This article discusses issues with commonly used measures of risk-taking and proposes recommendations for improving risk-taking assessment. It argues that researchers should:
1) Precisely define the risk-taking concept being measured (e.g. behavior, propensity, attitude) to avoid ambiguity.
2) Distinguish between measures of general risk-taking tendencies versus context-specific risk-taking (e.g. financial vs. health domains).
3) Consider additional concepts like passive risk-taking, subjective risk perceptions, and use of more realistic risk tasks beyond self-report questions or hypothetical choices.
Taking these factors into account can help design more valid and informative measures of risk-taking concepts.
Toward a commonly shared public policy perspective for analyzing risk coping ...Araz Taeihagh
The concept of risk has received scholarly attention from a variety of angles in the social, technical, and natural sciences. However, public policy scholars have not yet generated a comprehensive overview, shared understanding and conceptual framework of the main problem‐solving approaches applied by governments in coping with risks. In this regard, our main aim is to examine existing perspectives on prevailing risk coping strategies, find a common denominator among them and contribute to current policy and risk science literature through providing a conceptual framework that systematically spans the spectrum of risk coping strategies and incorporates the essence of the most relevant insights. To this end, we first examine the concept of risk in‐depth by exploring various definitions and types of risk. We then review different approaches proposed by different strands of research for addressing risk. Finally, we assess current knowledge and develop an amalgamated perspective for examining how risks can be addressed by classifying them into six general types of response (no response; prevention; control; precaution; toleration; and adaptation) as well as indicators to identify these responses. We argue that these strategies can function as a heuristic tool for decisionmakers in designing appropriate policies to cope with risks in decision‐making processes. Keywords: Complexity, framework, public policy, review, risk, strategies,
Research ArticleDomain Specificity inExperimental Measur.docxrgladys1
Research Article
Domain Specificity in
Experimental Measures and
Participant Recruitment
An Application to Risk-Taking Behavior
Yaniv Hanoch,1,2 Joseph G. Johnson,3 and Andreas Wilke4
1
UCLA School of Public Health;
2
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany;
3
Miami University;
and
4
International Max Planck Research School LIFE, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
ABSTRACT—We challenge the prevailing notion that risk
taking is a stable trait, such that individuals show con-
sistent risk-taking/aversive behavior across domains. We
subscribe to an alternative approach that appreciates the
domain-specific nature of risk taking. More important, we
recognize heterogeneity of risk profiles among experi-
mental samples and introduce a new methodology that
takes this heterogeneity into account. Rather than using
a convenient subject pool (i.e., university students), as is
typically done, we specifically targeted relevant subsam-
ples to provide further validation of the domain-specific
nature of risk taking. Our research shows that individuals
who exhibit high levels of risk-taking behavior in one
content area (e.g., bungee jumpers taking recreational
risks) can exhibit moderate levels in other risky domains
(e.g., financial). Furthermore, our results indicate that
risk taking among targeted subsamples can be explained
within a cost-benefit framework and is largely mediated by
the perceived benefit of the activity, and to a lesser extent
by the perceived risk.
How should researchers study a psychological construct such as
risk-taking propensity? Answering this question might not be as
easy as it seems at first glance. First, an individual might exhibit
risk-taking tendencies in one domain (e.g., financial) but display
more conservative behavior in another (e.g., recreational).
Second, different methodological designs—for example, the
pool of subjects used or the type of analysis conducted—can
yield contradicting results (e.g., Huber, Wider, & Huber, 1997).
In the present study, our methodological focus on the ecological
validity of the experimental design (e.g., Huber, 1997), domain-
specific risk-taking measures, and recruitment of participants in
targeted groups yielded results that allow us to challenge the
tendency to cluster individuals globally as either risk takers or
risk avoiders—thus offering a richer perspective on the psy-
chology of risk taking.
The psychological literature has been largely dominated by
the assumption that risk taking is a stable personality trait, and
thus individuals can be clustered into groups having risk-taking
or risk-aversive styles (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977; Lejuez
et al., 2002; for a review, see Bromiley & Curley, 1992). This
simplistic, though appealing, conceptualization has proven to be
inadequate. Researchers have responded by examining sub-
traits and, therefore, the relation between risk taking and con-
struc.
1Concept Analysis of RiskRunning head Concept of An.docxdrennanmicah
1
Concept Analysis of Risk
Running head: Concept of Analysis of Risk
Concept Analysis of Risk
Risk in the Adolescent Population: Significance of the Concept
There is a preponderance of articles in the PubMed database using the term “risk” just in the title of the articles. The concept of risk was selected to help clarify this broad and widely utilized term. It is necessary to have an acceptable definition of the term risk and to identify the specific application of this term to its intended population. In planning education and interventions for the adolescent population it is important to expand the nurses understanding of risk and the associated decision making process. The term risk frequently is not defined and is used inconsistently and imprecisely in the medical and nursing literature.
Origin of Concept
The origins of risk date back to the 17th century with the French work risqué (Jacobs, 2000; Kettles, 2004; Shattell, 2004). The original meaning of risk was to “gamble” and taking a gamble meant predicting the probability of an event occurring. This was utilized in the business world to include “commercial loss of insured property and goods” (Shattell, 2004, p. 12). The business world also put an estimate on the gain and loss of an event occurring, connecting the definition to gamble. In the 19th century the word risk began to exchange its affiliation with gambling for gain (Jacobs, 2000). “Taking a gamble meant the probability of an event occurring combined with magnitude of the loss or gain that could result” (Kettles, 2004, p. 485). The healthcare field, especially in the area of epidemilogy, began to use the term to identify risk factors of disease. Consequently, the healthcare professionals began to study ways to prevent disease through the eradication of the risk factors.
Framework
The strategy of Walker and Avant (1995) was used in this concept analysis. This is a straightforward approach and has 8 steps in the process. These steps include: selection of concept, determination of the aims, identification of the uses, determination of attributes, the construction of a model case, and identification of related terms, description of the antecedents and consequences and empirical referents.
Definitions
There are several definitions of risk.
“Risk: 1. The possibility of suffering harm or loss; danger. 2. A factor, thing, element, or course involving uncertain danger; a hazard: “the usual risks of the desert: rattlesnakes, the heat, and lack of water. 3. The danger or probability of loss to an insurer. The amount that an insurance company stands to lose. 4. The variability of returns from an investment. The chance of nonpayment of a debt. 5. One considered with respect to the possibility of loss: a poor risk” (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 2nd Edition, 1972, p.1565).
Risk also includes some copyrighted materials, such as the card game, RISK and strategic board game, RISK(. Attributes inclu.
Toward a commonly shared public policy perspective for analyzing risk coping ...Araz Taeihagh
The concept of risk has received scholarly attention from a variety of angles in the social, technical, and natural sciences. However, public policy scholars have not yet generated a comprehensive overview, shared understanding and conceptual framework of the main problem‐solving approaches applied by governments in coping with risks. In this regard, our main aim is to examine existing perspectives on prevailing risk coping strategies, find a common denominator among them and contribute to current policy and risk science literature through providing a conceptual framework that systematically spans the spectrum of risk coping strategies and incorporates the essence of the most relevant insights. To this end, we first examine the concept of risk in‐depth by exploring various definitions and types of risk. We then review different approaches proposed by different strands of research for addressing risk. Finally, we assess current knowledge and develop an amalgamated perspective for examining how risks can be addressed by classifying them into six general types of response (no response; prevention; control; precaution; toleration; and adaptation) as well as indicators to identify these responses. We argue that these strategies can function as a heuristic tool for decisionmakers in designing appropriate policies to cope with risks in decision‐making processes. Keywords: Complexity, framework, public policy, review, risk, strategies,
Research ArticleDomain Specificity inExperimental Measur.docxrgladys1
Research Article
Domain Specificity in
Experimental Measures and
Participant Recruitment
An Application to Risk-Taking Behavior
Yaniv Hanoch,1,2 Joseph G. Johnson,3 and Andreas Wilke4
1
UCLA School of Public Health;
2
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany;
3
Miami University;
and
4
International Max Planck Research School LIFE, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
ABSTRACT—We challenge the prevailing notion that risk
taking is a stable trait, such that individuals show con-
sistent risk-taking/aversive behavior across domains. We
subscribe to an alternative approach that appreciates the
domain-specific nature of risk taking. More important, we
recognize heterogeneity of risk profiles among experi-
mental samples and introduce a new methodology that
takes this heterogeneity into account. Rather than using
a convenient subject pool (i.e., university students), as is
typically done, we specifically targeted relevant subsam-
ples to provide further validation of the domain-specific
nature of risk taking. Our research shows that individuals
who exhibit high levels of risk-taking behavior in one
content area (e.g., bungee jumpers taking recreational
risks) can exhibit moderate levels in other risky domains
(e.g., financial). Furthermore, our results indicate that
risk taking among targeted subsamples can be explained
within a cost-benefit framework and is largely mediated by
the perceived benefit of the activity, and to a lesser extent
by the perceived risk.
How should researchers study a psychological construct such as
risk-taking propensity? Answering this question might not be as
easy as it seems at first glance. First, an individual might exhibit
risk-taking tendencies in one domain (e.g., financial) but display
more conservative behavior in another (e.g., recreational).
Second, different methodological designs—for example, the
pool of subjects used or the type of analysis conducted—can
yield contradicting results (e.g., Huber, Wider, & Huber, 1997).
In the present study, our methodological focus on the ecological
validity of the experimental design (e.g., Huber, 1997), domain-
specific risk-taking measures, and recruitment of participants in
targeted groups yielded results that allow us to challenge the
tendency to cluster individuals globally as either risk takers or
risk avoiders—thus offering a richer perspective on the psy-
chology of risk taking.
The psychological literature has been largely dominated by
the assumption that risk taking is a stable personality trait, and
thus individuals can be clustered into groups having risk-taking
or risk-aversive styles (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977; Lejuez
et al., 2002; for a review, see Bromiley & Curley, 1992). This
simplistic, though appealing, conceptualization has proven to be
inadequate. Researchers have responded by examining sub-
traits and, therefore, the relation between risk taking and con-
struc.
1Concept Analysis of RiskRunning head Concept of An.docxdrennanmicah
1
Concept Analysis of Risk
Running head: Concept of Analysis of Risk
Concept Analysis of Risk
Risk in the Adolescent Population: Significance of the Concept
There is a preponderance of articles in the PubMed database using the term “risk” just in the title of the articles. The concept of risk was selected to help clarify this broad and widely utilized term. It is necessary to have an acceptable definition of the term risk and to identify the specific application of this term to its intended population. In planning education and interventions for the adolescent population it is important to expand the nurses understanding of risk and the associated decision making process. The term risk frequently is not defined and is used inconsistently and imprecisely in the medical and nursing literature.
Origin of Concept
The origins of risk date back to the 17th century with the French work risqué (Jacobs, 2000; Kettles, 2004; Shattell, 2004). The original meaning of risk was to “gamble” and taking a gamble meant predicting the probability of an event occurring. This was utilized in the business world to include “commercial loss of insured property and goods” (Shattell, 2004, p. 12). The business world also put an estimate on the gain and loss of an event occurring, connecting the definition to gamble. In the 19th century the word risk began to exchange its affiliation with gambling for gain (Jacobs, 2000). “Taking a gamble meant the probability of an event occurring combined with magnitude of the loss or gain that could result” (Kettles, 2004, p. 485). The healthcare field, especially in the area of epidemilogy, began to use the term to identify risk factors of disease. Consequently, the healthcare professionals began to study ways to prevent disease through the eradication of the risk factors.
Framework
The strategy of Walker and Avant (1995) was used in this concept analysis. This is a straightforward approach and has 8 steps in the process. These steps include: selection of concept, determination of the aims, identification of the uses, determination of attributes, the construction of a model case, and identification of related terms, description of the antecedents and consequences and empirical referents.
Definitions
There are several definitions of risk.
“Risk: 1. The possibility of suffering harm or loss; danger. 2. A factor, thing, element, or course involving uncertain danger; a hazard: “the usual risks of the desert: rattlesnakes, the heat, and lack of water. 3. The danger or probability of loss to an insurer. The amount that an insurance company stands to lose. 4. The variability of returns from an investment. The chance of nonpayment of a debt. 5. One considered with respect to the possibility of loss: a poor risk” (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 2nd Edition, 1972, p.1565).
Risk also includes some copyrighted materials, such as the card game, RISK and strategic board game, RISK(. Attributes inclu.
BBA 4226, Risk Management 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
1. Examine the elements of the risk management process.
1.1 Illustrate the use of the risk management process.
2. Analyze the parameters used to categorize risks.
2.1 Categorize risks based on specific parameters.
Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes
Learning Activity
1.1 Unit II Scholarly Activity
2.1
Chapter 3
Unit II Lesson
Unit II Scholarly Activity
Reading Assignment
Chapter 3: Risk
Unit Lesson
We live in interesting and uncertain times, and they are only going to become more complex and risky as the
future unfolds. Individuals and organizations must adapt to an increasingly uncertain environment in order to
identify, mitigate, and survive potential damaging risks. Often, when we think of corporate risks, we think of
natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes and tornados) or even man-made disasters (e.g., fires or attacks such as
the one on September 11, 2001, an oil spill such as the one caused by BP in the Gulf of Mexico, or
information technology (IT) security breaches). Yet, we tend to forget man-made disasters such as the
financial crisis of 2008, which is considered one of the worst global financial crises of all time because of its
ripple effect around the world. We also tend to overlook disruptions in the supply chain of corporations that
could be equally distressing to a company’s survival. Because of the interconnectedness of the world, an
interruption of supplies in one side of the world can have very disruptive and lasting negative effects in
another side.
In today’s economy, many risks have an effect around the world. Thus, it is critical that corporations and
governments implement risk management strategies. First, however, let’s start with defining what risks are all
about.
Risk
Risk is defined as the probability and consequence of not achieving a specific goal. As an example, can the
project be completed within budget? Risk is the probability of loss or the expectation of an unfavorable
outcome as a result of a particular action. Risk is really a measure of future uncertainties or the combination
of an event occurring and the consequences of that event. Newsome (2014) noted that there are different
standards of risk definitions but settled on risks as the “changes, effects, and consequences” of an event’s
potential returns (p. 25). Thus, risk is associated with all future adverse outcomes of an action.
A good description of risks facilitates the understanding, identification, and analysis of risks (Newsome, 2014).
A detailed risk definition and description is the first step to identifying risks. An example of a structured
standardized version of risk description is depicted in Table 3.2 on page 29 of your textbook.
UNIT II STUDY GUIDE
Risk
BBA 4226, Risk Management 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Components of Risk
Risk ...
This rapid assessment examines the literature on social protection to determine the gender considerations made in social protection research and the gendered areas of future research in the field. This review was conducted between May and August 2018. Electronic databases were searched to identify records that were published in English between the period of 2008 and 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were empirical and had both the search terms ‘social’ and ‘protection’ or their various combinations, appearing in the titles of the articles. Grey literature, reports and other non-academic writings were excluded as only empirical studies were eligible. Twelve studies were reviewed and synthesised. The results of this study show that social protection research makes gender considerations and most of the social protection interventions were protective, preventive or promotive measures. Future studies should therefore explore transformative social protection with respect to gender equality and partly because gendered social protection is poorly developed. This rapid review also affirms that despite criticisms, social protection continues to be valuable in addressing poverty and inequalities. However, against this backdrop it is worth noting that social protection is not a panacea and its gender considerations are necessary only to the extent that they do not exacerbate inequalities.
RATIO ANALYSIS RATIO ANALYSIS Note Please change the column names.docxaudeleypearl
RATIO ANALYSIS RATIO ANALYSIS Note: Please change the column names based on your industry and your selected companies.RATIOS<INDUSTRY><COMPANY #1><COMPANY #2>ANALYSIS (your comments), which company is stronger, better/worse than industry, what results meanProfitability Ratios (%)show calculationshow ending resultshoww Calculationshow resultGross Margin EBITD Margin Operating Margin Pretax Margin Effective Tax Rate Financial StrengthQuick RatioCurrent Ratio LT Debt to Equity Total Debt to Equity Interest Coverage Valuation RatiosP/E Ratio Price to Sales (P/S)Price to Book (P/B)Price to Tangible Book Price to Cash FlowPrice to Free Cash Flow Management Effectiveness (%)Return On Assets Return On Investment Return On Equity DividendsDividend YieldPayout Ratio EfficiencyRevenue/Employee Net Income/Employee Receivable TurnoverInventory TurnoverAsset Turnover SummaryWhat is ratio analysis? Briefly explain in this space, and reference your resources: Referring to your ratio analysis above, in which company would you be willing to invest, and why?
Heuristics and biases in cyber security dilemmas
Heather Rosoff • Jinshu Cui • Richard S. John
Published online: 28 September 2013
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Cyber security often depends on decisions
made by human operators, who are commonly considered a
major cause of security failures. We conducted 2 behav-
ioral experiments to explore whether and how cyber
security decision-making responses depend on gain–loss
framing and salience of a primed recall prior experience. In
Experiment I, we employed a 2 9 2 factorial design,
manipulating the frame (gain vs. loss) and the presence
versus absence of a prior near-miss experience. Results
suggest that the experience of a near-miss significantly
increased respondents’ endorsement of safer response
options under a gain frame. Overall, female respondents
were more likely to select a risk averse (safe) response
compared with males. Experiment II followed the same
general paradigm, framing all consequences in a loss frame
and manipulating recall to include one of three possible
prior experiences: false alarm, near-miss, or a hit involving
a loss of data. Results indicate that the manipulated prior
hit experience significantly increased the likelihood of
respondents’ endorsement of a safer response relative to
the manipulated prior near-miss experience. Conversely,
the manipulated prior false-alarm experience significantly
decreased respondents’ likelihood of endorsing a safer
response relative to the manipulated prior near-miss
experience. These results also showed a main effect for age
and were moderated by respondent’s income level.
Keywords Cyber security � Framing effect �
Near-miss � Decision making
1 Introduction
Individual users regularly make decisions that affect the
security of their personal devices connected to the internet
and, in turn, to the security of the cybersphere. For
example, th ...
Effective Crisis Communication
Chapter 10: Risk Communication
Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., Seeger, M. (2019). Effective Crisis Communication: Moving From Crisis to Opportunity. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Opportunity #1: Effective Risk Communication (RC) can disrupt a crisis and prevent it from reaching its full magnitude
Important to distinguish between risks and crises
Risk Communication (RC) is future oriented
RC is designed to avert crisis
RC is designed to speculate about what could happen, not explain what did
RC is designed for long term planning vs the immediate problem
RC generally comes from experts foreseeing potential problems versus leaders dealing with a problem.
RC is more personal and internal whereas crisis messages are more public.
RC has the luxury of time with full PR campaigns versus crisis comm that is immediate.
RC can be crafted carefully whereas crisis comm is more spontaneous.
Opportunity #2: A mindful outlook is essential to recognizing new risks
Identifying Risk
Recognizing risk
Learning about it
Prioritizing it
Changing behavior to avoid or mitigate it
Mindfulness – means constantly adapting our perceptual skills to adapt to a changing world
Requires awareness of new information
Requires awareness of different perspectives
High reliability
Preoccupation with failure
Reluctance to simplify operations
Sensitivity to operations
Commitment to resilience
Deference to expertise
Opportunity #3:
Risk Communication must account for both hazard and outrage
Best form of risk communication is interactive
Dialogue should be between all stakeholders who might be affected
Dialogue-centered approach
Democratic and all invited to share opinions
Decisions made for greatest good and greatest number
Technology-centered approach
Experts debate and make recommendations on policy
More efficient – none of us have the time to learn and study all the issues (nor do we want to)
“Experts” – should know more than we do
Loses credibility when the public loses trust in the experts (dishonest, bias, etc.)
Opportunity #3:
Risk Communication must account for both hazard and outrage
Sandman’s Risk/Hazard Equation
Risk f {Hazard+Outrage}
Hazard is the scientifically determined risk level
Outrage is the public’s determination of high risk
If the public perceives high risk, scientists have a hard time convincing them otherwise
If the public doesn’t perceive high risk, scientists have a hard time convincing them otherwise
Opportunity #3:
Risk Communication must account for both hazard and outrage
Dialogue-centered approach takes into consideration public outrage, BUT…
Functions very slowly
Not always based upon fact
Could result in an uninformed public endorsing a risky behavior
Need an interactive compromise approach
Opportunity #4:
To ensure social responsibility, all risk communication should be held to the standard of significant choice
Convergence theory and risk communication
The audience ...
Decision makers often face powerful incentives to increase risk-taking on behalf of others either through bonus contracts or competitive relative performance contracts. Motivated by examples from the recent financial crisis, we conduct an experimental study of risk-taking on behalf of others using a large sample with subjects from all walks of life. We find that people respond to such incentives without much apparent concern for stakeholders. Responses are heterogeneous and mitigated by personality traits. The findings suggest that lack of concern for others’ risk exposure hardly requires “financial psychopaths” in order to flourish, but is diminished by social concerns. We believe the research reported here is the first to experimentally investigate the effects of incentives on risk-taking on behalf of others, and to do so on a large scale using a random sample of the general population.
By Ola Andersson, Håkan J. Holm, Jean-Robert Tyran and Erik Wengström
To read more research articles, please visit https://www.hhs.se/site
Much research to date has tended to view vulnerability by discipline or sector, yet individuals and households experience multiple, interacting and sometimes compound vulnerabilities. Cross-disciplinary thinking is emerging as multi-dimensional vulnerability is likely to become
an increasingly important concept if the outlook over the next 15 to 25 years is one of
multiple, interacting and compound stressors and crises, a result of the “perfect-storm” or “long-crisis” thesis of the interaction of demographics, climate change and food and energy prices. A realigned analytical lens is thus useful to bring together the various intellectual strands involved in multi-dimensional vulnerability analysis. In light of the above, this paper reviews the literature on vulnerability and asks what a “three-dimensional human
wellbeing” approach - a complement to more traditional ways of understanding poverty -might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability.
06279 Topic PSY 325 Statistics for the Behavioral & Social Scienc.docxoswald1horne84988
06279 Topic: PSY 325 Statistics for the Behavioral & Social Sciences
Number of Pages: 2 (Double Spaced)
Number of sources: 3
Writing Style: APA
Type of document: Essay
Academic Level:Undergraduate
Category: Art
Language Style: English (U.S.)
Order Instructions: Attached
follow the requirements in the attached.
Running Head: ERM 1
ERM 4
ERM
Institution Affiliation
Student Name
Date
Mapping
ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT IN HEALTHCARE
A CLEARLY DEFINED STRATEGY WILL ENABLE THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF ERM
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYER IS IMPORTANT WHEN IMPLEMENTING ERM IN HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS
THE HEALTHCARE CULTURE AFFECTS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ERM
a. Culture
1. The healthcare organization culture should support the Enterprise risk management strategy.
2. Organizations that adopt cultures for example unfairness, fear and allow disruptive behaviour are not ready for the implementation of ERM.
b. Strategy
1. A defined strategy will enable the implementation of ERM.
2. Strategic plan in the healthcare industry should cover six months to two years.
c. Communication
1. For effective implementation of ERM communication and education plan is important
2. The employees need to be educated on ERM.
Creating a connection
Culture
For the Enterprise Risk management to be implemented in the healthcare one of the key elements to consider is the culture of the organization. The governing body should ensure that the culture of the company will support the ERM program, (Meulbroek, 2017). If the healthcare engages in tactics that are not favorable to a learning environment, practice fear, employees are not treated fair and just. That means that the company is are not ready for the ERM program. The implications will be that ERM program will fail.
Strategy
A well-defined strategy or plan will be effective in the implementation of the ERM program. A strategy is a long-term plan that is used to achieve a particular set goal or objective. Historically, companies used to draft 5 years to 10 years’ strategic plan. However, today due to the rapid shift and complexity of the healthcare industry strategies cover six months to two years, (Olson & Wu, 2015). If the healthcare does not set a clear and well defined strategy. Then the implementation of ERM will fail.
Communication
Before the implementation of ERM, it is important to educate employees about the program. Communication and information channel should be in place to ensure that everyone in the company is well aware of the risks and the actions needed to be taken to mitigate the risk, (Carroll, 2016). The communication channel will also enable employees to be updated on the program progress. If the healthcare employees are not trained and proper channels of communication are not used then the implications or there is a high possibility that implementation of ERM will fail.
.
Understanding and improving community flood preparedness and response: a rese...Neil Dufty
Many social research projects identify issues with community disaster preparedness and response but struggle to attribute these issues to underlying causes and recommend possible ways to address them. A research framework that considers the underlying causes of preparedness and response and possible interventions was developed for the Wimmera region of Victoria, Australia. The research framework was developed in conjunction with the Wimmera Catchment Management Authority and tested in a social research project across 6 communities in the Wimmera region. This paper provides an outline and rationale for the components of the research framework. It also summarises the regional flood insight afforded by the research framework. The research framework, albeit with some limitations, has universal appeal not only in the examination of community flood preparedness and response, but also for other hazards and other parts of the disaster management cycle.
An analysis of the value of external studies to risk managers, and how to improve them
Once again during the last part of the year, academic institutions, consultancy firms, think-tanks and insurance companies are publishing studies on top risks. But what is the value of these studies to risk managers? The impact on the media and social networks surely justifies the marketing value for the organisations funding the reports. However, the impact on street-level risk managers is to be discussed.
Existential Risk Prevention as Global PriorityKarlos Svoboda
•Existential risk is a concept that can focus long-term global efforts and sustainability concerns.
• The biggest existential risks are anthropogenic and related to potential future technologies.
• A moral case can be made that existential risk reduction is strictly more important than any other global public
good.
• Sustainability should be reconceptualised in dynamic terms, as aiming for a sustainable trajectory rather than a sustainable state.
• Some small existential risks can be mitigated today directly (e.g. asteroids) or indirectly (by building resilience and
reserves to increase survivability in a range of extreme scenarios) but it is more important to build capacity to
improve humanity’s ability to deal with the larger existential risks that will arise later in this century. This will
require collective wisdom, technology foresight, and the ability when necessary to mobilise a strong global coordinated response to anticipated existential risks.
• Perhaps the most cost-effective way to reduce existential risks today is to fund analysis of a wide range of existential risks and potential mitigation strategies, with a long-term perspective
Madame bovary and victim rights essay. Madame Bovary and A Dolls House Essay | Literature - Year 11 WACE .... ENG3UE: Madame Bovary. Madame Bovary reflection: Essay Example | Topics and Well Written .... Madame bovary. Madame Bovary by app g1d - Issuu. Madame Bovary Study Questions. Madame Bovary neither glorifies nor punishes adultery Essay Example .... Important Aspects of Madame Bovary - GCSE English - Marked by Teachers.com. Madame Bovary | Book by Gustave Flaubert | Official Publisher Page .... Madame Bovary Study Guide | Course Hero. The Influence of the Epistolary Novel Structure and Means on Madame .... Love in Madame Bovary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays .... (PDF) Madame Bovary. WIT Essay: Madame Bovary IB | Language A: Literature - Higher Level IB .... Madame bovary thesis. Lecture Analytique Madame Bovary | Gustave Flaubert | Madame Bovary. Madame Bovary: Analysis of Fate and Fulfillment Essay. Madame Bovary Text Tracking Activity Below you will find essay. Some Notes on Translation and on Madame Bovary | Literary magazines .... Madame Bovary. Madame Bovary, II, 12 - Flaubert: explication de texte détaillée sur un .... Review of Madame Bovary and its symbolism - WriteWork. Mme Bovary Notes | Emma (Novel) | Madame Bovary | Free 30-day Trial .... Reading Madame Bovary by Amanda Lohrey | Black Inc.. Summary of madame bovary by gustave flaubert Madame Bovary Essay Madame Bovary Essay
Incredible India Essay, Article, Speech, Paragraph [With Images] - My .... Incredible India - PHDessay.com. Essay on India for Students from Class 6 to 12 - Leverage Edu. Incredible India Essay | Incredible India Essay for Kids. An Essay on India-An Incredible India-2021 - Education and Career. Speech on incredible india wikipedia. Incredible India Essay for .... paragraph on incredible india 150 words - Brainly.in. Incredible Essay On India ~ Thatsnotus. The Incredible India Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written .... Excellent Essay On INDIA [with Headings]. INCREDIBLE INDIA Essay in English// beautiful handwriting - YouTube. Reflection Essay: Incredible india essay. Incredible India Introduction | Teaching Resources. Heritage of India Essay | Essay on Heritage of India for Students and .... College essay: Incredible india essay. Essay On India for Students and Children | PDF Download. India - Information - News, Features and Essays: Incredible India .... Essay/India is incredible,Travel and Explore - YouTube. Make In India Essay | Essay on Make in India for Students and Children .... India 2020 Essay. Essay on India | India Essay for Students and Children in English .... Incredible India Essay - Wordzz. My incredible India | Winning Essays | K-W-T-G Competition 2017. Best Essay on India in English For Students & Children's. Incredible India : Speech , Essay , Paragraph , Wallpapers , Quotes .... Incredible India | Winning essay | K-W-T-G Writing Competition 2016 Incredible India Essay Incredible India Essay
More Related Content
Similar to Assessing Risk-Taking What To Measure And How To Measure It
BBA 4226, Risk Management 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
1. Examine the elements of the risk management process.
1.1 Illustrate the use of the risk management process.
2. Analyze the parameters used to categorize risks.
2.1 Categorize risks based on specific parameters.
Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes
Learning Activity
1.1 Unit II Scholarly Activity
2.1
Chapter 3
Unit II Lesson
Unit II Scholarly Activity
Reading Assignment
Chapter 3: Risk
Unit Lesson
We live in interesting and uncertain times, and they are only going to become more complex and risky as the
future unfolds. Individuals and organizations must adapt to an increasingly uncertain environment in order to
identify, mitigate, and survive potential damaging risks. Often, when we think of corporate risks, we think of
natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes and tornados) or even man-made disasters (e.g., fires or attacks such as
the one on September 11, 2001, an oil spill such as the one caused by BP in the Gulf of Mexico, or
information technology (IT) security breaches). Yet, we tend to forget man-made disasters such as the
financial crisis of 2008, which is considered one of the worst global financial crises of all time because of its
ripple effect around the world. We also tend to overlook disruptions in the supply chain of corporations that
could be equally distressing to a company’s survival. Because of the interconnectedness of the world, an
interruption of supplies in one side of the world can have very disruptive and lasting negative effects in
another side.
In today’s economy, many risks have an effect around the world. Thus, it is critical that corporations and
governments implement risk management strategies. First, however, let’s start with defining what risks are all
about.
Risk
Risk is defined as the probability and consequence of not achieving a specific goal. As an example, can the
project be completed within budget? Risk is the probability of loss or the expectation of an unfavorable
outcome as a result of a particular action. Risk is really a measure of future uncertainties or the combination
of an event occurring and the consequences of that event. Newsome (2014) noted that there are different
standards of risk definitions but settled on risks as the “changes, effects, and consequences” of an event’s
potential returns (p. 25). Thus, risk is associated with all future adverse outcomes of an action.
A good description of risks facilitates the understanding, identification, and analysis of risks (Newsome, 2014).
A detailed risk definition and description is the first step to identifying risks. An example of a structured
standardized version of risk description is depicted in Table 3.2 on page 29 of your textbook.
UNIT II STUDY GUIDE
Risk
BBA 4226, Risk Management 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Components of Risk
Risk ...
This rapid assessment examines the literature on social protection to determine the gender considerations made in social protection research and the gendered areas of future research in the field. This review was conducted between May and August 2018. Electronic databases were searched to identify records that were published in English between the period of 2008 and 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were empirical and had both the search terms ‘social’ and ‘protection’ or their various combinations, appearing in the titles of the articles. Grey literature, reports and other non-academic writings were excluded as only empirical studies were eligible. Twelve studies were reviewed and synthesised. The results of this study show that social protection research makes gender considerations and most of the social protection interventions were protective, preventive or promotive measures. Future studies should therefore explore transformative social protection with respect to gender equality and partly because gendered social protection is poorly developed. This rapid review also affirms that despite criticisms, social protection continues to be valuable in addressing poverty and inequalities. However, against this backdrop it is worth noting that social protection is not a panacea and its gender considerations are necessary only to the extent that they do not exacerbate inequalities.
RATIO ANALYSIS RATIO ANALYSIS Note Please change the column names.docxaudeleypearl
RATIO ANALYSIS RATIO ANALYSIS Note: Please change the column names based on your industry and your selected companies.RATIOS<INDUSTRY><COMPANY #1><COMPANY #2>ANALYSIS (your comments), which company is stronger, better/worse than industry, what results meanProfitability Ratios (%)show calculationshow ending resultshoww Calculationshow resultGross Margin EBITD Margin Operating Margin Pretax Margin Effective Tax Rate Financial StrengthQuick RatioCurrent Ratio LT Debt to Equity Total Debt to Equity Interest Coverage Valuation RatiosP/E Ratio Price to Sales (P/S)Price to Book (P/B)Price to Tangible Book Price to Cash FlowPrice to Free Cash Flow Management Effectiveness (%)Return On Assets Return On Investment Return On Equity DividendsDividend YieldPayout Ratio EfficiencyRevenue/Employee Net Income/Employee Receivable TurnoverInventory TurnoverAsset Turnover SummaryWhat is ratio analysis? Briefly explain in this space, and reference your resources: Referring to your ratio analysis above, in which company would you be willing to invest, and why?
Heuristics and biases in cyber security dilemmas
Heather Rosoff • Jinshu Cui • Richard S. John
Published online: 28 September 2013
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Cyber security often depends on decisions
made by human operators, who are commonly considered a
major cause of security failures. We conducted 2 behav-
ioral experiments to explore whether and how cyber
security decision-making responses depend on gain–loss
framing and salience of a primed recall prior experience. In
Experiment I, we employed a 2 9 2 factorial design,
manipulating the frame (gain vs. loss) and the presence
versus absence of a prior near-miss experience. Results
suggest that the experience of a near-miss significantly
increased respondents’ endorsement of safer response
options under a gain frame. Overall, female respondents
were more likely to select a risk averse (safe) response
compared with males. Experiment II followed the same
general paradigm, framing all consequences in a loss frame
and manipulating recall to include one of three possible
prior experiences: false alarm, near-miss, or a hit involving
a loss of data. Results indicate that the manipulated prior
hit experience significantly increased the likelihood of
respondents’ endorsement of a safer response relative to
the manipulated prior near-miss experience. Conversely,
the manipulated prior false-alarm experience significantly
decreased respondents’ likelihood of endorsing a safer
response relative to the manipulated prior near-miss
experience. These results also showed a main effect for age
and were moderated by respondent’s income level.
Keywords Cyber security � Framing effect �
Near-miss � Decision making
1 Introduction
Individual users regularly make decisions that affect the
security of their personal devices connected to the internet
and, in turn, to the security of the cybersphere. For
example, th ...
Effective Crisis Communication
Chapter 10: Risk Communication
Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., Seeger, M. (2019). Effective Crisis Communication: Moving From Crisis to Opportunity. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Opportunity #1: Effective Risk Communication (RC) can disrupt a crisis and prevent it from reaching its full magnitude
Important to distinguish between risks and crises
Risk Communication (RC) is future oriented
RC is designed to avert crisis
RC is designed to speculate about what could happen, not explain what did
RC is designed for long term planning vs the immediate problem
RC generally comes from experts foreseeing potential problems versus leaders dealing with a problem.
RC is more personal and internal whereas crisis messages are more public.
RC has the luxury of time with full PR campaigns versus crisis comm that is immediate.
RC can be crafted carefully whereas crisis comm is more spontaneous.
Opportunity #2: A mindful outlook is essential to recognizing new risks
Identifying Risk
Recognizing risk
Learning about it
Prioritizing it
Changing behavior to avoid or mitigate it
Mindfulness – means constantly adapting our perceptual skills to adapt to a changing world
Requires awareness of new information
Requires awareness of different perspectives
High reliability
Preoccupation with failure
Reluctance to simplify operations
Sensitivity to operations
Commitment to resilience
Deference to expertise
Opportunity #3:
Risk Communication must account for both hazard and outrage
Best form of risk communication is interactive
Dialogue should be between all stakeholders who might be affected
Dialogue-centered approach
Democratic and all invited to share opinions
Decisions made for greatest good and greatest number
Technology-centered approach
Experts debate and make recommendations on policy
More efficient – none of us have the time to learn and study all the issues (nor do we want to)
“Experts” – should know more than we do
Loses credibility when the public loses trust in the experts (dishonest, bias, etc.)
Opportunity #3:
Risk Communication must account for both hazard and outrage
Sandman’s Risk/Hazard Equation
Risk f {Hazard+Outrage}
Hazard is the scientifically determined risk level
Outrage is the public’s determination of high risk
If the public perceives high risk, scientists have a hard time convincing them otherwise
If the public doesn’t perceive high risk, scientists have a hard time convincing them otherwise
Opportunity #3:
Risk Communication must account for both hazard and outrage
Dialogue-centered approach takes into consideration public outrage, BUT…
Functions very slowly
Not always based upon fact
Could result in an uninformed public endorsing a risky behavior
Need an interactive compromise approach
Opportunity #4:
To ensure social responsibility, all risk communication should be held to the standard of significant choice
Convergence theory and risk communication
The audience ...
Decision makers often face powerful incentives to increase risk-taking on behalf of others either through bonus contracts or competitive relative performance contracts. Motivated by examples from the recent financial crisis, we conduct an experimental study of risk-taking on behalf of others using a large sample with subjects from all walks of life. We find that people respond to such incentives without much apparent concern for stakeholders. Responses are heterogeneous and mitigated by personality traits. The findings suggest that lack of concern for others’ risk exposure hardly requires “financial psychopaths” in order to flourish, but is diminished by social concerns. We believe the research reported here is the first to experimentally investigate the effects of incentives on risk-taking on behalf of others, and to do so on a large scale using a random sample of the general population.
By Ola Andersson, Håkan J. Holm, Jean-Robert Tyran and Erik Wengström
To read more research articles, please visit https://www.hhs.se/site
Much research to date has tended to view vulnerability by discipline or sector, yet individuals and households experience multiple, interacting and sometimes compound vulnerabilities. Cross-disciplinary thinking is emerging as multi-dimensional vulnerability is likely to become
an increasingly important concept if the outlook over the next 15 to 25 years is one of
multiple, interacting and compound stressors and crises, a result of the “perfect-storm” or “long-crisis” thesis of the interaction of demographics, climate change and food and energy prices. A realigned analytical lens is thus useful to bring together the various intellectual strands involved in multi-dimensional vulnerability analysis. In light of the above, this paper reviews the literature on vulnerability and asks what a “three-dimensional human
wellbeing” approach - a complement to more traditional ways of understanding poverty -might contribute to the analysis of vulnerability.
06279 Topic PSY 325 Statistics for the Behavioral & Social Scienc.docxoswald1horne84988
06279 Topic: PSY 325 Statistics for the Behavioral & Social Sciences
Number of Pages: 2 (Double Spaced)
Number of sources: 3
Writing Style: APA
Type of document: Essay
Academic Level:Undergraduate
Category: Art
Language Style: English (U.S.)
Order Instructions: Attached
follow the requirements in the attached.
Running Head: ERM 1
ERM 4
ERM
Institution Affiliation
Student Name
Date
Mapping
ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT IN HEALTHCARE
A CLEARLY DEFINED STRATEGY WILL ENABLE THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF ERM
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYER IS IMPORTANT WHEN IMPLEMENTING ERM IN HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS
THE HEALTHCARE CULTURE AFFECTS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ERM
a. Culture
1. The healthcare organization culture should support the Enterprise risk management strategy.
2. Organizations that adopt cultures for example unfairness, fear and allow disruptive behaviour are not ready for the implementation of ERM.
b. Strategy
1. A defined strategy will enable the implementation of ERM.
2. Strategic plan in the healthcare industry should cover six months to two years.
c. Communication
1. For effective implementation of ERM communication and education plan is important
2. The employees need to be educated on ERM.
Creating a connection
Culture
For the Enterprise Risk management to be implemented in the healthcare one of the key elements to consider is the culture of the organization. The governing body should ensure that the culture of the company will support the ERM program, (Meulbroek, 2017). If the healthcare engages in tactics that are not favorable to a learning environment, practice fear, employees are not treated fair and just. That means that the company is are not ready for the ERM program. The implications will be that ERM program will fail.
Strategy
A well-defined strategy or plan will be effective in the implementation of the ERM program. A strategy is a long-term plan that is used to achieve a particular set goal or objective. Historically, companies used to draft 5 years to 10 years’ strategic plan. However, today due to the rapid shift and complexity of the healthcare industry strategies cover six months to two years, (Olson & Wu, 2015). If the healthcare does not set a clear and well defined strategy. Then the implementation of ERM will fail.
Communication
Before the implementation of ERM, it is important to educate employees about the program. Communication and information channel should be in place to ensure that everyone in the company is well aware of the risks and the actions needed to be taken to mitigate the risk, (Carroll, 2016). The communication channel will also enable employees to be updated on the program progress. If the healthcare employees are not trained and proper channels of communication are not used then the implications or there is a high possibility that implementation of ERM will fail.
.
Understanding and improving community flood preparedness and response: a rese...Neil Dufty
Many social research projects identify issues with community disaster preparedness and response but struggle to attribute these issues to underlying causes and recommend possible ways to address them. A research framework that considers the underlying causes of preparedness and response and possible interventions was developed for the Wimmera region of Victoria, Australia. The research framework was developed in conjunction with the Wimmera Catchment Management Authority and tested in a social research project across 6 communities in the Wimmera region. This paper provides an outline and rationale for the components of the research framework. It also summarises the regional flood insight afforded by the research framework. The research framework, albeit with some limitations, has universal appeal not only in the examination of community flood preparedness and response, but also for other hazards and other parts of the disaster management cycle.
An analysis of the value of external studies to risk managers, and how to improve them
Once again during the last part of the year, academic institutions, consultancy firms, think-tanks and insurance companies are publishing studies on top risks. But what is the value of these studies to risk managers? The impact on the media and social networks surely justifies the marketing value for the organisations funding the reports. However, the impact on street-level risk managers is to be discussed.
Existential Risk Prevention as Global PriorityKarlos Svoboda
•Existential risk is a concept that can focus long-term global efforts and sustainability concerns.
• The biggest existential risks are anthropogenic and related to potential future technologies.
• A moral case can be made that existential risk reduction is strictly more important than any other global public
good.
• Sustainability should be reconceptualised in dynamic terms, as aiming for a sustainable trajectory rather than a sustainable state.
• Some small existential risks can be mitigated today directly (e.g. asteroids) or indirectly (by building resilience and
reserves to increase survivability in a range of extreme scenarios) but it is more important to build capacity to
improve humanity’s ability to deal with the larger existential risks that will arise later in this century. This will
require collective wisdom, technology foresight, and the ability when necessary to mobilise a strong global coordinated response to anticipated existential risks.
• Perhaps the most cost-effective way to reduce existential risks today is to fund analysis of a wide range of existential risks and potential mitigation strategies, with a long-term perspective
Madame bovary and victim rights essay. Madame Bovary and A Dolls House Essay | Literature - Year 11 WACE .... ENG3UE: Madame Bovary. Madame Bovary reflection: Essay Example | Topics and Well Written .... Madame bovary. Madame Bovary by app g1d - Issuu. Madame Bovary Study Questions. Madame Bovary neither glorifies nor punishes adultery Essay Example .... Important Aspects of Madame Bovary - GCSE English - Marked by Teachers.com. Madame Bovary | Book by Gustave Flaubert | Official Publisher Page .... Madame Bovary Study Guide | Course Hero. The Influence of the Epistolary Novel Structure and Means on Madame .... Love in Madame Bovary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays .... (PDF) Madame Bovary. WIT Essay: Madame Bovary IB | Language A: Literature - Higher Level IB .... Madame bovary thesis. Lecture Analytique Madame Bovary | Gustave Flaubert | Madame Bovary. Madame Bovary: Analysis of Fate and Fulfillment Essay. Madame Bovary Text Tracking Activity Below you will find essay. Some Notes on Translation and on Madame Bovary | Literary magazines .... Madame Bovary. Madame Bovary, II, 12 - Flaubert: explication de texte détaillée sur un .... Review of Madame Bovary and its symbolism - WriteWork. Mme Bovary Notes | Emma (Novel) | Madame Bovary | Free 30-day Trial .... Reading Madame Bovary by Amanda Lohrey | Black Inc.. Summary of madame bovary by gustave flaubert Madame Bovary Essay Madame Bovary Essay
Incredible India Essay, Article, Speech, Paragraph [With Images] - My .... Incredible India - PHDessay.com. Essay on India for Students from Class 6 to 12 - Leverage Edu. Incredible India Essay | Incredible India Essay for Kids. An Essay on India-An Incredible India-2021 - Education and Career. Speech on incredible india wikipedia. Incredible India Essay for .... paragraph on incredible india 150 words - Brainly.in. Incredible Essay On India ~ Thatsnotus. The Incredible India Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written .... Excellent Essay On INDIA [with Headings]. INCREDIBLE INDIA Essay in English// beautiful handwriting - YouTube. Reflection Essay: Incredible india essay. Incredible India Introduction | Teaching Resources. Heritage of India Essay | Essay on Heritage of India for Students and .... College essay: Incredible india essay. Essay On India for Students and Children | PDF Download. India - Information - News, Features and Essays: Incredible India .... Essay/India is incredible,Travel and Explore - YouTube. Make In India Essay | Essay on Make in India for Students and Children .... India 2020 Essay. Essay on India | India Essay for Students and Children in English .... Incredible India Essay - Wordzz. My incredible India | Winning Essays | K-W-T-G Competition 2017. Best Essay on India in English For Students & Children's. Incredible India : Speech , Essay , Paragraph , Wallpapers , Quotes .... Incredible India | Winning essay | K-W-T-G Writing Competition 2016 Incredible India Essay Incredible India Essay
Argumentative Essay About Capital PunishmentWendy Hager
capital punishment essay 2 | Capital Punishment | Guilt (Law) | Free 30 .... Capital Punishment (Essay) | Capital Punishment | Hanging. Argument on Capital Punishment | English Literary Studies - Year 11 .... 010 Essays On Capital Punishment Essay Introduction L Example ~ Thatsnotus. Anti capital punishment essay in 2021 | Essay examples, Essay, College .... ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY: Capital Punishment should be abolished and not re .... Death Penalty Argument Essay - BBC - Ethics - Capital Punishment .... Capital Punishment Should Be Abolished Argumentative Essay - PHDessay.com. Capital Punishment. - GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics .... 001 Essay On Should Capital Punishment Abolished ~ Thatsnotus. Capital punishment essay. 24/7 College Homework Help.. 009 Essay Example Death Penalty Essays Against The Capital Punishment .... Amazing Capital Punishment Argumentative Essay ~ Thatsnotus. College Essay: Against capital punishment essay.
Best College Essay Writing Service | College essay, College essay .... Buy Best Academic Writing Services, Top 10 Best Essay Writing Services .... College essay writing service reviews. Essay writing services reviews: Essay Writing Services Reviews .... Custom essay writing service reviews new Wellsburg Essay Writing .... College essay writing services for students. Resources for Writers: Summary Writing - Write My Paper • Best .... College essay service - UK Essay Writing Help.. PPT - Get best writers using essay writing service reviews PowerPoint .... College research paper writing service reviews. Calaméo - Affordable Best Essay Writing Service at Your Doorway through .... College essay writing services - College Essay Writing Service Write My .... Tips for writing your college admission essay!!!! | Essays | Cognition. Free Essay Samples: Ready-Made Examples For All Disciplines в€€ How to .... Reviews on essay writing services – Equilibrium.biz. How essay writing service review is useful. Trusted Essay Writing Service - Essay Writing Service. Review Essay Writing Services: Custom Essay Writing Service Review. College paper writing service reviews - College Homework Help and .... essay writing service. College Application Essay Service 10 Steps, How many words should a .... Degree Essay Writing Service Review | | 梅田ナビ. Essay Writing Service For College Students Before the Deadline. The Best Experienced College Essay Writing Service. College Essay Format: Simple Steps to Be Followed. Best essay writing service by lewisahmed - Issuu. Sample College Essays. Free Download. Easy to Edit and Print. best thesis writing service review, essay reviews service, websites to .... College essay writing service shortcuts the easy way by Essays Master .... Essay Writing Services - Fountain Writers. College paper writing service reviews. School essay: Essay service. School Essay College Essay Writing Service Reviews College Essay Writing Service Reviews
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Delivering Micro-Credentials in Technical and Vocational Education and TrainingAG2 Design
Explore how micro-credentials are transforming Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) with this comprehensive slide deck. Discover what micro-credentials are, their importance in TVET, the advantages they offer, and the insights from industry experts. Additionally, learn about the top software applications available for creating and managing micro-credentials. This presentation also includes valuable resources and a discussion on the future of these specialised certifications.
For more detailed information on delivering micro-credentials in TVET, visit this https://tvettrainer.com/delivering-micro-credentials-in-tvet/
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Safalta Digital marketing institute in Noida, provide complete applications that encompass a huge range of virtual advertising and marketing additives, which includes search engine optimization, virtual communication advertising, pay-per-click on marketing, content material advertising, internet analytics, and greater. These university courses are designed for students who possess a comprehensive understanding of virtual marketing strategies and attributes.Safalta Digital Marketing Institute in Noida is a first choice for young individuals or students who are looking to start their careers in the field of digital advertising. The institute gives specialized courses designed and certification.
for beginners, providing thorough training in areas such as SEO, digital communication marketing, and PPC training in Noida. After finishing the program, students receive the certifications recognised by top different universitie, setting a strong foundation for a successful career in digital marketing.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Assessing Risk-Taking What To Measure And How To Measure It
1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjrr20
Journal of Risk Research
ISSN: 1366-9877 (Print) 1466-4461 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjrr20
Assessing risk-taking: what to measure and how to
measure it
Alexandre Bran & David C. Vaidis
To cite this article: Alexandre Bran & David C. Vaidis (2019): Assessing risk-taking: what to
measure and how to measure it, Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1591489
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1591489
Published online: 11 May 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 21
View Crossmark data
2. Assessing risk-taking: what to measure and how to
measure it
Alexandre Bran and David C. Vaidis
Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale: Menaces et Soci
et
e (EA 4471), Universit
e Paris Descartes, Paris, France
ABSTRACT
Risk-taking has been a major field of interest for scientists and for
applied purposes since decades. However, many researchers have noted
that the current measurement instruments fail to show adequate valid-
ity and predictive power. Given the recent calls to develop new meas-
ures, this paper aims to highlight six key points that should be kept in
mind when constructing or using measures of risk-taking concepts.
Specifically, we encourage risk-taking scholars (a) to pay close attention
to the terminology used in studies, (b) to distinguish measures of gen-
eral and specific risk-taking, (c) to distinguish risk-taking from the appeal
of risky activities, (d) to keep in mind the subjectivity of risk-taking, (e)
to consider the measurement of passive risk-taking, and (f) to favour
more realistic risk-taking tasks. Overall, these recommendations should
help researchers to design and use more relevant risk-taking measures.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 20 July 2018
Accepted 19 January 2019
KEYWORDS
Risk-taking; decision
making; risk perception; risk
appraisal; risk attitude;
risk propensity
Over the years, the risk-taking field has developed dozens of instruments to assess its different
concepts. This diversity could be very enriching as it could allow researchers to validate their
hypotheses with converging evidence. However, in the past few years, most of the scales and
tasks used in the literature had seen their validity and their predictive power criticized, with
researchers sometimes even questioning how they really relate to risk-taking. Researchers have
highlighted the lack of convergent validity between the main instruments (Killgore, Kamimori,
and Balkin 2011; Mamerow, Frey, and Mata 2016; L€
onnqvist et al. 2015; Schonberg et al. 2011;
Szrek et al. 2012) along with insufficient predictive power and correlations when compared to
real risk-taking (Anderson and Brown 1984; L€
onnqvist et al. 2015; Szrek et al. 2012; Woelbert and
Riedl 2013). In this context, it is not surprising that several scholars have called for new measure-
ment instruments (Byrnes et al. 1999; Fox and Tannenbaum 2011; Rohrmann 2011; Schonberg
et al. 2011). However, we think that a focus is needed on how these future instruments can per-
form better than the current ones.
Since the beginnings of risk-taking research, scholars have pointed out flaws in the measures
of risk-taking concepts. For instance, after showing a lack of convergent evidence from the
instruments used at that time, Slovic (1962, 1964) highlighted several issues with these instru-
ments such as the lack of emotional arousal induced by the measures or the failure to account
for the context-specific and subjective nature of risk. Despite these early warnings, these flaws
seem to have persisted through the years since they all have been reported again recently
(Byrnes et al. 1999; Fox and Tannenbaum 2011; Schonberg et al. 2011). We think that there are
CONTACT Alexandre Bran alexandre.bran@parisdescartes.fr; alexandre.bran@outlook.com 71 avenue Edouard Vaillant,
92100 Boulogne Billancourt, Paris, France
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor Francis Group
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1591489
3. also several more flaws in risk-taking measures that have yet to be clearly identified, and the cur-
rent literature lacks a thorough overview of the things to consider when attempting to assess
risk-taking and its related concepts. In this article, we review the majors flaws previously identi-
fied in the literature and we highlight other issues in the assessment of risk-taking concepts.
Specifically, we emphasize the need for more vigilance regarding the terms used in studies, for a
continuous distinction between measures of general and specific risk-taking, for a distinction
between risk-taking and the appeal of risky activities, for taking into account the subjectivity of
risk-taking, for more measures of passive risk-taking, and for more realistic risk-taking tasks.
We also offer recommendations to achieve more precise and more adequate means of assessing
risk-taking concepts.
Precisely define what to measure
Risk-taking is a broad construct and the literature on it encompasses diverse concepts such as risk-
taking tendency (e.g. Byrnes et al. 1999), risk-taking propensity (e.g. Brockhaus 1980), risk attitudes
(e.g. Blais and Weber 2006), risk preferences (e.g. Dave et al. 2010), risk aversion (e.g. Holt and
Laury 2002), risk perception (e.g. Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1980), and risk appraisal (e.g.
Horvath and Zuckerman 1993). This breadth is valuable but may favour ambiguity and confusion,
as any error or imprecision in a paper could mislead readers about what is really measured in a
study. Given the richness of the risk-taking field and the current absence of a consensual typology,
it is no surprise that such imprecisions do happen. For instance, measures of risky behaviours
obtained through a single task are frequently considered as measures of risk-taking tendency (e.g.
Lejuez et al. 2002; Rubio et al. 2010) despite criticisms of the notion that these single measures val-
idly assess such a tendency (Coppola 2014; Dohmen et al. 2011; Szrek et al. 2012). This kind of
imprecision can mislead readers and can also be found in reviews of risk-taking measures that
often mix and compare under the general label risk preference instruments designed to measure
different concepts, such as risk-taking behaviours, risk-taking propensity or risk appraisal (e.g.
Charness, Gneezy, and Imas. 2013; Coppola 2014). Along with risk preference, the labels risk attitude
and risk-taking attitudes have also been associated with very different definitions and measures
depending on the researcher’s conceptualization (e.g. Blais and Weber 2006; Iversen and Rundmo
2004; Schoemaker 1993). Another kind of confusion may arise when authors assess risk-taking
through scale items such as ‘I enjoy taking risks’ (e.g. Epstein and Botvin 2002) although there are
notable differences between enjoying taking risks and actually taking risks.
Overall, we think that these ambiguities may be reduced if the risk-taking field had a consen-
sual typology. A few researchers have already suggested typologies of risk-taking concepts. Fox
and Tannembaum (2011) proposed to distinguish risk-taking behaviour, risk preference and risk
perception, closely matching an earlier model proposed by Sitkin and Pablo (1992) who encom-
passed the distinction between risk behaviour, risk propensity and risk perception. We propose
another typology that builds on these models but goes further by including a fourth core con-
cept and by precisely redefining all their elements. Based on these previous models and on our
own analysis of the literature, we identify four core concepts in the risk-taking literature: risk-tak-
ing behaviour, risk-taking propensity, risk-taking attitude, and risk appraisal.
Risk-taking behaviours refer to actions or inactions involving potential risks. Byrnes et al.
(1999) distinguished three types of risk-taking behaviours measures that are commonly used in
the literature: self-reported behaviour, hypothetical choice, and observed behaviours. With the
intent to make them more precise and more inclusive, we propose to respectively rename them
as reported behaviours, projected behaviours, and actual behaviours. Reported behaviours cover
individual’s report of past or current behaviours. This include self-reports as well as observers
reports, such as parents reporting on their children’s behaviours. Projected behaviours cover
intentions or decisions in hypothetical choices or situations and are usually measured by asking
participants how likely they are to engage in given behaviours in the future (e.g. Weber, Blais,
2 A. BRAN AND D. C. VAIDIS
4. and Betz 2002) or how they would likely react when confronted with various scenarios (e.g. Ben-
Ari, Florian, and Mikulincer 1999). Finally, actual behaviours cover the direct observation of real
individuals’ behaviours, for instance by using risk-taking tasks (e.g. Lejuez et al. 2002) or by
recording behaviours with cameras (Burns and Wilde 1995; Lajunen, Karola, and Summala 1997).
Risk-taking propensity represents the consistent tendency of an individual to engage in or
avoid risk-taking behaviours when confronted with risky situations. Risk-taking propensity can be
general, alike a general risk-taking trait, or specific to a certain domain, such as the specific pro-
pensity to take risks in financial decisions. There are two main approaches to the measurement
of risk-taking propensity. The first one consists in directly asking individuals about their tendency
to take risks, either in general (e.g. Dohmen et al. 2011) or specifically in certain domains (e.g.
Nicholson et al. 2005). This approach is based on individual reports and seems reliable as its
measures have been repeatedly linked to reported risk-taking behaviours (Coppola 2014;
Dohmen et al. 2011; Szrek et al. 2012). The second approach is to infer risk-taking propensity
based on risk-taking behaviours, assuming that risk-taking behaviours are consistent and repre-
sentative of a general tendency (e.g. Lejuez, et al. 2002; Wong and Carducci 1991). However, the
validity of this second approach is questioned since, to date, there is no risk-taking behavioural
measure that is consistently related to the numerous risk-taking behaviours in the real life
(Coppola 2014; Szrek et al. 2012).
Risk-taking attitudes have several definitions in the literature that differ deeply from one
another. Economists traditionally associate risk-taking attitudes with the degree of risk preference
or the extent to which one will favour or avoid risky choices (Schoemaker 1993). Psychologists,
on the other hand, consider attitudes as a core component when predicting human behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991) and tend to define them as the ‘tendencies to evaluate an entity with some degree
of favour or disfavour, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective and behavioural responses’
(Eagly and Chaiken 1993, p.1). The affective component refers to the feelings and emotions
evoked by taking risks (e.g. ‘I find fun to gamble’), the cognitive component refers to the infor-
mation, knowledge, or beliefs one holds about taking risks (e.g. ‘I think that taking risks is a
mark of manliness’), and the behavioural component refers to the willingness to take or to avoid
risks (e.g. ‘I want to take risks tonight’). With this model, the final attitude can be definitely
valenced – that is definitely positive or negative – or more ambiguous. For instance, one can
feel that taking a risk generates a positive thrill and yet be unmotivated to take a risk to pre-
serve personal resources. Scholars have also looked at similar attitudes such as attitudes about
risk-takers (Farthing 2005) or about safety (Ek and Akselsson 2007).
Risk appraisal is the last concept and refers to the subjective assessment of the riskiness of a
specific situation. Risk appraisal is usually called risk perception in the literature but this term may
result in confusion with other concepts. For instance, risk perception has been variously used to
describe the riskiness assessment of situations (Weber et al. 2002), the perception of risk charac-
teristics such as controllability or dreadfulness (Ho et al., 2008), the estimated likelihood of given
undesirable events happening in the future (Lerner et al., 2003), or the relative evaluation of the
importance of various undesirable events (Slimak and Dietz 2006). Moreover, the term risk per-
ception is fundamentally ill-suited as risks are not physical elements that can be perceived by the
human senses but rely on a subjective evaluation (see Wachinger et al., 2013). Hence, while less
often employed, the term risk appraisal appears to us to be more appropriate. Risk appraisal is
usually modelled with two components: severity and vulnerability (Janz and Becker 1984;
Maddux and Rogers 1983). Severity corresponds to the potential negative consequences that
may happen, while vulnerability corresponds to the likelihood that these negative consequences
will occur. Appraisals of greater severity and greater vulnerability are both associated with
appraisal of riskiness (Milne, Sheeran, and Orbell 2000; van der Pligt 1998). Another component
is sometimes proposed and consists of the potential rewards of the risk, that is the potential
benefits consequences that may happen (Maddux and Rogers 1983; Sarin and Weber 1993).
Accordingly, several studies show that the more a given risk is associated with potential rewards,
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 3
5. the less it is appraised as risky (Slovic 1987; Weber et al. 2002). Another important factor influ-
encing risk appraisal has been introduced by the self-efficacy theory (Bandura 1982). According
to this theory, self-efficacy (i.e. individuals’ own beliefs about their capabilities) influences how
people perceive and react to situations. Accordingly, studies have shown that self-efficacy influ-
ence risk appraisal (Krueger and Dickson 1994). Another popular conceptualisation of risk
appraisal was proposed by Slovic (1987) and is based on two factors: dread risk, defined by ‘lack
of control, dread, catastrophic potential, fatal consequences and the inequitable distribution of
risks and benefits’ (p. 283), and unknown risk, defined by ‘hazards judged to be unobservable,
unknown, new, and delayed in their manifestation of harm’ (p. 283).
We believe that the distinction between risk-taking behaviours, risk-taking propensity, risk-tak-
ing attitude and risk appraisal (see Figure 1) should closely represent the reality of the field (see
Table 1) and would allow for a common language to refer to risk-taking concepts. It should be
emphasized that these four concepts are not independent from each other. For instance, risk-tak-
ing propensity can be assessed by summing reports of risk-taking behaviours (e.g. Nicholson
et al. 2005). Likewise, risk-taking attitude and risk appraisal are strongly linked with each other:
the attitude one holds towards an activity influences the appraisal of the same situation and,
conversely, the appraisal of a given risk will update the beliefs and the attitude towards this risk
(Slovic et al., 2004). All these dependencies strengthen our main point: that close attention
should be paid to the terms used in order to avoid the ambiguities and confusion that are
sprinkled through the literature.
Differentiate general and context-specific risk-taking
Our second point focuses on the context-specific nature of risk taking (Fox and Tannembaum
2011; Slovic 1964). For a long time, risk-taking propensity has been mainly studied as a stable
Projected
Risk-taking
behaviour
Actual
Risk-taking
propensity
Risk-taking
attitude Risk appraisal
Affect Beliefs Motivation
Reported
'I gambled last
night'
'I am gambling' 'I will probably
gamble tonight'
'It is thrilling
to drive fast'
'I think that driving
fast is a mark of
manliness'
'I want to
drive fast'
General Specific
'I am someone
who often take
risk'
'I never take drugs'
Severity Gains
Vulnerability
'Smoking can
cause serious
health issues'
'I am not likely
to have cancer
by smoking'
'Smoking helps
me relax'
Figure 1. The four core concepts of risk-taking.
4 A. BRAN AND D. C. VAIDIS
6. personality trait under the expected utility framework and its variants (e.g. Edwards 1954;
Tversky 1967). Within this framework, individuals can be characterized as risk-averse, risk-seeking,
or risk-neutral depending on the shape of their utility function. This approach is very close to a
personality trait view of risk-taking and therefore assumes that the risks taken by an individual in
one context are predictive of the risk taken by this individual in other contexts. This has also
been the underlying assumption of many early scales in psychology which computed a general
risk-taking score based on different scenarios (Jackson 1976; Kogan and Wallach 1964). However,
the expected utility framework fails to explain why individuals have been found to be inconsist-
ent in their risk-taking propensity across different contexts and situations (MacCrimmon and
Wehrung 1990; Schoemaker 1990; Slovic 1962, 1964).
Progressively, researchers converged upon a new conceptualization of risk-taking propensity,
no longer considering it as a single personality trait but as a situation-specific trait, dependent
on the context of the risk. Risk-taking scales started to be divided into subscales examining risk-
taking in several contexts, such as social risk-taking, health risk-taking or crime risk-taking
(Horvath and Zuckerman 1993; MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1986). Today, this contextual view is
widely supported (Hanoch, Johnson, and Wilke 2006; Rohrmann 2011) and contextual scales
have become the primary instruments used to assess risk-taking propensity (e.g. Blais and Weber
2006; Nicholson et al. 2005). Based on a precedent review of the literature, Weber, Blais, and
Betz (2002) identified five major domains of risk-taking propensity: financial, health/safety, recre-
ational, ethics and social. Financial risk-taking is often further decomposed into gambling and
investment risk-taking (Brown and Braver 2007; Weber, Blais, and Betz 2002). While this typology
of risk-taking domains currently appears to be the most popular, it should be noted that differ-
ent typologies have been proposed (e.g. Nicholson et al. 2005; Wilke et al. 2014) with the aim of
representing most activities that involve risk-taking.
In our opinion, results using contextual scales are interesting in two major respects. First, they
definitely demonstrate that risk-taking is dependent on the context with participants simultan-
eously risk-seeking in some domains and risk-neutral in others (Hanoch et al. 2006; Weber et al.
2002). Second, some researchers also aggregate the contextual scores to create a general risk-
taking score. These attempts have repeatedly showed the existence of an underlying general fac-
tor of risk-taking across the different domains (Dohmen et al. 2011; Frey et al. 2017; Highhouse
et al. 2017; Nicholson et al. 2005). Taken together, these results illustrate that individuals have
Table 1. Classification of some of the most used or most typical measures instruments according to their concept
of interest.
Task name or scale name Category Source
Attitude to Risk Taking in Medical
Decision Questionnaire
Risk-taking attitude Grol et al. (1990)
Balloon Analogue Task Actual risk-taking behaviour Lejuez et al. (2002)
Choice Dilemma Questionnaire Projected risk-taking behaviour Kogan and Wallach (1964)
Domain Specific Risk-Taking Scale
– Benefits
Risk appraisal (benefits) Blais and Weber (2006)
Domain Specific Risk-Taking Scale
- Likelihood
Projected risk-taking behaviour Blais and Weber (2006)
Domain Specific Risk-Taking Scale
- Perception
Risk appraisal (global) Blais and Weber (2006)
Driving Behavior Questionnaire Reported risk-taking behaviour/Specific
risk-taking propensitya
Reason et al. (1990)
Iowa Gambling Task Actual risk-taking behaviour Bechara et al. (1994)
Military Operational Risk Taking Scale Risk-taking attitude Momen et al. (2010)
One-item general risk-taking General risk-taking propensity Dohmen et al. (2011)
Risk Propensity Questionnaire General risk-taking propensity Rohrmann (2011)
Risk Propensity Scale Reported risk-taking behaviour/Specific
risk-taking propensitya
Nicholson et al. (2005)
The multiple price list method Actual risk-taking behaviour Holt and Laury (2002);
Miller, Meyer, and Lanzetta (1969)
a
Specific risk-taking propensity is often measured by summing reports of risk-taking behaviours.
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 5
7. both a general tendency towards risk-taking and specific preferences depending on the domains
of risk. Consequently, researchers interested in general risk-taking would gain validity in their
measures by using or creating instruments measuring risk-taking across different domains in
order to compute a general score. On the other hand, researchers interested in a specific domain
of risk-taking would gain in precision by using or creating instruments specifically related to their
domain of interest and by avoiding proxy measures. These instruments should comply with
psychometric requirements, especially regarding scale construction (e.g. Furr 2011). In any case,
to avoid overgeneralization, the results of studies focusing only on one specific domain of risk-
taking should not be assumed to generalize to a whole risk-taking concept unless this
generalization is supported by other studies in the literature.
Distinguish risk-taking from the appeal of risk-taking activities
Several instruments associate the appeal of risky situations or the research of sensation to a sign
of risk-taking. For instance, Blais and Weber (2006) compute an index of recreational risk-taking
primarily by asking the probability of taking part in different high-risk sports (e.g. ‘Taking a sky-
diving class’), and many scales measure risk-taking tendency by using items with similar phrasing
(e.g. Nicholson et al. 2005; Rohrmann 2011). But are these ‘high-risk’ activities really risky?
According to American statistics, skydivers are about as likely to die when doing a jump as to
die from being struck by lightning in their everyday life (United States Parachute Associations
2015; National Safety Council 2017). In the meantime, the odds of dying when driving a car are
20 times higher (National Safety Council 2017).
To us, it is not just because people are appealed by an activity that looks risky that they are
risk-takers; rather, it depends on their behaviours during this activity: on whether they take all
necessary precautions and follow safety rules or not. If participants follow all safety procedures,
then most high-risk activities are not riskier than daily activities. Actually, several studies suggest
that part of the appeal of high-risk activities lies in the management and minimization of the
risks involved (Paquette, Lacourse, and Bergeron 2009; Woodman et al. 2013; Ruch and
Zuckerman 2001). For instance, skydivers spend most of their flight time checking their equip-
ment and recalling safety protocols (Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993). Supporting this view, the per-
sonality trait of sensation seeking has been associated positively with deliberate risky behaviours
but also with precautionary behaviours (Woodman et al. 2013, Study 2).
In the literature, studies on the links between the appeal of risky activities and injuries or acci-
dents are contradictory, finding positive correlations (e.g. Iversen and Rundmo 2004; Jonah 1997;
Zuckerman 1983), null correlations (e.g. Burns and Wilde 1995; Wishart, Somoray, and Rowland
2017; Whissel and Bigelow 2003), and even negative correlations (e.g. Cherpitel, Meyers, and
Perrine 1998). It is possible that these contradictory results are partly due to the confounding of
risk-minimizers individuals with actual risk-takers. To avoid this confound and to gain in preci-
sion, we suggest assessing risk-taking by measuring both risky and precautionary behaviours
within an activity (e.g. ‘I take time to check for potential hazards’, Woodman et al. 2013; see also
Weinstein 1989) and not just the appeal of the activity.
Take into account the subjectivity of risk-taking
Most definitions of risk insist on the notions of uncertainty, outcome variance, and loss; however,
few authors have commented on how subjective these notions are. Yates and Stone (1992)
made that point when they wrote: ‘What is considered a loss is peculiar to the person con-
cerned, and so is the significance of that loss and its chance of occurring’ (p. 5). Risk-taking is
fundamentally subjective because the same action can be risky for one person but safe for
another, depending on their personal situation or their skills.
6 A. BRAN AND D. C. VAIDIS
8. The first reason for this subjectivity is that the nature of a loss and its significance vary
between individuals. Imagine a group of skaters doing perilous jumps, risking falling and being
injured. This injury would probably not be as significant for a young person as it would be for
an elderly one. In risk-taking tasks, money is the most commonly used incentive yet the value of
money depends on the context and the individual (Bernoulli 1954; Buechel and Morewedge
2014; Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Accordingly, Holt and Laury (2002) showed that risk-taking
behaviours decreased sharply when they increased the sum of money in lotteries to reach hun-
dreds of dollars, a sum most participants would find significant (see also Xu et al. 2018). The
point is, if the potential losses are more significant for some participants than for others, then
they are not exposed to the same degree of risk. Likewise, if the losses are not significant for
some participants, then there is very low risk involved for them. The absence of significant losses
could explain the insufficient predictive power of tasks that use low incentives or that rest solely
upon measures of projected behaviours (Xu et al. 2016, 2018).
A second reason for the subjectivity of risk-taking is that there are many risky situations in
which the skills or knowledge of a person can influence the actual risk, either by modulating the
magnitude of the outcomes or their chances of occurring (Miller and Byrnes 1997). In our skater
example, professional skaters would be less likely to fall than novices and, even if an accident
occurs, professionals might have reduced their risk of injury by learning how to fall safely. Many
risk-taking measures do not take into account these differences. For instance, Blais and Weber
(2006) assess projected risk-taking by asking the probability of ‘Piloting a small plane.’ Piloting a
plane is certainly risky for a novice, but for an experienced pilot it is much safer than driving a
car (National Safety Council 2017). This is troublesome as those who are likely to take that ‘risk’
can be those for whom the situation is not risky. Several studies in high-risk sports do show that
skilled individuals are more likely to engage in risky behaviours while also being less prone to
accidents and injuries (Made and Elmqvist 2004; Ruedl et al. 2016). In this regard, individual’s
beliefs are also important. The self-efficacy theory (Bandura 1982) posits that individual will
adopt different behaviours according to their own beliefs about their capabilities, and studies
have shown that self-efficacy influence risk-taking behaviours (Krueger and Dickson 1994) as well
as preventive behaviours (Bandura 1990).
There are at least two possibilities to cope with the general bias of risk subjectivity when
assessing risk-taking concepts. First, researchers interested in general risk-taking can focus on sit-
uations that involve both a low degree of possible control and losses that should be significant
for most, such as eating toxic mushrooms or having unprotected sex with unfamilar partners.
These situations should be risky for most participants and would thus reduce subjectivity.
Second, researchers can enhance the objectivity of their measures by relativizing the situation to
the participant’s point of view. For instance, scales with subjective situations can be objectified
by using items that relate to the participant’s skill (e.g. ‘Going down a ski run that is beyond your
ability’, Blais and Weber 2006). Monetary tasks with real incentives could also reduce the subject-
ivity bias by increasing their incentives or by presenting them differently to make them appear
more significant (Brandt and Martin 2015; Romanowich and Lamb 2013). These measures can be
costly but they should ensure that risk is involved for every participant, thus increasing the valid-
ity of the measures and reducing the noise in the results.
Consider measuring passive risk-taking
Active risk-taking represents behaviours putting people into risky situations, such as deliberately
parking a car in a restricted zone. Passive risk-taking represents inaction putting people into risky
situations, such as not moving a car once one realizes it is parked in a restricted zone (Keinan
and Bereby-Meyer 2017). Overall, the distinction between active and passive risk-taking is rarely
made in the literature, and only a few definitions emphasize that risky behaviours can involve
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 7
9. either action or inaction (Campbell and Viceira 2005; Furby and Beyth-Marom 1992). More
recently, Keinan and Bereby-Meyer (2012) have been the first to formally study these two types
of risk-taking with the development of the Passive Risk-Taking scale. The few studies which com-
pared active and passive risk-taking found differences in how they are influenced and perceived.
Contrary to active risk-taking, passive risk-taking is linked to procrastination and avoidance but
not to sensation seeking (Keinan and Bereby-Meyer 2012). In risky decision making, passive
choices generate less regret than active ones (Luce 1998) and participants perceive less risk and
less personal responsibility in passive risk-taking situations (Keinan and Bereby-Meyer 2017).
In the literature, results are often generalised to an entire risk-taking concept despite the fact
that instruments mostly measure active risk-taking. Most risk-taking tasks require an action from
the participant, such as taking a bet or pushing a button to pump a balloon. To our knowledge,
there is no task that measures risk-taking by looking at the participants’ inaction. Likewise, in
risk-taking scales, most items are framed in an active form. For instance, the most used scale
today, the DOSPERT (Blais and Weber 2006), frames only one of its 30 items in a passive form,
and this predominance can also be seen in others scales (e.g. Nicholson et al. 2005). Active and
passive risk-taking are two complementary forms of risk-taking. Consequently, if a given factor is
found to increase one while decreasing the other, it would be logically spurious to state that
this factor raises risk-taking as a whole. However, the current instruments do not allow discrimin-
ation between influences on active and passive risk-taking.
This focus on active risk-taking can be problematic as many results in the literature can be
understood not in terms of risk-taking but in terms of activeness. If a given factor increases the
propensity to take risky actions, is it because this factor favours risk-taking or because it raises
the motivation to act, whatever the action? For instance, emotions have been linked to risk-tak-
ing but also to changes in the state of action readiness (Frijda, Kuipers, and ter Schure 1989).
Anger has been linked to an increase in active risk-taking (Lerner and Keltner 2001; Rydell et al.
2008) but also to a general action motivation (Glowinsky et al., 2011, Harmon-Jones et al. 2012)
that could decreases passive risk-taking. Conversely, sadness has been linked to a decrease in
risk-taking (Yuen and Lee 2003) but also to an increase in passivity (Glowinski et al., 2011;
Harmon-Jones et al. 2012) that could increases passive risk-taking (Eisenberg, Baron, and
Seligman 1996). Apart from emotions, the personality trait of impulsiveness could also be a fac-
tor that would theoretically increases active risk-taking but also decreases passive risk-taking.
While passive risk-taking is still largely understudied in the literature, it appears to us as a
very relevant way to distinguish risk-taking from activeness. It would be interesting to develop
instruments that measure these two forms of risk-taking, especially for actual risk-taking for
which we did not find any existing passive measures. On their part, future scales assessing risk-
taking concepts should include both active and passive items, thus allowing to pursue their com-
parison and to study their characteristics, for instance by using factor analysis (e.g. J€
oreskog
1969). The prevalence of active items in current scales does not allow making such ana-
lysis today.
Increase the realistic aspect of risk-taking tasks
The literature abounds with tasks designed to assess actual risk-taking behaviours and this is
valuable because measuring actual behaviours is essential to the experimental study of risk-tak-
ing. However, when measured, the links between these tasks and real-life behaviours are often
low and unsatisfactory (Gahagen, 2014; Mamerow et al. 2016; Szrek et al. 2012; Woelbert Riedl
2013). Some explanations of this lack of correlation have already been suggested, emphasizing
for instance the untypicality of these tasks, their non-intuitive nature or their necessity to under-
stand probabilities (Charness and Viceisza 2016; Eisenberg, Baron, and Seligman 1996). Here, we
highlight two explanations that may have been overlooked in the literature: the low level of
8 A. BRAN AND D. C. VAIDIS
10. arousal induced by these tasks and the level of action identification they induce through their
game aspect.
First, many risk-taking tasks may not be as emotionally involving as real life risky situations
(Anderson and Brown 1984; Schonberg et al. 2011). Although many studies show that antici-
pated emotions and sensation seeking are core motivations in risk-taking (Kerr, 1991;
Loewenstein et al., 2001), few studies have measures of the level of arousal that tasks induce.
Yet, to us, many of the current risk-taking tasks do not seem able to generate strong sensations
to their participants, especially when compared to real-life risk-taking. For instance, Anderson
and Brown (1984) found that gambling in a casino induced more thrill and excitement than in a
typical laboratory task and that, accordingly, gamblers behaved differently in the two contexts.
When laboratory tasks are used to predict real-life gambling, risky driving behaviours or risky sex-
ual behaviours, the low predictive power obtained may come from this gap in arousal and sensa-
tions. Overall, high sensations seekers should be more motivated to take risks outside of the
laboratory, where situations involve more arousal (Anderson and Brown 1984). Conversely, we
may expect sensation avoiders to be more inclined to take risks inside the laboratory, where
arousal is kept lower than outside.
Second, nowadays many tasks are computerized and look like small video games. This aspect
is even reinforced in some studies by presenting the task as a ‘game’ to the participant (e.g.
Braams et al. 2014) or by representing gains as scores or as casino chips (e.g. Osmont et al.
2017). Yet, this game context may favour risk-taking due to factors unrelated to real-life situa-
tions, such as the activation of a performance goal or a stronger feeling of safety. For instance,
video games often encourage players to take risks and to look for the best possible outcome,
alike the best score that is often presented as an objective (Bailey 2012). In lotteries and gam-
bles, this best possible outcome is the maximum money one could possibly earn and is often
only attainable by taking the riskier choices. Modulation of risk-taking in these tasks could there-
fore be linked to the activation of a performance goal, a desire to rea Azjen, ch the best out-
come, which may be irrelevant in other measures or in a real-life context. Moreover, individuals
are used to playing games in a safe context where they do not risk significant losses: losing in
video games usually only means losing time and restarting a sequence. This context of relative
safety can also impair comparisons with real-life risk-taking and lessen correlations between risk-
taking measures. Finally, according to the Action Identification Theory (Vallacher and Wegner,
2000), people can evaluate their own behaviour using different levels. At a lower level of action
identity, people mainly consider the procedural aspect of a task while, at a higher level, they
also take into account the ultimate goal of the task. When participating in a risk-taking task, one
may wonder if the participants identify their behaviours as participation in a game or in a more
serious task of decision making. Depending on this identification, the links with other behaviours
could be fairly different.
Currently, there are many differences between the risk-taking tasks used in studies and real-
life risk-taking behaviours. The more similar these tasks are to real risk-taking situations, the bet-
ter they should predict risk-taking in these situations. From a pragmatic point of view, risk-taking
tasks should be emotionally involving, include potential real losses, and happen in the real
world, not only in a virtual environment. Moreover, the context of the study should lead partici-
pants to identify their actions as relevant in the field of risk, favouring a level of action identifica-
tion that suits the research objective.
Conclusion
Risk-taking is a very important field of both fundamental and applied research. It links many
scholars from different disciplines, each with different views, methods and interests. This diversity
makes risk-taking a very rich field, but also a complex and confusing one. Given the calls to
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 9
11. develop new measurement instruments (Byrnes et al. 1999; Fox and Tannembaum 2011;
Rohrmann 2011; Schonberg et al. 2011), our objective was to highlight the key points that
should be kept in mind when constructing or using measures of risk-taking concepts. We identi-
fied six key points (see Table 2): the need for more vigilance regarding the terms used in studies,
the need for a consistent distinction between measures of general and specific risk-taking, the
need for a distinction between risk-taking and the appeal of risky activities, the need to take
into account the subjectivity of risk-taking, the need for more measures of passive risk-taking,
and the importance of more realistic risk-taking tasks. We believe that these recommendations
should help in developing or using more precise and more adequate means of assessing risk-tak-
ing concepts.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was jointly supported by the Association Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique and Pacifica under the
CIFRE grant 2017/0245.
ORCID
Alexandre Bran http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2838-3886
References
Ajzen I. 1991. “The theory of planned behavior”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2):
179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Anderson, G., and R. Brown. 1984. “Real and Laboratory Gambling, Sensation-Seeking and Arousal.” British Journal
of Psychology 75 (3): 401–410. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01910.x.
Brandt, A. E., and J. Martin. 2015. “Simulating Personal Wealth in the Laboratory.” Journal of General Psychology 142
(3): 167–181. doi:10.1080/00221309.2015.1060937.
Bailey, K. 2012. “What would my avatar do? Video games and risky decision making.” Doctoral disseration.
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Theses (3539334)
Bandura, A. 1982. “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.” American Psychologist 37 (2): 122–147. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.37.2.122.
Bandura, A. 1990. “Perceived Self-Efficacy in the Exercice of Control over AIDS Infection.” Evaluation and Program
Planning 13 (1): 9–17. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(90)90004-G.
Table 2. Our main suggestions concerning the measure of risk-taking concepts.
Part Main suggestions
Precisely define what to measure Distinguish measurements of risk-taking behavior, risk-taking
propensity, risk-taking attitude and risk appraisal
Differentiate general and context-specific risk-taking Measure general risk-taking with several specific indexes Be
wary of overgeneralize measures of specific risk-taking
Distinguish risk-taking from the appeal of risk-taking
activities
Measures precise risky and precautionary behaviours
Take into account the subjectivity of risk-taking Use potential losses that should be significant for most
Relativize the risky situation to the participants’ skills
Consider measuring passive risk-taking Be wary of the overgeneralization of active risk-taking
Measure both active and passive risk-taking
Increase the realistic aspect of risk-taking tasks Make tasks that more emotionally engaging Avoid
game contexts
10 A. BRAN AND D. C. VAIDIS
12. Bechara, A., A. R. Dam
asio, H. Dam
asio, and S. W. Anderson. 1994. “Insensitivity to Future Consequences following
Damage to Human Prefrontal Cortex.” Cognition 50 (1-3): 7–15. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3.
Ben-Ari, O. T., V. Florian, and M. Mikulincer. 1999. “The Impact of Mortality Salience on Reckless Driving: A Test of
Terror Management Mechanisms.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (1): 35–45. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.76.1.35.
Bernoulli, D. 1954. “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk.” Econometrica 22 (1): 23–36.
Retrieved from: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28195401%2922%3A1%3C23%3AEOANTO%3E2.0.
CO%3B2-X
Blais, A., and E. U. Weber. 2006. “A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for Adult Populations.” Judgment
and Decision Making 1 (1): 33–47.
Braams, B. R., S. Peters, J. S. Peper, B. G€
uro
glu, and E. A. Crone. 2014. “Gambling for Self, Friends, and Antagonists:
Differential Contributions of Affective and Social Brain Regions on Adolescent Reward Processing.” Neuroimage
100 (15): 281–289. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.020.
Brockhaus, R. 1980. “Risk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs.” The Academy of Management Journal 23 (3): 509–520.
doi:10.2307/255515.
Brown, J. W., and T. S. Braver. 2007. “Risk Prediction and Aversion by Anterior Cingulate Cortex.” Cognitive, Affective
Behavioral Neuroscience 7 (4): 266–277. doi:10.3758/CABN.7.4.266.
Buechel, E. C., and C. K. Morewedge. 2014. “The (Relative and Absolute) Subjective Value of Money.” In The
Psychological Science of Money, edited by Bijleveld E. and H. Aarts, 93–120. New York, USA: Springer.
Burns, P. C., Wilde. G. J., and S. 1995. “Risk Taking in Male Taxi Drivers: Relationships among Personality,
Observational Data and Driver Records.” Personality and Individual Differences 18 (2): 267–278. doi:10.1016/0191-
8869(94)00150-Q.
Byrnes, J. P., D. C. Miller, and W. D. Schafer. 1999. “Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta-Analysis.”
Psychological Bulletin 125 (3): 367–383. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367.
Campbell, J. Y., and L. M. Viceira. 2005. “The Term Structure of the Risk–Return Trade-Off.” Financial Analysts Journal
61 (1): 34–44. doi:10.2469/faj.v61.n1.2682.
Celsi, R. L., R. L. Rose, and T. W. Leigh. 1993. “An Exploration of High-Risk Leisure Consumption through Skydiving.”
Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1): 1–23. doi:209330/209330.
Charness, G., U. Gneezy, and A. Imas. 2013. “Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences.” Journal of Economic
Behavior Organization 87: 43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.023
Charness, G., and A. Viceisza. 2016. “Three Risk-Elicitation Methods in the Field: Evidence from Rural Senegal.”
Review of Behavioral Economics 3 (2): 145–171. doi:10.1561/105.00000046.
Cherpitel, A. J., A. R. Meyers, and M. W. Perrine. 1998. “Alcohol Consumption, Sensation Seeking and Ski Injury: A
Case-Control Study.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59 (2): 216–221. doi:10.15288/jsa.1998.59.216.
Coppola, M. 2014. “Eliciting Risk-Preferences in Socio-Economic Surveys: How Do Different Measures Perform?.”
Journal of Socio-Economics 48: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2013.08.010.
Dave, C., C. C. Eckel, C. A. Johnson, and C. Rojas. 2010. “Eliciting Risk Preferences: When Is Simple Better?” Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty 41 (3): 219–243. doi:10.1007/s11166-010-9103-z.
Dohmen, T., A. Falk, D. Huffman, U. Sunde, J. Schupp, and G. G. Wagner. 2011. “Individual Risk Attitudes:
Measurement, Determinants, and Behavioral Consequences.” Journal of the European Economic Association 9 (3):
522–550. doi:10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x.
Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando, FL, US: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Edwards, W. 1954. “The Theory of Decision Making.” Psychological Bulletin 51 (4): 380–417. doi:10.1037/h0053870.
Eisenberg, A. E., J. Baron, and M. E. P. Seligman. 1996. Individual Differences in Risk Aversion and Anxiety. Retrieved
from: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/baron/papers.htm/amyold.html
Ek, Å., and R. Akselsson. 2007. “Aviation on the Ground: Safety Culture in a Ground Handling Company.”
International Journal of Aviation Psychology 17 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap1701_4.
Epstein, J. A., and G. J. Botvin. 2002. “The Moderating Role of Risk-Taking Tendency and Refusal Assertiveness on
Social Influences in Alcohol Use among Inner-City Adolescents.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63 (4): 456–459.
doi:10.15288/jsa.2002.63.456.
Farthing, G. W. 2005. “Attitudes toward Heroic and Nonheroic Physical Risk Takers as Mates and as Friends.”
Evolution and Human Behavior 26 (2): 171–185. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.004.
Fox, C. R., and D. Tannenbaum. 2011. “The Elusive Search for Stable Risk Preferences.” Frontiers in Psychology 2: 298.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00298.
Frey, R., A. Pedroni, R. Mata, J. Rieskamp, and R. Hertwig. 2017. “Risk Preference Shares the Psychometric Structure
of Major Psychological Traits.” Science Advances 3 (10): E1701381. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701381.
Frijda, N. H., P. Kuipers, and E. ter Schure. 1989. “Relations among Emotion, Appraisal, and Emotional Action
Readiness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (2): 212–228. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.2.212.
Furby, L., and R. Beyth-Marom. 1992. “Risk-Taking in Adolescence: A Decision-Making Perspective.” Developmental
Review 12 (1): 1–44. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(92)90002-J.
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 11
13. Furr, M. 2011. Scale Construction and Psychometrics for Social and Personality Psychology. USA: Wake Forest
University.
Gahagen, D. H. 2014. “Meta-Analysis of the Validity of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task.” Electronic Doctoral
Dissertation. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Glowinsky, D., N. Dael, A. Camurri, G. Volpe, M. Mortillaro, and K. Scherer. 2011. “Toward a Minimal Representation
of Affective Gestures.” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 2 (2): 106–118. doi:10.1109/T-AFFC.2011.7.
Grol, R., M. Whitfield, J. De Maeseneer, and H. Mokkink. 1990. “Attitudes to Risk Taking in Medical Decision Making
among British, Dutch and Belgian General Practitioners.” The British Journal of General Practice 40 (333): 134–136.
Hanoch, Y., J. G. Johnson, and A. Wilke. 2006. “Domain Specificity in Experimental Measures and Participant
Recruitment: An Application to Risk-Taking Behavior.” Psychological Science 17 (4): 300–304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2006.01702.x.
Harmon-Jones, E., E. Gable, and T. F. Price. 2012. “The Influence of Affective States Varying in Motivational Intensity
on Cognitive Scope.” Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 6 (2012). doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00073/full.
Highhouse, S., C. D. Nye, D. C. Zhang, and T. B. Rada. 2017. “Structure of the Dospert: Is There Evidence for a
General Risk Factor?” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30 (2): 400–406. doi:10.1002/bdm.1953.
Ho, M., D. Shaw, S. Lin, and Y. Chiu. 2008. “How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?” Risk Analysis
28 (3): 635–643. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x.
Holt, C. A., and S. K. Laury. 2002. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” American Economic Review 92 (5):1
644–1655. doi:10.1257/000282802762024700.
Horvath, P., and M. Zuckerman. 1993. “Sensation Seeking, Risk Appraisal, and Risky Behavior.” Personality and
Individual Differences 14 (1): 41–52. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90173-Z.
Iversen, H., and T. Rundmo. 2004. “Attitudes towards Traffic Safety, Driving Behaviour and Accident Involvement
among the Norwegian Public.” Ergonomics 47 (5): 555–572. doi:10.1080/00140130410001658709.
Jackson, D. N. 1976. Jackson Personality Inventory Manual. Port Huron, USA: Research Psychologists Press.
Janz, N. K., and M. H. Becker. 1984. “The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later.” Health Education Behavior 11 (1):
1–47. doi:10.1177/109019818401100101.
Jonah, B. A. 1997. “Sensation Seeking and Risky Driving: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature.” Accident Analysis
Prevention 29 (5): 651–665. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00017-1.
J€
oreskog, K. G. 1969. “A General Approach to Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis.” Psychometrika 34
(2): 183–202. doi:10.1007/BF02289343.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. “An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291. doi:
10.2307/1914185.
Keinan, R., and Y. Bereby-Meyer. 2012. “Leaving It to Chance’—Passive Risk Taking in Everyday Life.” Judgment and
Decision Making 7 (6): 705–715.
Keinan, R., and Y. Bereby-Meyer. 2017. “Perceptions of Active versus Passive Risks, and the Effect of Personal
Responsibility.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43 (7): 999–1007. doi:10.1177/0146167217703079.
Kerr J.H. 1991. Arousal-seeking in risk sport participants. Personality and Individual Differences 12 (6): 613–616. doi:
10.1016/0191-8869(91)90258-D
Killgore, W. S., G. H. Kamimori, and T. J. Balkin. 2011. “Caffeine Protects against Increased Risk-Taking Propensity
during Severe Sleep Deprivation.” Journal of Sleep Research 20 (3): 395–403. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2869.2010.
00893.x.
Kogan, N., and M. A. Wallach. 1964. Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality. Oxford, England: Holt.,
Rinehart Winston.
Krueger, N., Dickson. F. P., and R. 1994. “How Believing in Ourselves Increases Risk Taking: Perceived Self-Efficacy
and Opportunity Recognition.” Decision Sciences 25 (3): 385–400. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb00810.x.
Lajunen, T., J. Karola, and H. Summala. 1997. “Speed and Acceleration as Measures of Driving Style in Young Male
Drivers.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 85 (1): 3–16. doi:10.2466/pms.1997.85.1.3.
Lejuez, C. W., J. P. Read, C. W. Kahler, J. B. Richards, S. E. Ramsey, G. L. Stuart, … R. A. Brown. 2002. “Evaluation
of a Behavioral Measure of Risk Taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied 8 (2): 75–84. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75.
Lerner, J. S., R. M. Gonzalez, D. A. Small, and B. Fischhoff. 2003. “Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of
Terrorism: A National Field Experiment.” Psychological Science 14 (2): 144–150. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.01433.
Lerner, J. S., and D. Keltner. 2001. “Fear, Anger, and Risk.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (1):
146–159. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146.
Loewenstein, G. F., E. U. Weber, C. K. Hsee, and N. Welch. 2001. “Risk as Feelings.” Psychological Bulletin 127 (2):
267–286. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267.
L€
onnqvist, J.-E., M. Verkasalo, G. Walkowitz, and P. Wichardt. 2015. “Measuring Individual Risk Attitudes in the Lab:
Task or Ask? An Empirical Comparison.” Journal of Economic Behavior Organization 119: 254–266. doi:10.1016/
j.jebo.2015.08.003.
Luce, M. F. 1998. “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotionladen Consumer Decisions.” Journal of
Consumer Research 24 (4): 409–433. doi:10.1086/209518.
12 A. BRAN AND D. C. VAIDIS
14. MacCrimmon, K. R., and D. A. Wehrung. 1986. Assessing Risk Propensity. In Recent Developments in the Foundations
of Utility and Risk Theory, edited by L. Daboni, A. Montesano, and M. Lines, 291–309. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer.
MacCrimmon, K. R., and D. A. Wehrung. 1990. “Characteristics of Risk Taking Executives.” Management Science 36
(4): 422–435. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.4.422.
Maddux, J. E., and R. W. Rogers. 1983. “Protection Motivation and Self-Efficacy: A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals
and Attitude Change.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19 (5): 469–479. doi:10.1016/0022-
1031(83)90023-9.
Made, C., and L. G. Elmqvist. 2004. “A 10-Year Study of Snowboard Injuries in Lapland Sweden.” Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 14 (2): 128–133. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00342.x.
Mamerow, L., R. Frey, and R. Mata. 2016. “Risk Taking across the Life Span: A Comparison of Self-Report and
Behavioral Measures of Risk Taking.” Psychology and Aging 31 (7): 711–723. doi:10.1037/pag0000124.
Miller, D. C., and J. P. Byrnes. 1997. “The Role of Contextual and Personal Factors in Children’s Risk Taking.”
Developmental Psychology 33 (5): 814–823. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.5.814.
Miller, L., D. E. Meyer, and J. T. Lanzetta. 1969. “Choice among Equal Expected Value Alternatives: Sequential Effects
of Winning Probability Level on Risk Preferences.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 79 (3, Pt.1): 419–423. doi:
10.1037/h0026968.
Milne, S., P. Sheeran, and S. Orbell. 2000. “Prediction and Intervention in Health-Related Behavior: A Meta-Analytic
Review of Protection Motivation Theory.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30 (1): 106–143. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2000.tb02308.x.
Momen, N., M. K. Taylor, R. Pietrobon, M. Gandhi, A. E. Markham, G. A. Padilla, P. W. Miller, K. E. Evans, and T. C.
Sander. 2010. “Initial Validation of the Military Operational Risk Taking Scale (MORTS).” Military Psychology 22 (2):
128–142. doi:10.1080/08995601003638942.
National Safety Council. 2017. Injury FactsV
R
2017 Edition. Itasca, USA; NCS.
Nicholson, N., E. Soane, M. Fenton-O’Creevy, and P. Willman. 2005. “Personality and Domain Specific Risk Taking.”
Journal of Risk Research 8 (2): 157–176. doi:10.1080/1366987032000123856.
Osmont, A., S. Moutier, G. Simon, L. Bouhours, O. Houd
e, and M. Cassotti. 2017. “How Does Explicit versus Implicit
Risk Information Influence Adolescent Risk-Taking Engagement?” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30 (5):
1093–1103. doi:10.1002/bdm.2026.
Paquette, L.,
E. Lacourse, and J. Bergeron. 2009. “Construction d’une
echelle de prise de risques et validation aupr
es
d’adolescents pratiquant un sport alpin de glisse [Construction of a scale of taking risk and validation near teen-
agers practitioner an alpine ski sports]. Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement 41 (3): 133–142. doi:
10.1037/a0015256.
Reason, J. T., A. Manstead, S. G. Stradling, J. Baxter, and K. Campbell. 1990. “Errors and Violations on the Road – a
Real Distinction.” Ergonomics 33 (10-11): 1315–1332. doi:10.1080/00140139008925335.
Rohrmann, B. 2011. Risk attitude scales: Concepts, questionnaires, utilizations. Information about crafted instruments.
Melbourne, Australia: Roman Research Road. Retrieved from http://www.rohrmannresearch.net/pdfs/ras-report.pdf
Romanowich, P., and R. Lamb. 2013. “The Effect of Framing Incentives as Either Losses or Gains with Contingency
Management for Smoking Cessation.” Addictive Behaviors 38 (4): 2084–2088. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.01.007.
Rubio, V. J., J. M. Hern
andez, F. Zald
ıvar, O. M
arquez, and J. Santacreu. 2010. “Can We Predict Risk-Taking Behavior?
Two Behavioral Tests for Predicting Guessing Tendencies in a Multiple-Choice Test.” European Journal of
Psychological Assessment 26 (2): 87–94. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000013.
Ruch, W., and M. Zuckerman. 2001. “Sensation Seeking and Adolescence.” In Risikoverhaltensweisen Jugendlicher,
edited by J. Raithel, pp. 97–110. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag f€
ur Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-663-11310-2_5
Ruedl, G., M. Schnitzer, W. Kirschner, R. Spiegel, H. Platzgummer, M. Kopp, M. Burtscher, and E. Pocecco. 2016.
“Sports Injuries and Illnesses during the 2015 Winter European Youth Olympic Festival.” British Journal of Sports
Medicine 50 (10): 631–636. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095665.
Rydell, R. J., D. M. Mackie, A. T. Maitner, H. M. Claypool, M. J. Ryan, and E. R. Smith. 2008. “Arousal, Processing, and
Risk Taking: Consequences of Intergroup Anger.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (8): 1141–1152.
doi:10.1177/0146167208319694.
Sarin, R. K., and M. Weber. 1993. “Risk-Value Models.” European Journal of Operational Research 70 (2): 135–149. doi:
10.1016/0377-2217(93)90033-J.
Schoemaker, P. 1990. “Are Risk-Attitudes Related across Domains and Response Modes?” Management Science 36
(12): 1451–1463. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.12.1451.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1993. “Determinants of risk-taking: behavioral and economic views.” Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 6(1): 49–73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41760673
Schonberg, T., C. R. Fox, and R. A. Poldrack. 2011. “Mind the Gap: Bridging Economic and Naturalistic Risk-Taking
with Cognitive Neuroscience.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15 (1): 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.10.002.
Sitkin, S. B., and A. L. Pablo. 1992. “Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior.” The Academy of
Management Review 17 (1): 9–38. doi:10.2307/258646.
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 13
15. Slimak, M. W., and T. Dietz. 2006. “Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception.” Risk Analysis 26 (6):
1689–1705. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x.
Slovic, P. 1962. “Convergent Validation of Risk Taking Measures.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65
(1): 68–71. doi:10.1037/h0048048.
Slovic, P. 1964. “Assessment of Risk Taking Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin 61 (3): 220–233. doi:10.1037/h0043608.
Slovic, P. 1987. “Perception of Risk.” Science 236 (4799): 280–285. doi:10.1126/science.3563507.
Slovic, P., M. L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor. 2004. “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some
Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality.” Risk Analysis: An International Journal 24 (2): 311–322. doi:
10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In Societal Risk
Assessment, edited by Schwing R.C., and Albers W.A. General Motors Research Laboratories. Boston, USA:
Springer.
Szrek, H., L. Chao, S. Ramlagan, and K. Peltzer. 2012. “Predicting (un)Healthy Behavior: A Comparison of Risk-Taking
Propensity Measures.” Judgment and Decision Making 7 (6): 716–727.
Tversky, A. 1967. “Additivity, Utility, and Subjective Probability.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 4 (2): 175–201.
doi:10.1016/0022-2496(67)90049-1.
United States Parachute Association. 2015. Skydiving Safety. Retrieved from: https://uspa.org/Find/FAQs/Safety
Vallacher, R. R., and D. M. Wegner. 2000. What Do People Think They Are Doing? Action Identification and Human
Behavior. In E. T. Higgins, A. W. Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins, A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational science: Social
and personality perspectives (pp. 215–228). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
Pligt, J. 1998. “Perceived Risk and Vulnerability as Predictors of Precautionary Behaviour.” British Journal of Health
Psychology 3 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8287.1998.tb00551.x.
Wachinger, G., O. Renn, C. Begg, and C. Kuhlicke. 2013. “The Risk Perception Paradox–Implications for Governance
and Communication of Natural Hazards.” Risk Analysis 33 (6): 1049–1065. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x.
Weber, E. U., A. Blais, and N. E. Betz. 2002. “A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and
Risk Behaviors.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15 (4): 263–290. doi:10.1002/bdm.414.
Weinstein, N. D. 1989. “Optimistic Biases about Personal Risks.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 246 (4935): 1232–1233.
Whissell, R. W., and B. J. Bigelow. 2003. “The Speeding Attitude Scale and the Role of Sensation Seeking in Profiling
Young Drivers at Risk.” Risk Analysis 23 (4): 811–820. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00358.
Wilke, A., A. Sherman, B. Curdt, S. Mondal, C. Fitzgerald, and D. J. Kruger. 2014. “An Evolutionary Domain-Specific
Risk Scale.” Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences 8 (3): 123–141. doi:10.1037/ebs0000011.
Wishart, D., K. Somoray, and B. Rowland. 2017. “Role of Thrill and Adventure Seeking in Risky Work-Related Driving
Behaviours.” Personality and Individual Differences 104: 362–367. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.033.
Woelbert, E., and A. Riedl. 2013. “Measuring Time and Risk Preferences: Reliability.” Stability, Domain Specificity.
Netspar Discussion Paper No. 07/2013:044. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2354907.
Wong, A., and B. J. Carducci. 1991. “Sensation Seeking and Financial Risk Taking in Everyday Money Matters.”
Journal of Business and Psychology 5 (4): 525–530. doi:10.1007/BF01014500.
Woodman, T., M. Barlow, C. Bandura, M. Hill, D. Kupciw, and A. MacGregor. 2013. “Not All Risks Are Equal: The Risk
Taking Inventory for High-Risk Sports.” Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology 35 (5): 479–492. doi:10.1123/
jsep.35.5.479.
Xu, S., Y. Pan, Y. Wang, A. M. Spaeth, Z. Qu, and H. Rao. 2016. “Real and Hypothetical Monetary Rewards Modulate
Risk Taking in the Brain.” Scientific Reports 6 (29520). doi:10.1038/srep29520.
Xu, S., Y. Pan, Z. Qu, Z. Fang, Z. Yang, F. Yang, F. Wang, et al. 2018. “Differential Effects of Real versus Hypothetical
Monetary Reward Magnitude on Risk-Taking Behavior and Brain Activity.” Scientific Reports 8 (1): 3712. doi:
10.1038/s41598-018-21820-0.
Yates, J. F., and E. R. Stone. 1992. “The Risk Construct.” In Wiley Series in Human Performance and Cognition. Risk-
Taking Behavior, edited by J. F. Yates, 1–25. Oxford, England: John Wiley.
Yuen, K. L., and T. C. Lee. 2003. “Could Mood State Affect Risk-Taking Decisions?” Journal of Affective Disorders
75 (1): 11–18. doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00022-8.
Zuckerman, M. 1983. Biological Bases of Sensation Seeking, Impulsivity, and Anxiety. Hillsdale, N.J, USA: Lawrence.
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
14 A. BRAN AND D. C. VAIDIS