Applying an Evolutionary Approach of Risk-Taking Behaviors in Adolescents

Risk-taking behaviors in adolescents have traditionally been analyzed from a psychopathological approach, with an excessive emphasis on their potential costs. From evolutionary theory we propose that risk-taking behaviors can be means through which adolescents obtain potential benefits for survival and reproduction. The present study analyses sex differences in three contexts of risk (i.e., risk propensity, expected benefits and risk perception) in the evolutionary specific domains and the predictive value of these domains over risk-taking behaviors, separately in female and male adolescents. 749 adolescents (females = 370) valued their risk perception, expected benefits and risk propensity through the Evolutionary Domain-Specific Risk Scale, as well as their engagement in risk-taking behaviors through the Risky Behavior Questionnaire. Male adolescents showed lower risk perception in two evolutionary domains, expected higher benefits in two other domains and showed higher risk propensity in six domains. Female adolescents showed lower risk perception in two domains. Additionally, risk perception, expected benefits and risk propensity in the evolutionary domains predicted the engagement in risk-taking behaviors in male adolescents, whereas in female adolescents only expected benefits and risk propensity showed a predictive effect over risk-taking behaviors. These results suggest the potential role of evolutionary mechanisms on risk-taking behaviors in adolescents. Results have practical implications for interventions programs aimed at reducing risk-taking behaviors. In addition to considering sex differences, intervention programs should consider alternative behaviors through which adolescents can reach their evolutionary goals, and handle the risks related to those behaviors that cannot be replaced but have potential benefits for adolescents.

A new hybrid method for selecting the best project manager: TODIM-FSE and Behavioral TOPSIS

This work aims to present the application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods to the process of recruiting candidates for the position of project manager, considering aspects of the decision maker's preferences in uncertain and risk scenarios. Applied, descriptive and experimental, made up of the combined employment TODIM-FSE methods for multi-criteria classification of available candidates, and the method Behavioral TOPSIS, to choose the ideal project manager. The hybrid application of the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods TODIM-FSE, method based on Prospect Theory, and Behavioral TOPSIS, which considers the concept of loss aversion of Economic Behavior, is essentially innovative. When using TODIM-FSE and Behavioral TOPSIS, it was verified the explicit incorporation of the risk profile of the decision maker - aggressive, neutral, or conservative - in the context of aversion or propensity to the risks associated with the management of a project. Through the personal recruiting process from a large Brazilian organization, the possibility of adopting the hybrid model resulting from the combination of the two methods in a real situation was validated. Such validation allowed us to conclude that the candidates' classifications and choices, previously normally accepted, were at odds with the profile and risk propensity of the decision makers.

How to Measure Propensity to Take Risks in the Italian Context: The Italian Validation of the Risk Propensity Scale

Risk propensity is a multifaced construct that influences many aspects of life, such as decision making. In the present study, the psychometric characteristics of the Risk Propensity Scale (RPS) have been explored for the first time in an Italian sample. The RPS is a 7 item self-report questionnaire measuring people’s tendency to take risks. The English RPS has been translated following the forward–backwards translation method, and it was filled out by 199 participants. Since its dimensionality has never been explored before, its factor structure has been analysed with exploratory factor analysis that confirmed the one-factor structure of the questionnaire and the retention of all the items. The Italian version of the RPS has high internal consistency (Cronbach alphas .78), and almost all the items were positively and significantly correlated. The convergent and discriminant validity, analysed by considering the associations with decision-making styles and an implicit measure of risk propensity, were satisfactory. Overall, the Italian version of the RPS is a valid and quick questionnaire useful to measure propensity to take risks in the Italian context.

Prominent factors of etrepreneurial self-efficacy in West Java: comparison between men and women entrepreneur

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE) is important for entrepreneurs to build and maintain their business. The research purposes are to delve more about the components of ESE in West Java and the difference of these components between men and women entrepreneurs. West Java is one of province in Indonesia (Developing Country) that has high growth of High School and Medium Enterprises (SME’s). This study used quantitative approached. A questionnaire was spread to 52 entrepreneurs in West Java for gathering data. Soft Modelling method named Partial Least Square was used in this study. Predictors of ESE are Entrepreneurial Knowledge, Entrepreneurial Experiences, Instrumental Readiness, Risk Propensity. Findings will be discussed deeply in discussion section of this study. The result of this study confirm the prominent factors that influence ESE positively and how each factor affect men and women entrepreneurs

Do Personality and Belief Influence the Ownership of Private Long-term Care Insurance?

Long-term care is the largest out-of-pocket expenditure risk for the elderly. Private long-term care insurance is one crucial source to cover the gap. The study aims to investigate (1) whether wealthy people are more likely to purchase private long-term care insurance (LTCI); (2) whether personality traits are associated with ownership of LTCI; and (3) whether individual experience influences the ownership of private LTCI. We surveyed 375 participants for three groups, including nurses, executive MBA, and MBA students. EMBA group had highest percentage of personal discretionary income (defined as greater than 1,780 US dollar per month)(77.6%), followed by MBA group (17.6%) and nurse group (8.8%). The nurse group had highest in long-term caring experience for sick family members (46.4%), self-experience catastrophic diseases (11.2%), and number of family/relatives/friends share responsibilities of caregivers (2.33 persons). The nurse group had lowest risk propensity score as well as openness to experience traits. The percentage of ownership in private LTCI was 48%, 45.6%, and 28.8% for nurse, EMBA, and MBA groups, respectively. After controlling for age and tenure, results from logistic regression indicated that MBA group was less likely to own LTCI compared with nursing group. Compared with less than 30,000, only personal discretionary income 30,001~ 50,000 had higher odds ratio to own LTCI. Wealthy is inconclusive in determining ownership of private LTCI. Nurses who were lowest risk propensity and openness traits and have more sickness experience were more likely to purchase private LTCI. Believe needing LTCI is the strongest predictor in ownership of LTCI.

Psychometric Validation of the Dutch Version of the Promotive and Prohibitive Voice Scale

The aim of this three-study report was to validate the Dutch version of the promotive and prohibitive voice scale and to further embed the constructs of promotive and prohibitive voice within their nomological network. Promotive voice refers to the expression of suggestions for improving work practices, whereas prohibitive voice refers to the expression of concerns about practices and behaviors that are detrimental. In Study 1 (N = 121), confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) provided evidence for the two-factor structure, which was replicated in the other two studies. In Study 2 (NT1 = 209/NT2 = 107), we investigated the convergent and discriminant validity of the promotive and prohibitive voice scale, and tested measurement invariance across gender and time. Results provided validity evidence, partial scalar invariance for gender, and scalar invariance across time. In Study 3 (N = 149), we expanded the nomological network of the promotive and prohibitive voice scales through their relationship with personal initiative, approach temperament, and risk propensity. Taken together, our results provide strong evidence for the validity of the Dutch version of the promotive and prohibitive voice scale.

Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking

Due to the prevalence and importance of choices with uncertain outcomes, it is essential to establish what interventions improve risky decision-making, how they work, and for whom. Two types of low-intensity behavioural interventions are promising candidates: nudges and boosts. Nudges guide people to better decisions by altering how a choice is presented, without restricting any options or modifying the underlying payoff matrix. Boosts, on the other hand, teach people decision strategies that focus their attention on key aspects of the choice, which allows them to make more informed decisions. A recent study compared these two types of interventions and found that boosts worked better for risky choices aimed at maximising gains, whereas nudges worked best for choices aimed at minimising losses. Though intriguing, these findings could not be easily interpreted because of a limitation in the items used. Here we replicate that study, with an extended item set. We find that boosts work by promoting risk-taking when it is beneficial, whereas nudges have a consistent (lesser) impact, regardless of whether risk-taking is beneficial or not. These results suggest that researchers and policymakers should consider the base rate risk propensity of the target population when designing decision-support systems.

The Impact of Executives’ Gender, Financial Incentives, and Shareholder Pressure on Corporate Social and Ecological Investments

Archival research suggests that female executives have an impact on corporate decision-making and generally finds positive associations between female board representation and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance. However, archival research does not reveal why female executives decide differently in the context of CSR. As this is our starting point, we conduct an experiment and examine executives’ decision-making in terms of CSR investment. While female executives seem to be more oriented towards social and ecological practices, we find strong evidence that participants’ real-world incentive program mainly drives their CSR decision-making. We also examine if selected gender-specific character traits (risk propensity, sustainability attitude, and empathy) cause gender differences in executives’ CSR decision-making. In an exploratory analysis, we furthermore show that executives’ risk propensity affects their CSR decision-making conditional on the level of shareholder pressure they face. Our study contributes to the literature on executives’ decision-making and to the CSR literature by enhancing our understanding of determinants of executives’ CSR decision-making.

The Effect of Subjective Loss in Financial Risk Taking and Negative Emotion

The current research examined the influence of subjective loss on financial risk-taking tendency and negative emotional experience through inducing the experience of subjective loss in auction scenarios. In Study 1, we found that the subjective loss experience (compared to no-loss experience) in an auction scenario induced greater financial risk propensity, especially in gambling, greater negative emotion, and greater decision regret. In addition, we found that the subjective loss experience induced stronger negative emotion but less risk propensity in investment than the actual loss experience did, but these two types of loss did not yield a difference in risk propensity in gambling in Study 2. These results implicate that subjective loss is a distinct experience from no-loss and actual loss experiences, which is reflected by the degree of associated emotional experience and subsequent risk-taking propensity. The current research highlights the complex psychological processes of the experience of loss in decision-making contexts.