Risk Taking with Variable Resources: a Field and a Laboratory Experiment

K. Faragó, Ajna Uatkán
{"title":"Risk Taking with Variable Resources: a Field and a Laboratory Experiment","authors":"K. Faragó, Ajna Uatkán","doi":"10.1515/psych-2018-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Theoretical predictions and experimental findings concerning the relationship between risk taking and accumulated resources are contradictory. In contrast to laboratory experiments, studies conducted in an ecologically valid environment allow for the evaluation of available resources and the motivational impact of potentially serious consequences for risk taking. Objective: Our aim was to (i) examine the influence of available resources on risk taking in an ecologically valid field experiment; and (ii) to compare “real life” and laboratory experiments assessing risk taking. Method: To reproduce real decisions involving real stakes, the students were asked to choose between exam questions representing different levels of difficulty. Available resources of the students were defined as the amount of points accumulated during the semester. In parallel, the laboratory experiments were conducted to assess risk taking in a laboratory setting. Results: The two experimental setups yielded different results. In the field experiment, risk taking decreased with the available resources, whereas the laboratory experiments suggested an inverse tendency. The influence of contextual effects was only prominent in the field experiment.Conclusion: The results of the field experiment support the variable risk preference model, whereas the risk-sensitivity theory could only be validated in the laboratory setting.","PeriodicalId":74357,"journal":{"name":"Open psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/psych-2018-0004","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2018-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background: Theoretical predictions and experimental findings concerning the relationship between risk taking and accumulated resources are contradictory. In contrast to laboratory experiments, studies conducted in an ecologically valid environment allow for the evaluation of available resources and the motivational impact of potentially serious consequences for risk taking. Objective: Our aim was to (i) examine the influence of available resources on risk taking in an ecologically valid field experiment; and (ii) to compare “real life” and laboratory experiments assessing risk taking. Method: To reproduce real decisions involving real stakes, the students were asked to choose between exam questions representing different levels of difficulty. Available resources of the students were defined as the amount of points accumulated during the semester. In parallel, the laboratory experiments were conducted to assess risk taking in a laboratory setting. Results: The two experimental setups yielded different results. In the field experiment, risk taking decreased with the available resources, whereas the laboratory experiments suggested an inverse tendency. The influence of contextual effects was only prominent in the field experiment.Conclusion: The results of the field experiment support the variable risk preference model, whereas the risk-sensitivity theory could only be validated in the laboratory setting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
风险承担与可变资源:一个现场和一个实验室实验
背景:关于风险承担与资源积累关系的理论预测与实验结果是矛盾的。与实验室实验相反,在生态有效的环境中进行的研究允许对可用资源和冒险的潜在严重后果的动机影响进行评估。目的:我们的目的是(i)在生态有效的实地实验中检查可用资源对风险承担的影响;(ii)比较“现实生活”和评估风险承担的实验室实验。方法:为了重现涉及真实利害关系的真实决策,学生们被要求在代表不同难度水平的考试问题中进行选择。学生的可用资源定义为一学期累积的分数。与此同时,进行了实验室实验,以评估在实验室环境中承担的风险。结果:两种实验设置产生不同的结果。在田间试验中,风险承担随可用资源的增加而降低,而在室内试验中则呈相反趋势。背景效应的影响仅在田间试验中表现突出。结论:现场实验结果支持可变风险偏好模型,而风险敏感性理论只能在实验室环境中得到验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊最新文献
“I Have Some Serious Doubts About this Vaccine…” – Generic Conspiracy Beliefs Predict the Acceptance of the Covid-19 Vaccination Features of Two Embodied Processes in Spatial Perspective-Taking Across the Lifespan Influences of Music Reading on Auditory Chord Discrimination: A Novel Test Bed for Nonconscious Processing of Irrelevant Prime Meaning Contextual Specificity of (Un)Healthy Food/Drink Intake in Everyday Life: A Study Based on Episodic Memories No Effect of Forest Representations on State Anxiety, Actual and Perceived Noise
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1