THE RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract: We aimed to build, to standardize and to get evidence of the validity of a card game to study the risk-taking. We investigated risk-taking outcomes by a coefficient of variation and risk-adjusted performance measure. We work with the hypothesis that the valid instrument would differ with success gender differences, pointing men more likely to be risk-taker than women. In addition to the card game, initially with eight rounds, 243 answered the sociodemographic questionnaire. Results indicated the pertinence of six rounds and presented validity evidence based on response process and on external criterion, presenting higher risk-propensity scores for males than for females. We conclude that the instrument is innovative, considering losses in the study of risk, and proved to be valid for use with Brazilian sample
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright to articles published in The Journal Of Psychology: Theory and Practice belongs to the authors, who grant Mackenzie Presbyterian University the not exclusive rights to publish the content.
References
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1-3), 7-15. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3
Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). Testing invariance in risking taking: a comparison between Anglophone and Francophone groups. Scientific Series (CIRANO), 1-25.
Boyer, T. W. (2006). The development of risk-taking: a multi-perspective review. Developmental Review, 26(3), 291-345. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2006.05.002.
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2011). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Jornal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: eliciting risk preferences. Jornal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87(March), 43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.023.
Das, T. L., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Strategic risk behaviour and its temporalities: bet-ween risk propensity and decision context. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 515-534. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00247.
Eid, Jr., W., Rochman, R. R., & Taddeo, M. (2005). Medidas de desempenho de fun-dos considerando risco de estimação. In Encontro Brasileiro de Finanças, 5, São Paulo, Anais. São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Finanças
Figner, B., & Weber, E. U. (2011). Who takes risk when and why? Determinants of risk-taking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 211-216. doi: 10.1177/0963721411415790.
Helfinstein, S. M., Schonberg, T., Congdon, E., Karlsgodt, K. H., Mumford, J. A., Sabb, F. W., Cannon, T. D., London, E. D., Bilder, R. M., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014). Predicting risky choices from brain activity patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(7), 2470-2475. doi: http://10.1073/pnas.1321728111.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 262-291
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., ... Stuart, G. L.. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the balloon analogue risk task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75-84. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.75.
Loewenstein, G. F. Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, E. S. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267.
Resolução n. 196 (1996, 10 de Outubro). Conselho Nacional de Saúde (National Health Concil), Brasília, DF. Disponível: conselho.saude.gov.br/docs/Reso196.doc
Rode, C., Cosmides, L., Hell, W., & Tooby, J. (1999). When and why do people avoid unknown probabilities in decision under uncertainty? Testing some predictions from optimal foraging theory. Cognition, 72(3), 269-304. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00041-4
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.). Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-207). Chicago: Aldine Pu-blishing Company 1871-1971.
Van den Bos, R., Homberg, J., & de Visser, L. (2013). A critical review of sex diffe-rences in decision-making tasks: focus on the Iowa Gambling Task. Behavioural Brain Research, 238(0), 95-108. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.03.001.
Weber, E. U., Shafir, S. & Blais, A. R. (2004). Predicting risk-sensitivity in humans and lower animals: risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychology Review, 111(2), 430-445. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.430