Austin J Clin Case Rep. 2021; 8(9): 1233.
*Corresponding author: Kipman U, College of Education, University of Salzburg, AkademiestraΒe 23, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
Received: October 21, 2021; Accepted: November 15, 2021; Published: November 22, 2021
Abstract
Risk-taking manifests itself in a variety of everyday actions, for somepeople more, for some less. The purpose of this study is to find the reasonfor these differences by examining the effects of various influencing factorssuch as gender, personality traits, self-confidence, self-reflection, self-controland affective parameters, like anxiety, on risk-taking behavior. For thispurpose, the participants, 1.020 adults, were given self-report measures suchas the Risk-Taking Questionnaire for Risk Readiness Factors, the Reliability-Related Personality Test, the Big Five Plus One Personality Inventory, theWork-Related Behavior and Experience Pattern and the Objective PersonalityBattery. Results show a positive correlation between physical risk-taking andopenness, self-confidence, and self-reflection, as well as a negative correlationwith social adjustment. Furthermore, social risk-taking correlated positivelywith self-confidence and self-reflection, and negatively with social adjustment.Extraversion correlated positively with financial risk-taking, whereas riskybehavior in financial contexts showed a negative relationship with socialadjustment and self-control. Gender differences were most evident in physicalrisk-taking. Openness to problem solving and inner balance were associatedwith a reduced willingness to take risks. There was no significant relationshipbetween anxiety and risk-taking, as well as no differences between psychiatricpatients and healthy individuals in their risky behavior.
Keywords: Risk taking; Personality; Big5; Distancing ability; Decisiveness;Impulsivity
Introduction
Risk-taking is something nearly everyone does in his or her lifeat some point. Some people more, some people less than others.There are different kinds of risk-taking: for example, risk-taking insocial and work-related contexts, or physical (e.g., extreme sport) andhealth risk-taking, like smoking, drinking or even drug use. So, whyand in which contexts are some people willing to take more risks thanothers?
There are some theories which try to explain this. One of thesetheories is the prospect theory by Kahneman and Tversky [1,2], whichindicates that risk-taking is related to the context of the situation.That means that a person chooses the risky way over the safe way in asituation where the choices are framed positively (e.g., the number ofpeople who would be saved by vaccination). If the choice is framed ina negative way (e.g., the number of people who would not be saved),people are less willing to choose the risky way. Others provide evidencethat certain personality traits, like impulsivity or sensation seeking,are the reason for risk-taking tendencies [3]. There are many studieswhich show this phenomenon [3-7]. Aside from sensation seeking,other personality traits have been associated with participation inrisky activities. For example, extraversion and psychoticism werefound to be related to risky behavior such as “promiscuity” [3,8].In a study by Nicholson et al. [4], high scores in openness andextraversion, and low scores in neuroticism, agreeableness andconscientiousness were related to six dimensions of risks (recreation,health, career, finance, safety and social). Czerwonka [9] came to thesame conclusion: risk takers have high scores in extraversion and lowscores in conscientiousness.
What most of the previously mentioned studies (if included)have in common is the gender aspect. Many studies indicated thatmen are willing to take more risks than women [4,5,9], especiallyin physical risk-taking [1]. Other researchers mentioned traits suchas self-believing or self-control as relevant to risky behavior; likethe research by Krueger and Dickson [10], which showed that thepositive perception of oneself and one’s competence in decisionmaking leads to the willingness of taking more risks, in contrastto someone who does not see an opportunity but a threat in risktakingand therefore refrains from it. Furthermore, Bandura [11,12]suggests that individuals with high levels of self-efficacy are, ingeneral, confident with their own intellectual abilities, especially withtheir critical judgement of themselves. This means that individualswho think positively of their future performances are able to analyzethemselves critically. So, self-efficacy likely intensifies self-reflectedthinking. Therefore, one can assume that self-reflected people maytake more risks, because of their awareness of their abilities. Freemanand Muraven [13] examined the role of self-control in risk-taking andfound that low self-regulation was a direct cause of risk-taking. Thisresult is consistent with the results from Zuckerman and Kuhlman[3], which showed a correlation between six domains of risk-takingand poor self-control mechanisms.
Besides that, many studies found a relation between low distresstolerance, which describes the capacity to endure and withstandnegative psychological states [14], and risky behavior, like hurried,risky and aggressive driving [15,16], as well as substance abuse[16,17]. But in contrast, are only personality traits responsible forthe differences in risk-taking, or does affect, especially fear, also play a major role? Research shows a consistent picture in this aspect:Anxious or anxiety sensitive people appear to have less willingnessof taking risks than others [18-20]. Especially, people diagnosedwith anxiety disorders showed significantly greater risk aversionthan patients with other diagnoses or nonclinical controls [21].Furthermore, Giorgetta et al. [19] indicated that anxiety patients wereless happy after gains but also less sad after losses and that they alsoevinced less desire to change their choices after losses than did nonanxiouspatients. Stress also leads to risky behavior, as the work ofBuckert et al. [22] shows. They found that economic decision makingunder risk is affected by acute psychosocial stress. This agrees withthe result from van den Bos et al. [23], showing that people tend tomake riskier choices if they have to decide under high stress. But whathappens when the person is exposed to permanent stress and shows,for example, signs of burnout syndrome? Burnout is associated witha variety of symptoms, including reduced ability to distance oneselfand reduced levels of inner calm and balance [24]. There are fewstudies on the effects of burnout and its symptoms on risk-taking.One of the few is the one by Michailidis and Banks [25], in which theycould not find a significant relationship between burnout and riskydecision-making. However, research shows negative relationshipsbetween both exhaustion and depersonalization with emotionalstability [26]. Mood instabilities are, in turn, positively associatedwith trait impulsivity and risk-taking [27]. Thus, one could assumethat emotional imbalance could lead to increased risk-taking.
The influence of others could also be an influence for taking morerisks. This was shown in research by Gardner and Steinberg [28] inwhich they examined the peer influence on adolescents and adults.Results indicate that, overall, people take more risk and make morerisky decisions when they are with their peers than when they areon their own. It must be mentioned that this effect occurred moreoften during middle and late adolescence than during adulthood.In addition, Hogg et al. [29] imply in their polarization theory thatthe risk-taking tendencies of the group members affect the directionof group effects, which means that individuals with risk-takingtendencies make even riskier choices when grouped together [28].
The purpose of the present study is to examine the abovementionedfindings on personality traits, anxiety, and self-control, as well as togain some new insights regarding risk-taking and specific aspects ofpersonality.
Materials and Methods
Participants
The present study is based on data from 1.020 adults (56.7% male),ranging from 17 to 90 years. Regarding their educational background,37.5% reported an apprenticeship certificate, 22.4% a high schooldegree and 27.5% a university degree; the remaining 12.6% did notfinish school or only completed secondary modern school. 19.7% ofparticipants were receiving a psychiatric treatment.
Procedure
For all statistical analyses, SPSS version 26.0 (2020) was used.
Linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the impactsof gender, social background, and personality traits on risk-taking(physical risk-taking, social risk-taking, and financial risk-taking). Thepredictive strength of each variable was first assessed in a univariate model (e.g., impact of gender alone) and then in a multivariate modelwhile controlling for the other variables respectively (e.g., impact ofextraversion while controlling for gender, social background, andother personality traits). Missing data were imputed for up to 10% of participants.
Furthermore, several mediator models with risk-taking asoutcome variable and possibly relevant variables as mediators will be examined.
Instruments
Risk-taking questionnaire for risk readiness factors: To measurethe willingness to take risks (physical, social, and financial risks), theRisk-Taking Questionnaire for Risk Readiness Factors (FRF) [30]was used. This questionnaire is a standardized 49-item instrumentmeasuring (1) the willingness to confront difficult, unfamiliar,physically hazardous situations and objects and to set aside concernsabout one’s health or physical safety (physical risk-taking), (2) thewillingness to ignore norms in social situations, to consciouslyaccept unpopularity and to behave independently of the approvalor disapproval of others (social risk-taking), and (3) the willingnessto enter into transactions in which the outcome is uncertain and therisks cannot be calculated, as well as to handle money carelessly andriskily (financial risk-taking).
Reliability-related personality test: To measure personalitytraits, the Reliability-Related Personality Test-Version 3 (VPT-3) (Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit) was used. This multidimensional70-item questionnaire obtains the respondent’s selfassessmentsin relation to social behavior, emotional state/stabilityand his/her level of self-control and self-reflection. The followingmain variables are scored:
• Social expressiveness - self-confidence: Measure of the keybasic dimension of social behavior known as “extraversion”.
• Social adjustment: The level of social agreeableness orreadiness to engage in conflict. This is a second important basicdimension of social behavior.
• Emotional responsiveness: The level of emotional instability, tension, irritation and anxiety.
• Self-control: The level of an individual’s self-discipline,consistency, reliability, and adherence to norms.
• Self-reflection: The level of intellectual flexibility andnuanced thinking as a measure of self-reflection.
Big five plus one personality inventory: The Big Five Plus OnePersonality Inventory (B5PO) [32] assesses the Big Five dimensionsof personality: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,Neuroticism, Openness, and the additional dimension of Empathy.These relatively stable personality characteristics (known as traits)roughly determine the individual’s everyday behavior. They can beused to predict future behavioral tendencies.
The following main variables were analyzed:
• Extraversion: Measure of behavioral tendencies ininterpersonal situations (e.g., the level of dominance or sociability).
• Agreeableness: Measure of social competence (e.g., the level of respect or aggression).
• Conscientiousness: Measure of behavioral tendencies inthe context of work or achievement (e.g., the level of discipline orreliability).
• Neuroticism/Emotional control: Measure of the abilityto control one’s own feelings (e.g., the level of impulsiveness orrationality).
• Openness: Measure of the willingness to be open to newexperiences and values (e.g., the level of tolerance or loyalty).
• Empathy: Measure of the ability to understand and feel theemotions of others (e.g., the level of friendliness or helpfulness).
Work-related behavior and experience pattern: The followingmain variables are assessed by the Work-related Behavior andExperience Pattern (AVEM) [33]:
• Subjective importance of work in personal life
• Work-related ambition
• Willingness to work until exhausted
• Striving for perfection
• Distancing ability (ability to recuperate mentally from work)
• Tendency to resignation in the face of failure
• Proactive problem-solving (active and optimistic attitude)
• Inner calm and balance (experience of emotional stability)
• Experience of success at work (satisfaction)
• Satisfaction with life
• Experience of social support
For the present study, we extracted results from three scales -Inner Calm and Balance (experience of emotional stability), ProactiveProblem-Solving (active and optimistic attitude), and DistancingAbility -, as there are hints that there may be a relation to risk-takingin the literature.
Objective personality battery: The Objective PersonalityBattery (AHA) [34] assesses the respondent’s cognitive style (i.e.,impulsiveness versus reflectivity) and the motivational dimensions ofaspiration level, frustration tolerance, and achievement motivation.The Objective Personality Battery therefore provides information onbehavior and motivation in stressful situations.
The following variables were extracted, as they may be related torisk-taking:
• Impulsiveness vs. Reflexivity: Measure of the prominenceof a style.
• Frustration Tolerance: Measure of the extent to which therespondent is influenced by negative feedback.
• Decisiveness: Measure of the determination when makingdecisions.
Results
In the following, we describe the influences of all predictors on all risk-taking scores for the whole sample. Adults receiving apsychiatric treatment did not differ from healthy adults in their risktakingscores (z < \0.98). Due to the sample size, small coefficients arealso statistically significant. Thus, we only report practically relevantinfluences (β ≥0.20), although other variables may also have asignificant impact on risk-taking (e.g., gender on physical risk-taking,p = 0.036).
Variables which remain practically relevant in the combinedmodels are marked with a #. We also provide mediator modelsmeasuring the direct and indirect influence of the interestingsignificant and practically relevant variables on risk-taking (Table 1).
Table 1: Results of separate regression analyses to predict physical, social, andfinancial risk-taking. Displayed values represent beta coefficients.
Physical Risk-Taking
Social Risk-Taking
Financial Risk-Taking
Gender
0.126
-0.008
-0.07
Social Background
0.115
0.260*
0.051
Extraversion
0.314*
0.602*
0.435*
Agreeableness
-0.197
-0.174
-0.298*
Conscientiousness
-0.042
0.106
0.11
Neuroticism
0.321*
0.208*
0.314*
Openness to Experience
0.333*
0.510*
0.563*
Empathy
0.058
0.263*
0.053
Self-Assurance
0.234*#
0.346*#
0.270*#
Social Adjustment
-0.135
-0.260*
-0.14
Anxiety
-0.057
0.004
0.175
Self-Control
-0.108
0.091
-0.300*#
Reflectivity
0.188
0.266*
0.018
Decision-Making (Decisiveness)
-0.243*
-0.354*
-0.214*
Impulsivity
0.415*
0.085
0.154
Tolerance of Frustration
-0.415*
0.251*
-0.278*
Ability to Distance Oneself From the Expectations of Others
-0.313*
0.333*#
-0.01
Openness to Problem Solving
-0.619*#
-0.264*
-0.248*
Inner Balance
-0.377*#
-0.226*
-0.461*
Note: #Practically relevant in the combined model; *Practically relevant (effect size >0.20).
Table 1: Results of separate regression analyses to predict physical, social, andfinancial risk-taking. Displayed values represent beta coefficients.
A first important finding is that all types of risk-taking increasedwith higher levels of extraversion and neuroticism, openness toexperience, self-assurance, and the ability to make decisions. Opennessto problem solving and inner balance had a negative impact on risktaking.Tolerance of frustration increased social risk-taking butdecreased physical and financial risk-taking. The reported variableswere significant and practically relevant univariate predictors of risktakingin all domains.
For at least one, but not all domains, we also found significant andpractically relevant predictors. Impulsivity and the ability to distanceoneself from the expectations of others were further significant andpractically relevant predictors for physical risk-taking: the higherimpulsivity and the lower the ability to distance oneself from theexpectations of others, the higher the score of physical risk-taking.
Regarding social risk-taking, the subject´s social background, empathy, reflectivity, and the ability to distance oneself from theexpectations of others increased the willingness to take social risks,whereas high social adjustment had a negative impact on social risktaking.Agreeableness was, in addition to the variables mentionedabove, a negative predictor for financial risk-taking.
Controlling for all other practically relevant and significantpredictors in a multivariate analysis, the effect of self-assurance wasstill practically relevant for all three domains. Openness to problemsolvingand inner balance remained significant and practicallyrelevant even when controlling for all other relevant variables in theunivariate models. Concerning physical risk-taking, the ability todistance oneself from the expectations of others was – additionallyto self-assurance - still significant and practically relevant whenanalyzing its impact on social risk-taking. Furthermore, self-controlwas a significant and practically relevant negative predictor forfinancial risk-taking in the combined model.
A mediation model showed a mediating effect of self-assuranceon physical risk-taking when regressing the ability to distance oneselffrom the expectations of others on the willingness to take physicalrisks (z = 2.08).
Discussion
The present study examined relationships between multiplepersonality traits and physical, social, as well as financial risk-taking.Results mostly confirmed findings from previous research on thetopic.
A moderate positive relationship was found between impulsivityand the level of only physical, but not social or financial risk-taking,which thereby partially replicated previous findings [3-7]. This cleardistinction can be explained by the fact that potentially risky socialand financial decisions are often considered more thoroughly thanphysical decisions, hence reducing the influence of impulsivity.
Extraversion and neuroticism, on the other hand, wereconsistently positively associated with higher levels of risk-taking inall three domains [3,4,8,9]. The closest relationship was found betweenextraversion and social risk-taking. This emphasizes the potentiallypathological nature of high levels of extraversion, i.e., extraversionappears to increase a person´s tendency to make more risky decisions.This interpretation is consistent with Gardner and Steinberg´s [28]study, which suggests substantial peer influences on decision-makingnot only in adolescents, but also in adults. The positive relationshipsbetween both extraversion and the ability to distance oneself from theexpectations of others with social risk-taking furthermore supportthe related polarization theory proposed by Hogg et al. [29], whichstated that individuals with already high risk-taking tendencies wouldpolarize each other if they were interacting in groups, thereby furtherincreasing each person´s tendency to take risks [28]. Also, Nicholsonet al. (2005) and Czerwonka (2019), for instance, found that lowscores in conscientiousness were associated with high scores in risktaking,but this relationship was not found in the present data. Theresults replicate Nicholson et al.´s [4] findings regarding a positiverelation between openness and risk-taking, as well as a negativerelation between agreeableness and (financial) risk-taking. A strongnegative relationship was also found between openness to problemsolvingand physical risk-taking.
Another interesting result was a statistically significant genderdifference in the willingness to take risks (with higher scores foundin men), which was consistent with previous studies [1,4,5,9], butsurprisingly was not practically meaningful.
Based on a few previous studies, possible influences of self-belief(self-assurance) and self-control were examined and it was found thatself-assurance - i.e., a positive self-perception and belief in one´s owncompetence – appeared to have a small to moderate influence on eachdomain of risk-taking [10]. Self-control, on the other hand, only hada negative influence on financial risk-taking, indicating that betterself-regulation and control may be a reliable trait to keep a personsafe from financial risks.
Another interesting result concerns the positive associationbetween a person´s level of self-reflectivity and their tendency to takesocial risks. This is consistent with Bandura´s hypothesis [11,12] ofhigh levels of self-efficacy and self-reflectivity as the motivating forcesfor someone to take more risks, which would therefore be caused bythe person´s positive awareness of their abilities. Hence, the presentresults contradict the studies by Freeman and Muraven [13] andZuckerman and Kuhlman [3], which found opposite relationships.Related to this, decisiveness (i.e., determination in decision-making)was negatively correlated with all three domains of risk-taking.
Inner balance was negatively associated with all three domainsof risk-taking, whereas distress tolerance (i.e., frustration tolerance)was only found to be negatively correlated with physical and financialrisk-taking [14-17,27]. Surprisingly and contrary to much empiricalwork [18-21], no significant relationship was found between anxietyand risk-taking, and no significant differences in risk-taking werefound between psychiatric patients and healthy controls.
Finally, a differential influence of the ability to distance oneselffrom the expectations of others was found: a higher ability of selfdistancingwas associated with less physical risk-taking, but positivelycorrelated with social risk-taking. This gives insights for the field ofBurnout- and stress-related symptoms and their treatment [24,25].
References
- Byrnes JP, Miller DC & Schafer WD. Gender differences in risk taking: ameta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1999; 125: 367.
- Kahneman D & Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision underrisk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, an Internet. Societyfor the Advancement of Economic Theory in Its Relation to Statistics andMathematics. 1979; 47: 263-291.
- Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM. Personality and risk-taking: Common biosocialfactors. Journal of Personality. 2000; 68: 999-1029.
- Nicholson N, Soane E, Fenton-O’Creevy M & Willman P. Personality anddomain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research. 2005; 8: 157-176.
- Zaleskiewicz T. Beyond risk seeking and risk aversion: personality and thedual nature of economic risk taking. European Journal of Personality. 2001;15: S105-S122.
- Zuckerman M. Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal.Erlbaum. 1979.
- Zuckerman M. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensationseeking. Cambridge University Press. 1994.
- Eysenck HJ. Sex and personality. University of Texas Press. 1976.
- Czerwonka M. Cultural, cognitive and personality traits in risk-takingbehaviour: Evidence from Poland and the United States of America. Taylor and Francis Group and Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Faculty of economicsand tourism Dr. Mijo Mirkovic. 2019.
- Krueger N & Dickson PR. How believing in ourselves increases risk taking:Perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences. 1994;25: 385-400.
- Bandura A, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Pastorelli C & Regalia C.Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressivebehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80: 125-135.
- van Seggelen-Damen I & van Dam K. Self-reflection as a mediator betweenself-efficacy and well-being. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2016; 31: 18-33.
- Freeman N & Muraven M. Self-Control Depletion Leads to Increased RiskTaking. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2010; 1: 175-181.
- Simons JS & Gaher RM. The Distress Tolerance Scale: Development andValidation of a Self-Report Measure. Motivation and Emotion. 2005; 29: 83-102.
- Beck KH, Daughters SB & Ali B. Hurried driving: Relationship to distresstolerance, driver anger, aggressive and risky driving in college students.Accident; Analysis and Prevention. 2013; 51: 51-55.
- Beck KH, Ali B & Daughters SB. Distress tolerance as a predictor of risky andaggressive driving. Traffic Injury Prevention. 2014; 15: 349-354.
- Buckner JD, Keough ME & Schmidt NB. Problematic alcohol and cannabisuse among young adults: The roles of depression and discomfort and distresstolerance. Addictive Behaviors. 2007; 32: 1957-1963.
- Broman-Fulks JJ, Urbaniak A, Bondy CL & Toomey KJ. Anxiety sensitivityand risk-taking behavior. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 2014; 27: 619-632.
- Giorgetta C, Grecucci A, Zuanon S, Perini L, Balestrieri M, Bonini N, etal. Reduced risk-taking behavior as a trait feature of anxiety. Emotion(Washington, D.C.). 2012; 12: 1373-1383.
- Maner JK & Schmidt NB. The role of risk avoidance in anxiety. BehaviorTherapy. 2006; 37: 181-189.
- Maner JK, Richey JA, Cromer K, Mallott M, Lejuez CW, Joiner TE, et al.Dispositional anxiety and risk-avoidant decision-making. Personality andIndividual Differences. 2007; 42: 665-675.
- Buckert M, Schwieren C, Kudielka BM & Fiebach CJ. Acute stress affects risk taking but not ambiguity aversion. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2014; 8: 82.
- van den Bos R, Harteveld M & Stoop H. Stress and decision-making inhumans: Performance is related to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in menand women. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2009; 34: 1449-1458.
- Schaarschmidt U & Kieschke U. Burnout als Muster arbeitsbezogenenVerhaltens und Erlebens. Persönlichkeitsstörungen: Theorie Und Therapie.2012; 16: 116-124.
- Michailidis E & Banks AP. The relationship between burnout and risk-taking inworkplace decision-making and decision-making style. Work & Stress. 2016;30: 278-292.
- Ghorpade J, Lackritz J & Singh G. Burnout and Personality. Journal of CareerAssessment. 2007; 15: 240-256.
- Peters EM, Bowen R & Balbuena L. Mood Instability and Trait Anxiety asDistinct Components of Eysenckian Neuroticism with Differential Relations toImpulsivity and Risk Taking. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2020; 102:337-347.
- Gardner M & Steinberg L. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, andrisky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study.Developmental Psychology. 2005; 41: 625-635.
- Hogg MA, Turner JC & Davidson B. Polarized Norms and Social Frames ofReference: A Test of the Self-Categorization Theory of Group Polarization.Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 1990; 11: 77-100.
- Schmidt L. Fragebogen zur Erfassung verschiedenerRisikobereitschaftsfaktoren (FRF). Kleine Fachbuchreihe Des KuratoriumsFür Verkehrssicherheit (KFV). 1985: 23.
- Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit. VerlässlichkeitsbezogenerPersönlichkeitstest - Version 3. Schuhfried GmbH.
- Holocher-Ertl S, Kubinger KD & Menghin S. Big Five Plus OnePersönlichkeitsinventar (B5PO) [Big Five Plus One Personality Inventory(B5PO)] [Software and Manual]. Mödling: Dr. G. Schuhfried GmbH. 2003.
- Schaarschmidt U & Fischer AW. AVEM-ein diagnostisches Instrument zurDifferenzierung von Typen gesundheitsrelevanten Verhaltens und Erlebensgegenüber der Arbeit. 1997.
- Kubinger KD & Ebenhöh H. Arbeitshaltungen (AHA): ObjektiverPersönlichkeitstest. Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. 1996.
