CIVIL ENGINEERING 365 ALL ABOUT CIVIL ENGINEERING

[ad_1]

  • 1.

    Mata, R., Frey, R., Richter, D., Schupp, J. & Hertwig, R. Risk preference: A view from psychology. J. Econ. Perspect. 32, 155–172 (2018).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    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).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    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).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    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).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    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).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    Dohmen, T. et al. Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9, 522–550 (2011).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    Falk, A. et al. Global evidence on economic preferences. Q. J. Econ. 133, 1645–1692 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Friedman, M. & Savage, L. J. The utility analysis of choices involving risk. J. Polit. Econ. 56, 279–304 (1948).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Friedman, D., Isaac, R. M., James, D. & Sunder, S. Risky Curves: On the Empirical Failure of Expected Utility (Routledge, New York, 2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Charness, G., Gneezy, U. & Imas, A. Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 87, 43–51 (2013).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 14.

    Holt, C. & Laury, S. Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am. Econ. Rev. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.893797 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    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).

  • 16.

    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


    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    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).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Pedroni, A. et al. The risk elicitation puzzle. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0219-x (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 20.

    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).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 21.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 22.

    Lichtenstein, S. & Slovic, P. The Construction of Preference (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 23.

    Jarecki, J. B. & Wilke, A. Into the black box: Tracing information about risks related to 10 evolutionary problems. Evolut. Behav. Sci. (2018).

  • 24.

    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.

  • 25.

    Schwarz, N. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. Am. Psychol. (1999).

  • 26.

    Sedikides, C. Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 317–338 (1993).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 27.

    Shrout, P. E. et al. Initial elevation bias in subjective reports. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712277115 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 28.

    Schimmack, U. & Oishi, S. The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 395–406 (2005).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 29.

    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).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 30.

    Vazire, S. Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 281–300 (2010).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 31.

    Sun, J. & Vazire, S. Do people know what they’re like in the moment?. Psychol. Sci. 30, 405–414 (2019).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 32.

    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).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 33.

    Bem, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychol. Rev. 74, 183–200 (1967).

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 34.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 35.

    Bem, D. J. Self-perception theory. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology vol. 61–62 (Elsevier, 1972).

  • 36.

    Barclay, P., Mishra, S. & Sparks, A. M. State-dependent risk-taking. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285 (2018).

  • 37.

    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).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 38.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 39.

    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).

  • 40.

    Goebel, J. et al. The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 239, 345–360 (2019).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 41.

    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).

    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 42.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 43.

    Credé, M., Bashshur, M. & Niehorster, S. Reference group effects in the measurement of personality and attitudes. J. Pers. Assess. 92, 390–399 (2010).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 44.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 45.

    Bertram, L. et al. Cohort profile: The Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). Int. J. Epidemiol. 43, 703–712 (2014).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 46.

    Richter, D. & Schupp, J. SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP-IS)—Description, structure and documentation. (2012). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2131214.

  • 47.

    Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285 (1987).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 48.

    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).

  • 49.

    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).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 50.

    Brunswik, E. Perception and the Representative Design of Experiments (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1956).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 51.

    Cooksey, R. W. Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. Judgment Anal. Theory Methods Appl. xv, 407–xv (1996).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 52.

    Bürkner, P.-C. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80 (2017).

  • 53.

    Blais, A.-R. & Weber, E. U. A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. J. Judgment Decis. Making 1, 33–47 (2006).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 54.

    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).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 55.

    Binswanger, H. P. Attitudes toward risk: experimental measurement in rural India. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 62, 395–407 (1980).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 56.

    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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 57.

    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).

  • 58.

    Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N. & Shleifer, A. Memory, attention, and choice. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23256. (2017).

  • 59.

    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).

    Article 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 60.

    Herzog, S. M. & Hertwig, R. The wisdom of many in one mind: Improving individual judgments with dialectical bootstrapping. Psychol. Sci. 20, 231–237 (2009).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 61.

    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).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 62.

    Engel, C., Fedorets, A. & Gorelkina, O. How do households allocate risk? MPI Collective Goods Discuss. Paper 14 (2018).

  • 63.

    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).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 64.

    Dohmen, T., Quercia, S. & Willrodt, J. Willingness to take risk: The role of risk conception and optimism. SOEPpapers (2019).

  • 65.

    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).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 66.

    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).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 67.

    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.

  • 68.

    Menon, G., Raghubir, P. & Schwarz, N. Behavioral frequency judgments: An accessibility-diagnosticity framework. J. Consum. Res. 22, 212–228 (1995).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 69.

    Blair, E. & Burton, S. Cognitive processes used by survey respondents to answer behavioral frequency questions. J. Consum. Res. 14, 280–288 (1987).


    Google Scholar
     

  • [ad_2]

    Source link

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *