prevention motivation on risk preferences across the six distinct decision domains identified by the DOSPERT framework (Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002).…”

“…Although framing risking social relationships as a facilitating factor for meeting duties and obligations might be predicted to increase risk-taking among those in a prevention focus, we thought it unlikely that this would overcome the loss liability represented by each of the behaviors in the social domain, especially given that there is no indication to participants that their current state is unsatisfactory (Scholer et al, 2010). However, including the prevention conditions allows us to test this assumption and also provides a valuable contrast for assessing our promotion predictions by allowing us to test not only the contrast within the promotion condition (goal facilitation versus obstruction) but also the contrast between promotion and prevention within the goal obstruction condition.…”