[ad_1]
Mata, R., Frey, R., Richter, D., Schupp, J. & Hertwig, R. Risk preference: A view from psychology. J. Econ. Perspect. 32, 155–172 (2018).
van Oers, K., Drent, P. J., de Goede, P. & van Noordwijk, A. J. Realized heritability and repeatability of risk-taking behaviour in relation to avian personalities. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, 65–73 (2004).
Steinberg, L. et al. Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. Dev. Psychol. 44, 1764–1778 (2008).
Hertwig, R., Wulff, D. U. & Mata, R. Three gaps and what they may mean for risk preference. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0140 (2019).
Frey, R., Pedroni, A., Mata, R., Rieskamp, J. & Hertwig, R. Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701381 (2017).
Dohmen, T. et al. Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9, 522–550 (2011).
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F. & Kritikos, A. S. Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay self-employed. Small Bus. Econ. 42, 787–814 (2014).
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F. M. & Kritikos, A. S. Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs—New evidence from an experimentally validated survey. Small Bus. Econ. 32, 153–167 (2009).
Falk, A. et al. Global evidence on economic preferences. Q. J. Econ. 133, 1645–1692 (2018).
Friedman, M. & Savage, L. J. The utility analysis of choices involving risk. J. Polit. Econ. 56, 279–304 (1948).
Friedman, D., Isaac, R. M., James, D. & Sunder, S. Risky Curves: On the Empirical Failure of Expected Utility (Routledge, New York, 2014).
Harrison, G. W. & Rutström, E. E. Chapter 81. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In Handbook of Experimental Economics Results Vol. 1 (eds Plott, C. R. & Smith, V. L.) 752–767 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008).
Charness, G., Gneezy, U. & Imas, A. Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 87, 43–51 (2013).
Holt, C. & Laury, S. Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am. Econ. Rev. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.893797 (2002).
Dana, J., Atanasov, P., Tetlock, P. & Mellers, B. Are markets more accurate than polls? The surprising informational value of ‘just asking’. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 14 (2019).
Tynan, M. The Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale Lacks Convergence with Alternative Risk-Taking Propensity Measures (Iowa State University, Ames, 2018). https://doi.org/10.31274/etd-180810-6107
Harden, K. P. et al. Beyond dual systems: A genetically-informed, latent factor model of behavioral and self-report measures related to adolescent risk-taking. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 25, 221–234 (2017).
Charness, G., Garcia, T., Offerman, T. & Villeval, M. Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory? J. Risk Uncertainty. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09325-6 (2020).
Pedroni, A. et al. The risk elicitation puzzle. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0219-x (2017).
Pachur, T., Mata, R. & Hertwig, R. Who dares, who errs? Disentangling cognitive and motivational roots of age differences in decisions under risk. Psychol. Sci. 28, 504–518 (2017).
Vieider, F. M. et al. Common components of risk and uncertainty attitudes across contexts and domains: Evidence from 30 countries. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 13, 421–452 (2015).
Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. The Construction of Preference (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006).
Jarecki, J. B. & Wilke, A. Into the black box: Tracing information about risks related to 10 evolutionary problems. Evolut. Behav. Sci. (2018).
Steiner, M., Seitz, F. I. & Frey, R. Through the window of my mind: Mapping the cognitive processes underlying self-reported risk preference. (2019). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sa834.
Schwarz, N. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. Am. Psychol. (1999).
Sedikides, C. Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 317–338 (1993).
Shrout, P. E. et al. Initial elevation bias in subjective reports. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712277115 (2017).
Schimmack, U. & Oishi, S. The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 395–406 (2005).
Schimmack, U., Diener, E. & Oishi, S. Life-satisfaction is a momentary judgment and a stable personality characteristic: The use of chronically accessible and stable sources. J. Pers. 70, 345–384 (2002).
Vazire, S. Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 281–300 (2010).
Sun, J. & Vazire, S. Do people know what they’re like in the moment?. Psychol. Sci. 30, 405–414 (2019).
Arslan, R. C., Reitz, A. K., Driebe, J. C., Gerlach, T. M. & Penke, L. Routinely randomize potential sources of measurement reactivity to estimate and adjust for biases in subjective reports. Psychol. Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000294 (2020).
Bem, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychol. Rev. 74, 183–200 (1967).
Fessler, D. M. T., Tiokhin, L. B., Holbrook, C., Gervais, M. M. & Snyder, J. K. Foundations of the Crazy Bastard Hypothesis: Nonviolent physical risk-taking enhances conceptualized formidability. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 26–33 (2014).
Bem, D. J. Self-perception theory. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology vol. 61–62 (Elsevier, 1972).
Barclay, P., Mishra, S. & Sparks, A. M. State-dependent risk-taking. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285 (2018).
Mishra, S., Barclay, P. & Sparks, A. The relative state model: Integrating need-based and ability-based pathways to risk-taking. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21, 176–198 (2016).
Watson, N. & Wooden, M. P. The HILDA Survey: A case study in the design and development of a successful Household Panel Survey. Longit. Life Course Stud. 3, 369–381 (2012).
University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research. Understanding Society: Waves 1–8, 2009–2017 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1–18, 1991–2009. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-12. (2018).
Goebel, J. et al. The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 239, 345–360 (2019).
Linnér, R. K. et al. Genome-wide association analyses of risk tolerance and risky behaviors in over 1 million individuals identify hundreds of loci and shared genetic influences. Nat. Genet. 51, 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0309-3 (2019).
Tourangeau, R., Sun, H., Conrad, F. G. & Couper, M. P. Examples in open-ended survey questions. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 29, 690–702 (2017).
Credé, M., Bashshur, M. & Niehorster, S. Reference group effects in the measurement of personality and attitudes. J. Pers. Assess. 92, 390–399 (2010).
Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L. & Powell, A. B. Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 80, 607–620 (1995).
Bertram, L. et al. Cohort profile: The Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). Int. J. Epidemiol. 43, 703–712 (2014).
Richter, D. & Schupp, J. SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP-IS)—Description, structure and documentation. (2012). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2131214.
Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285 (1987).
Carson, R. T., Horowitz, J. K. & Mellissinos, M. The Relationship Between Desire to Reduce Risks and Factor Scores for Environmental Risks. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umdrwp/197629.html (1989).
Conway, J. R., Lex, A. & Gehlenborg, N. UpSetR: An R package for the visualization of intersecting sets and their properties. Bioinformatics 33, 2938–2940 (2017).
Brunswik, E. Perception and the Representative Design of Experiments (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1956).
Cooksey, R. W. Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. Judgment Anal. Theory Methods Appl. xv, 407–xv (1996).
Bürkner, P.-C. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80 (2017).
Blais, A.-R. & Weber, E. U. A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. J. Judgment Decis. Making 1, 33–47 (2006).
Josef, A. K. et al. Stability and change in risk-taking propensity across the adult life span. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 111, 430–450 (2016).
Binswanger, H. P. Attitudes toward risk: experimental measurement in rural India. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 62, 395–407 (1980).
Galizzi, M. M., Machado, S. R. & Miniaci, R. Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: Experimental evidence from a UK representative sample. Social Sci. Res. Netw. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2822613 (2016).
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T. J., Huffman, D. & Sunde, U. The preference survey module: a validated instrument for measuring risk, time, and social preferences. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2725874. (2016).
Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N. & Shleifer, A. Memory, attention, and choice. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23256. (2017).
Steiner, M., Seitz, F. & Frey, R. Through the window of my mind: Mapping the cognitive processes underlying self-reported risk preference. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sa834 (2019).
Herzog, S. M. & Hertwig, R. The wisdom of many in one mind: Improving individual judgments with dialectical bootstrapping. Psychol. Sci. 20, 231–237 (2009).
Rolison, J. J., Hanoch, Y. & Freund, A. M. Perception of risk for older adults: Differences in evaluations for self versus others and across risk domains. Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000494352 (2018).
Engel, C., Fedorets, A. & Gorelkina, O. How do households allocate risk? MPI Collective Goods Discuss. Paper 14 (2018).
Rohrer, J. M., Egloff, B., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. & Schmukle, S. C. In your eyes only? Discrepancies and agreement between self- and other-reports of personality from age 14 to 29. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115, 304–320 (2018).
Dohmen, T., Quercia, S. & Willrodt, J. Willingness to take risk: The role of risk conception and optimism. SOEPpapers (2019).
Rolison, J. J. & Shenton, J. How much risk can you stomach? Individual differences in the tolerance of perceived risk across gender and risk domain. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 14, 1085 (2019).
Wood, A. M., Brown, G. D. A., Maltby, J. & Watkinson, P. How are personality judgments made? A cognitive model of reference group effects, personality scale responses, and behavioral reactions. J. Pers. 80, 1275–1311 (2012).
Schild, C., Ścigała, K. & Zettler, I. Reference group effect. in Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences 1–3 (Springer, Cham, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_840-1.
Menon, G., Raghubir, P. & Schwarz, N. Behavioral frequency judgments: An accessibility-diagnosticity framework. J. Consum. Res. 22, 212–228 (1995).
Blair, E. & Burton, S. Cognitive processes used by survey respondents to answer behavioral frequency questions. J. Consum. Res. 14, 280–288 (1987).
[ad_2]
Source link