Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 8:12:562381.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.562381. eCollection 2021.

Why Do We Take Risks? Perception of the Situation and Risk Proneness Predict Domain-Specific Risk Taking

Affiliations

Why Do We Take Risks? Perception of the Situation and Risk Proneness Predict Domain-Specific Risk Taking

Carla de-Juan-Ripoll et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Risk taking (RT) is a component of the decision-making process in situations that involve uncertainty and in which the probability of each outcome - rewards and/or negative consequences - is already known. The influence of cognitive and emotional processes in decision making may affect how risky situations are addressed. First, inaccurate assessments of situations may constitute a perceptual bias in decision making, which might influence RT. Second, there seems to be consensus that a proneness bias exists, known as risk proneness, which can be defined as the propensity to be attracted to potentially risky activities. In the present study, we take the approach that risk perception and risk proneness affect RT behaviours. The study hypothesises that locus of control, emotion regulation, and executive control act as perceptual biases in RT, and that personality, sensation seeking, and impulsivity traits act as proneness biases in RT. The results suggest that locus of control, emotion regulation and executive control influence certain domains of RT, while personality influences in all domains except the recreational, and sensation seeking and impulsivity are involved in all domains of RT. The results of the study constitute a foundation upon which to build in this research area and can contribute to the increased understanding of human behaviour in risky situations.

Keywords: emotion regulation; executive control; locus of control; personality; risk taking; sensation seeking impulsivity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Study hypotheses. Red lines represent positive relation and orange lines represent negative relation.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Correlation matrix obtained by Pearson coefficients between every pair of variables and the range of statistical significance by correlation. p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, and ∗∗∗p < 0.001. Pearson coefficient of 0.285 achieves a power above 80%.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ahmed S. U. (1985). nAch, risk-taking propensity, locus of control and entrepreneurship. Pers. Individ. Differ. 6 781–782. 10.1016/0191-8869(85)90092-3 - DOI
    1. Appelt K. C., Milch K. F., Handgraaf M. J., Weber E. U. (2011). The decision making individual differences inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 6 252–262.
    1. Bancroft J., Janssen E., Strong D., Carnes L., Vukadinovic Z., Long J. S. (2003). Sexual risk-taking in gay men: the relevance of sexual arousability, mood, and sensation seeking. Arch. Sex. Behav. 32 555–572. 10.1023/A:1026041628364 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bechara A., Damasio A. R., Damasio H., Anderson S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 50 7–15. 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bechara A., Damasio H., Tranel D., Damasio A. R. (2005). The Iowa Gambling Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: some questions and answers. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9 159–162. 10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.002 - DOI - PubMed