Structure of the Dospert: Is There Evidence for a General Risk Factor?

The Domain‐specific Risk‐taking scale was designed to assess risk taking in specific domains. This approach is unconventional in personality assessment but reflects conventional wisdom in the decision community that cross‐situational consistency in risk taking is more myth than reality. We applied bifactor analysis to a large sample (n = 921) of responses to the Domain‐specific Risk Taking. Results showed that, in addition to domain‐specific facets, there does appear to be evidence for a general risk‐taking disposition. And this general appetite for risk appears to be useful for predicting real‐world outcomes. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Risk‐Taking Tendencies in Prisoners and Nonprisoners: Does Gender Matter?

Several investigations have found that prisoners are more likely than nonprisoners to engage in risky behavior, which may contribute to their propensity to commit criminal offenses. However, this research has been limited by an almost exclusive focus on male samples. Given the established link between risk taking and gender, it is thus unclear how findings on the risk‐taking propensities of prisoners also hold in women. The present study uses both a self‐report questionnaire (Domain‐Specific Risk Taking scale, DOSPERT) and a behavioral task (Balloon Analogue Risk Task, BART) to investigate risk‐taking tendencies in a Chinese prisoner group and a nonprisoner control group with balanced gender proportions. Across both genders, prisoners both indicated a higher risk‐taking tendency on the DOSPERT and showed more risk‐taking behavior on the BART than did nonprisoners. Importantly, the differences were considerably more pronounced in women than in men. Relative to nonprisoners, gender differences in risk taking were substantially smaller, or even reversed, in prisoners. Computational modeling of respondents' behavior in the BART revealed that the prisoners had higher reward sensitivity and lower response consistency than the nonprisoners; these differences were again more pronounced among women. Our results suggest that previous studies based primarily on male prisoners may have underestimated differences in risk taking between prisoners and nonprisoners, and that female prisoners may represent an even more extreme subpopulation than male prisoners. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Development and validation of the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS)

Despite the widespread interest in understanding and identifying risk takers by psychologists, clinicians, and economists, the risk literature currently lacks consensus regarding the nature of risk taking and its measurement. Existing measures of risk taking are predominantly domain‐specific despite emerging support for risk taking as a domain‐general disposition. In the present paper, we examine the nature of risk taking as a domain‐general personality disposition and develop a concise measure: the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS). Data from 1,523 participants across five studies provided evidence for its construct validity. The GRiPS converged with other self‐report measures of risk taking and provided incremental prediction of work, academic, and life outcomes over and above the five‐factor model of personality and the Domain‐Specific Risk Taking Scale.     

Is the DOSPERT gender invariant? A psychometric test of measurement invariance

It is well established in the risk literature that men tend to take more risks than women. This gender difference, however, is often qualified by its domain specificity. Considering recent research on the domain generality of risk taking as a disposition, there is a need to examine the degree to which men take more risks than women, in general. In order to make substantive conclusions about the gender differences in risk‐taking propensity, one must first establish measurement invariance, which is required for the meaningful interpretation of observed group differences. In this paper, we examined the measurement invariance of the Domain‐Specific Risk‐Taking scale (DOSPERT)—one of the most popular measures of individual differences in risk taking. We found that the DOSPERT violated configural invariance in a bifactor model, indicating that the underlying factor structure of the DOSPERT differs between men and women. Even after removing the social risk dimension, DOSPERT still failed to reach scalar invariance. Taken together, these findings suggest that score differences in the DOSPERT may be due to response artifacts rather than true differences in the latent construct. Therefore, gender differences in the DOSPERT must be interpreted with caution. Implications for the measurement of risk taking are discussed.     

How much risk can you stomach? Individual differences in the tolerance of perceived risk across gender and risk domain

Research within the psychological risk–return framework, namely, using the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking scale, has led to a conclusion that risk attitude—measured as an individual's sensitivity to the risk they perceive—is stable across people (e.g., gender) and domains (e.g., recreational, social, financial, & health). Risk taking differences across gender and domain have been interpreted in terms of differences in the magnitude of risk perceived (and expected benefit). Yet the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking scale items, contrived by researchers rather than decision makers themselves, may have failed to detect differences in perceived risk attitude by failing to adequately represent all combinations of risks and benefits across gender and domains. In Study 1, participants generated their own examples of activities, which we selected among in Studies 2 and 3 to construct a new scale representing various levels of perceived risk and expected benefit. Our findings reveal that women are more sensitive than men to risk they perceive (i.e., are less tolerant of risk) in the recreational, social, and financial domains but not in the health domain. Risk attitude also differed across domains, with participants tolerating more risk in some domains than in others. We conclude that gender and domain differences in risk taking stem partly from gender and domain differences in people's sensitivity to perceived risks. Our findings have theoretical implications for the psychological risk–return framework and bridge with other theoretical approaches, such as the expected utility framework. Our studies also provide a new scale for assessing differences in attitudes toward risk that overcomes shortcomings of existing scales.