Individual Differences of Action Orientation for Risk Taking in Sports

2004 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Raab ◽  
Joseph G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Action Orientation

Pronoun reversals: who, when, and why?

1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 573-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip S. Dale ◽  
Catherine Crain-Thoreson
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Second Person ◽  
Pronoun Use ◽  
Processing Resources ◽  
Unstructured Play

ABSTRACTSeventeen of a sample of 30 precocious talkers aged 1;8 produced at least one pronoun reversal (I/you) during unstructured play. This finding led to an examination of the role of cognitive and linguistic individual differences as well as contextual factors and processing complexity as determinants of pronoun reversal. Contrary to predictions derived from previous hypotheses, there were few differences between reversers and non-reversers, other than higher use of second person forms by reversers. Reversals were more likely to occur in certain contexts: semantically reversible predicates with two noun phrases, and in imitations (though the rate of imitation was lower overall in reversers). We propose that pronoun reversals commonly result from a failure to perform a deictic shift, which is especially likely when children's psycholinguistic processing resources are taxed. Children who did not produce any pronoun reversals tended to avoid pronoun use, especially second person forms. Overt reversal may thus reflect a risk-taking approach to language acquisition, which may be particularly characteristic of precocious children.

Social Preferences as an Individual Difference in Offender Decision-making

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chae M. Jaynes ◽  
Thomas A. Loughran
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Social Preferences ◽  
Ultimatum Game ◽  
Future Orientation ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Strategic Decision Making ◽  
Temporal Orientation ◽  
Self Interest

Objectives: We examined the relationship between social preference game behavior and offender status and tested whether this relationship was attributed to genuine prosocial preferences or confounded by individual differences in future orientation, sensation seeking, and risk-taking. Methods: Offender and nonoffender samples played the dictator and ultimatum games. Ordered and generalized ordered logistic regression models were used to test the hypothesis that when compared to nonoffenders, offenders would demonstrate increased self-interest, while also considering competing theoretical mechanisms. Results: Offenders appeared to be more self-interested as indicated by smaller offers in the dictator game. This relationship, however, was attributed to differences in future orientation between the two groups rather than differences in social preferences. Net of demographic controls and competing theoretical mechanisms, however, offenders made smaller offers in the ultimatum game. We argue this finding revealed differences in strategic decision-making between the two groups. Conclusions: Results suggested that offenders were not distinguishable from nonoffenders by individual differences in social preferences. While nonoffenders made larger offers in both games, this finding was attributed to differences in temporal orientation and risk-taking rather than differences in prosocial preferences. This supported the rational choice assumption of self-interest and highlighted differences in strategic decision-making between offenders and nonoffenders.

scholarly journals Individual differences in risk‐taking affect foraging across different landscapes of fear

Oikos ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 129 (12) ◽  
pp. 1891-1902
Author(s):  
Philip O. M. Steinhoff ◽  
Bennet Warfen ◽  
Sissy Voigt ◽  
Gabriele Uhl ◽  
Melanie Dammhahn
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Risk Taking

scholarly journals Heritability of Risk-Taking in Adolescence: A Longitudinal Twin Study

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 366-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey P. Anokhin ◽  
Simon Golosheykin ◽  
Julia Grant ◽  
Andrew C. Heath
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Genetic Model ◽  
Model Fitting ◽  
Behavioral Measure ◽  
Longitudinal Stability ◽  
Genetic And Environmental Factors ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Longitudinal Twin Study ◽  
Adolescent Twins

AbstractAdolescents are prone to risk-taking behaviors leading to adverse consequences such as substance abuse, accidents, violence, and victimization. However, little is known about the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to individual differences in the propensity for risk-taking. This study investigated developmental changes, longitudinal stability, and heritability of risk-taking using data from 752 adolescent twins including 169 MZ and 203 DZ pairs. The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), an experimental behavioral measure of risk taking, was administered to the twins at age 12 and then re-administered to a part of this sample at age 14. Risk-taking increased with age, but individual differences showed a significant longitudinal stability. Genetic model fitting showed that at age 12, heritability of risk-taking was modest but significant in both sexes, whereas at age 14, heritability increased to 55% in males and became nonsignificant in females. The findings suggest that propensity for risk-taking as measured by BART can be a useful endophenotype for genetic studies of adolescent externalizing psychopathology, however, the utility of this measure may be limited by sex differences in heritability.

Individual differences in risk perception versus risk taking: Handedness and interhemispheric interaction

2007 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen D. Christman ◽  
John D. Jasper ◽  
Varalakshmi Sontam ◽  
Bruce Cooil
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Interhemispheric Interaction ◽  
Versus Risk

scholarly journals The social effects of anger in international negotiations: The role of self-regulation and bargaining power

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Steffen Bertram
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
International Negotiations ◽  
International Negotiation ◽  
Action Orientation ◽  
Personality Differences ◽  
State Orientation ◽  
Personality Difference ◽  
Foreign Counterpart ◽  
The Impact

<p>This thesis addresses recent calls to investigate the influence of individual differences in a negotiation context. Specifically, I investigate the impact of the personality difference, action orientation versus state orientation, on concessionary behaviour in international negotiations.  This personality difference was chosen because it measures a negotiator’s capacity to self-regulate (control their behaviour) in a cognitively demanding situation like an international negotiation. I propose that action oriented negotiators will display superior self-regulation ability, compared to state oriented negotiators. Specifically, action oriented negotiators will be able to adapt their response and concede less than state oriented negotiators, when a foreign counterpart displays anger.  In two online studies, I measure how action oriented and state oriented negotiators respond to a display of anger from a foreign counterpart in an international negotiation. The first study of 159 negotiators showed that action oriented individuals conceded fewer points than state oriented individuals, regardless of whether the counterpart displayed anger. The second study of 260 negotiators showed that action oriented individuals can adapt their behaviour according to their level of power in an international negotiation when facing an angry counterpart.  As far as I am aware, this research is one of the first to propose and test the salience of action orientation versus state orientation on displays of anger in international negotiations. My findings highlight the value of incorporating individual differences in negotiation studies and I propose their inclusion into the dominant theoretical framework of how negotiators respond to anger. In addition to extending the model, I discuss how understanding these personality differences can be useful for multinational companies and their international negotiators.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document