Evidence from several studies suggests it is impossible to engage in riskless judgment and decision-making (JDM). The purpose of this research study was to confirm these findings and delve into the influence of personality on risk propensity within JDM. The first hypothesis this research project explored supposed that extroversion and openness to experience, measured by the Big Five Inventory (BFI), would be positively correlated with elevated risky propensity, measured with the Factorial Objective Risk Test (FORT), the Risk Taking Inventory (RTI), and the Risk Orientations Questionnaire: Attitudes Towards Risk Decisions (ROQ). The subsequent hypothesis built upon the first and supposed neuroticism and conscientiousness would be negatively correlated with elevated risk propensity. The third hypothesis was that neuroticism and conscientiousness would be positively correlated with risk avoidance in JDM, measured with the ROQ. The fourth hypothesis was that risk attitudes, would be positively correlated with risk propensity, measured with the Factorial Objective Risk Test (FORT) and the Risk Taking Inventory (RTI). And the final hypothesis was that responses on the RTI, which measured the frequency of overall risk-taking in the six domains of recreation, health, career, finance, safety, and social, would be significantly correlated.

1. MARYWOOD UNIVERSITY, Scranton, Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT
METHODS
BACKGROUND
SAMPLE
Judgment and Decision-making: An Investigation of Risk Propensity and Personality
Researcher: Lisa D’Abbene  Department of Psychology  Reap College of Education and Human Development  Faculty Sponsor: Joshua Dobias, Ph.D.
Evidence from several studies suggests it is impossible to engage in
riskless judgment and decision-making (JDM). The purpose of this
research study was to confirm these findings and delve into the
influence of personality on risk propensity within JDM. The first
hypothesis this research project explored supposed that extroversion
and openness to experience, measured by the Big Five Inventory
(BFI), would be positively correlated with elevated risky propensity,
measured with the Factorial Objective Risk Test (FORT), the Risk
Taking Inventory (RTI), and the Risk Orientations Questionnaire:
Attitudes Towards Risk Decisions (ROQ). The subsequent
hypothesis built upon the first and supposed neuroticism and
conscientiousness would be negatively correlated with elevated risk
propensity. The third hypothesis was that neuroticism and
conscientiousness would be positively correlated with risk
avoidance in JDM, measured with the ROQ. The fourth hypothesis
was that risk attitudes, would be positively correlated with risk
propensity, measured with the Factorial Objective Risk Test (FORT)
and the Risk Taking Inventory (RTI). And the final hypothesis was
that responses on the RTI, which measured the frequency of overall
risk-taking in the six domains of recreation, health, career, finance,
safety, and social, would be significantly correlated.
Participants for this study were acquired on a volunteer basis through
Marywood University’s SONA system and thus were part of a web-based
human subject pool compliant with the ERC. A mix of 9 male and female
undergraduate participants, over the age of 18, were gathered.
Specifically, data was obtained from 7 female participants and 2 male
participants, between the ages of 19 and 27.
Participants were prompted to take a small battery of self-report surveys/
inventories in order to gain information about risk tendencies in the past and
present, risk propensities, risk attitudes, and personality traits. Specifically,
participants were asked to select responses they deemed to be the most
applicable on the following four standardized tests/measures: the BFI (John &
Srivastava, 1999), FORT (Sánchez-Iglesias & Sueiro, 2010), ROQ (Rohrmann,
1997), and RTI (Nicholson, Soane, Fenton-O'Creevy, & Willman, 2005). Upon
the completion of these inventories, participants were granted .50 credits
through Marywood’s SONA system.
Psychological research in judgment and decision-making, JDM is
focused on how people evaluate and select desirable courses of action
(Hastie, 2001). To understand what this means, a distinction must be
made between the terms judgment and decision-making. Judgment
involves weighing options and consequences and refers to the
components of the larger decision-making process that are concerned
with evaluation and therefore involve assessing, estimating, and
inferring what events will occur along with determining the
desirability of each of the outcomes. Decision-making, on the other
hand, refers to the entire process of choosing a course of action
(Hastie, 2001). Over the course of the last two decades, research
concerning JDM has made great strides, however a need for continued
development and research remains, specifically in regard to the aspect
of risk within JDM. This research project was designed to expand the
current knowledgebase associated with JDM through an investigation
of risk attitudes, risk propensity, and personality.
Step 1
• Potential participant logs on the Marywood SONA system
• Participant chooses my study “Judgement and Decision-making:
An Investigation of Risk Propensity and Personality”
Step 2
• Participant is informed about the nature of the online study and is
asked whether or not he/she would like to participate in selected
study
• Potential participant can select either of the following options:
YES, Start Survey OR No, Decline to Participate
Step 3
• Participant selects “YES, Start Survey,” and begins completing
each of the 4 sections associated with this study:
★Section 1: questions from the the Big Five Inventory (BFI)
★Section 2: questions associated with a translated copy of the
Factorial Objective Risk Test (FORT)
★ Section 3: questions from the the Risk Orientations Questionnaire:
Attitudes Towards Risk Decisions (ROQ)
★ Section 4: questions associated with the Risk Taking Index (RTI)
OR
• Participant selects “No, Decline to Participate,” he/she will be
under no obligation to continue as a participant without any
adverse or negative consequences
RESULTS CONT.
1
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.1
Recreation * Health * Career * Finance * Safety * Social *
RTI PAST RTI PRESENT
Comparison between RTI Past and RTI Present Scores
MEAN
DOMAINS OF RISK
* Denotes significance at the .05 level
r=.929, n=9, p <.01
RESULTS
Multiple linear regressions were calculated to predict risk propensity based on
the personality factors of extraversion and openness to experience.
A nonsignificant regression equation was found (F( 2,6) = 2.091, p > .05), with
an R2 of .411 (ROQP). An insignificant regression equation was found
(F( 2,6) = .097), with an R2 of .031 (Loss Management, FORT).
A nonsignificant regression equation was found (F( 2,6) = .015 , p > .05), with
an R2 of .005 (Long-term Plans, FORT). A nonsignificant regression equation
was found (F( 2,6) = .021), with an R2 of .008 (Sports and Gambling, FORT).
A nonsignificant regression equation was found (F( 2,6) = 2.404 .), with an R2
of .445 (RTI present).
Multiple linear regressions were also calculated to predict risk aversion/
cautiousness based on the personality factors of cautiousness and neuroticism.
A nonsignificant regression equation was found (F( 2,6) = .964, p > .05), with
an R2 of .243 (RTI present). A nonsignificant regression equation was found
(F( 2,6) = .765, p > .05), with an R2 of .203 (ROQP). A nonsignificant
regression equation was found (F( 2,6) = .050, p > .05), with an R2 of .016
(Loss Management, FORT). A nonsignificant regression equation was found
(F( 2,6) = 1.437, p > .05), with an R2 of .324 (Long-term Plans, FORT). A
nonsignificant regression equation was found (F( 2,6) = .951, p > .05), with an
R2 of .276 (Sports and Gambling, FORT). A nonsignificant regression equation
was found (F( 2,6) = 1.914, p > .05), with an R2 of .389 (ROQC).
REFERENCES
Scatter Plot comparison of RTI Past and RTI Present Scores
A series of correlations were run in order to determine: 1) if a relationship
existed between risk propensity reported on the ROQ and risk propensity
reported on the FORT and 2) if there was a relationship between risk
propensity reported on the ROQ and and risk propensity reported on the RTI.
None of these correlations denoted significance.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review Psychology, 52.
John, O. P., Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford.
Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O'Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain-
specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157-176.
Rohrmann, B. (1997). Risk orientation questionnaire: Attitudes towards risk decisions (pre-test
version). University of Melbourne.
Sueiro Abad, M. J., Sánchez-Iglesias, I., & de Telia, A. M. (2011). Evaluating risk propensity
using an objective instrument. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 392-410.
doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.36
Although the results of this research effort were only able to support the
concluding hypothesis associated with this study, there were several
overarching limiting factors which I believe may have inaccurately
influenced these results. These limitations include a lack of appropriate
time, resources, access to eligible/ relevant participants, integrity of
participants, and the nature of Marywood University’s unbalanced
demographics. Specifically, this research effort was able to gain a mere 13
participants, each of which did so for either partial completion of course
requirements or for extra credit. Of the 13 participants who completed this
study, there were only 9 participants who provided full/complete data. As a
result, the analyses associated with this study were limited to 7 female and
2 male undergraduate participants, between the ages of 19 and 27. Given
this small sample size, it is impossible to definitively suggest that the other
hypotheses delineated in this research study were null.
In the interest of future studies pertaining to an analysis of risk within
JDM, a larger and more diverse sample size would be a good place to start.
With a greater sample size it would be easier to access not only more
meaningful results but also participants whose answering patterns denote a
greater level of integrity. Once these criterion are satisfied the research
effort would be more equipped to to expand the current knowledgebase
associated with JDM through an investigation of risk attitudes, risk
propensity, and personality.