scholarly journals Cumulative lifetime stress exposure assessed by the STRAIN predicts economic ambiguity aversion

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Candace Raio ◽  
Benjamin Lu ◽  
Michael A. Grubb ◽  
Grant S Shields ◽  
George M. Slavich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Early Life ◽  
Ambiguity Aversion ◽  
Risk Preferences ◽  
Risk Attitudes ◽  
Economic Approach ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Stress Exposure ◽  
Factors Associated

Uncertainty is inherent in most decisions humans make. Economists distinguish between twotypes of decision-making under non-certain conditions: those involving risk (i.e., knownoutcome probabilities) and those that involve ambiguity (i.e., unknown outcome probabilities).Prior work has identified individual differences that explain risk preferences, but less is knownabout factors associated with ambiguity aversion. Here, we hypothesized that cumulativeexposure to major stressors over the lifespan might be one factor that predicts an individuals’ambiguity aversion. Across two studies (Study 1: n = 58, Mean age = 25.7; Study 2: n = 188, Mean age =39.81), we used a comprehensive lifetime stress exposure inventory (i.e., the Stress andAdversity Inventory for Adults, or STRAIN) and a standard economic approach to quantify riskand ambiguity preferences. Greater lifetime stress exposure as measured by the STRAIN,particularly in early life, was associated with higher aversion to ambiguity but not risk attitudes.

scholarly journals Relations between risk attitudes, culture and the endowment effect

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 7-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Kolnhofer Derecskei
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Risk Preferences ◽  
Cultural Influences ◽  
Risk Attitudes ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The main purpose of this research was to examine whether systematic cross-national differences existed in risk preferences. As a part of the survey, it was also tested how the subjects decided on behalf of their friends. Considering the type of risk-taking and the role of endowment plus relevant cultural backgrounds, the answerers were grouped, and each segment could be identified. Finally, this segmentation could be correlated with behaviour in risk decisions. Here, the Allais situation was used testing respondent behaviour in risky decision-making on behalf of others. This paper used the validated DOSPERT Scale, measuring risk perceptions and risk preferences of international students (n=244). The used survey contained different risk attitudes depending on decision making and involved the following criteria: Ethical, Financial, Health or Safety, Recreational, and Social Risks. Applying the DOSPERT Scale, differences were also found between ‘Risk-Taking’, ‘Risk-Perceptions’, and ‘Expected Benefits’. This result can be explained by different risk attitudes particular to people making decisions involving measured risks. At the same time, thanks to the worldwide sample, this paper focused on cultural differences and observed the impact of different cultural backgrounds on risk-taking. Comparing personal traits with Hofstede’s cultural UAI (Uncertainty Avoidance Index) helped us understand deeper cultural influences. The sample was widely heterogeneous, which led to some changes in the original research question and provided a new method in the conceptual model. Based on the state of the art, a conceptual model was deduced, three hypotheses were tested, and three various segments were identified regarding the personal DOSPERT (Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale) Risk Preferences. In the second part of the paper, Personal Risk Preferences were connected and tested not only using the national culture background but also attitudes towards the endowment. Although there was no significant correlation between the distribution of risk perception, the styles of each role might show how the cultural heritage impacts various decisions and risk levels.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

Individual Differences in Time Pressured Decision Making

1994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan L. Joslyn ◽  
Earl Hunt ◽  
Tom Sanquist
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences

Institutionalism: Theory, Decision-making Basis, Method of Criticism

2009 ◽  
pp. 110-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Moskovsky
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Institutional Economics ◽  
Economic Reforms ◽  
The State ◽  
Economic Approach ◽  
Main Attention ◽  
Technological Imperative ◽  
Logical Inconsistency ◽  
Basis Method

The author analyzes the state of institutional economics in contemporary Russia. It is characterized by arbitrary confusion of the ideas of «old», «new» and «mathematical» versions of institutionalism which results in logical inconsistency and even eclectics to be observed in the literature. The new and mathematical versions of institutionalism are shown to be based on legal, political and mathematical determinism tightly connected with the so-called «economic approach» (G. Becker). The main attention is paid to the discussion of theoretical and practical potential of the contemporary classical («old») institutionalism. The author focuses on its philosophical grounds and its technological imperative, the institution of science, the method of criticism, the opportunity of using classical institutionalist ideas as the ideology of economic reforms in Russia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document