SoylentNews

Researchers Suggest Risk Preference Should be Considered a Psychological Trait Like Intelligence

posted by martyb on Sunday October 08 2017, @12:56AM   
from the going-out-on-a-limb dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

the researchers have focused on risk preference or aversion, and the possibility that it might be measurable and compared to others, offering a scale of sorts.

To learn more about how eager people are to engage in risky behavior, the researchers enlisted the assistance of 1500 volunteer adults to take a series of tests (39 tests in all), which together were meant to gauge a person's desire to seek out risky behavior. The team then analyzed the data and found that 61 percent of the variation in risky behavior scores could be summed up with a single component—a person's risk preference quotient, if you will. The remaining factors could all be attributed to which particular type of risk was involved. The single component, which the team dubbed as R, is general, the team notes, which suggests it can be applied multiple to[sic] risk situations along with other factors attributable to a particular type of risk.

The top level in intelligence quotient is called, "genius." Should the top level in risk quotient be called, "Hey Y'all, hold my beer?"

---

Original Submission

• Reward? Reward? (Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:30AM (3 children)

  by looorg (578) on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:30AM (#578726)

  The team then analyzed the data and found that 61 percent of the variation in risky behavior scores could be summed up with a single component—a person's risk preference quotient, if you will. The remaining factors could all be attributed to which particular type of risk was involved. The single component, which the team dubbed as R, is general, the team notes, which suggests it can be applied multiple to risk situations along with other factors attributable to a particular type of risk.

  The researchers cannot explain why an individual might have a given score (which offers insight into how likely they are to engage in risky behavior), but suggest it might have to do with genetics or perhaps a stronger or weaker ability to assess the possible outcomes of risky behavior. They also note that other factors might contribute to a risk factor, such as natural chemical reactions that occur when exposed to a possible risk or differences in factors that contribute to inhibition.

  While I didn't bother to read the entire paper I can't in the abstract find a single reference to the reward or outcome of the risk taking, there is some vague reference to incentivized behavioral measures but nothing beyond that. I guess that could psychobabble for reward. I would assume that the reward compared to the risk is one of the biggest deciding factors -- as in will the risk be worth it compared to the reward given upon completion. Instead it seems to all be down to some kind of thrill seeking "risk preference"?

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:Reward? (Score: 2) by rylyeh on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:35AM

  by rylyeh (6726) <kadathNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:35AM (#578754)

  The remaining factors could all be attributed to which particular type of risk was involved.

  I tried to read the paper but alas, it is pay-walled.

  I think the above relates to your point about risk. So, 59% of the time you'd be right! Otherwise, presumably, the opportunity to get a cheap adrenaline rush outweighs the actual rewards/punishments calculation.

  --
  "a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."

  Parent

• Re:Reward? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:02AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:02AM (#578766)

  Whenever someone claims X% of Y can be attributed to Z, they are assuming the statistical model they used is well specified. This means they assume it has included all relevant variables, which may be true in some areas of physics but is always false otherwise.

  It is one of those "classic" pitfalls that has lead to so much mischeif and ignorance, like thinking "probability of something given the hypothesis" equals "probability the hypothesis is true" (another variant is "probability the result will replicate").

  Parent

• Re:Reward? (Score: 3, Informative) by rigrig on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:22PM

  by rigrig (5129) <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:22PM (#578892) Homepage

  The tasks are described in a separate document [sciencemag.org]
  It seems to mostly boil down to letting people pick from two gambles with the same expected outcome, but different variability of outcome

  Participants started with an initial bonus of 15 CHF or 10 EUR (mimicking the incentives typically used in the literature) and were informed that in the two most extreme cases, they could either maximally double or entirely lose this amount, depending on their choices. At the end of the study, one of the incentivized tasks was randomly selected, and the respective outcome was either added to or subtracted from the initial bonus.

  Specifically, a “risky choice” was defined as preferring an option with larger variance over an option with smaller variance (or over an option with no variance, i.e., a sure outcome).

  Some described tasks:

  Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)
  Click on a balloon to inflate it, earning points for every click, but when you inflate it too much(over a hidden treshold) it explodes and you get nothing.
  Risky behaviour = Inflating more

  Decisions From Experience (DFE)
  Choose between two buttons with random reward distributions per button.
  First they get to test the buttons as much as they like, then make a final choice which determines the reward
  Risky behaviour = Less test presses, picking the button with the higher outcome variation

  Decisions From Description (DFD)
  Another two buttons with random reward distributions per button, but this time you are told the reward distributions.
  Riskier behaviour = Picking the button with the higher outcome variation

  Columbia Card Task (CCT)
  Turn over cards, some of which give a reward, some incur a loss. You can stop at any time, or keep turning over cards until you turn over a loss card.
  Riskier behaviour = Turning over more cards

  Vienna Risk-Taking Test: Traffic (VRTTT)
  You are shown a traffic situation twice: first you see the whole clip. In the second showing you press a button when you would no longer perform some action that is getting riskier over time (like overtaking with oncoming traffic getting closer)
  Riskier behaviour = Waiting longer to press the key

  --
  No one remembers the singer.

  Parent