风险偏好措施的时间稳定性和收敛有效性的系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 15.9 1区 心理学 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Nature Human Behaviour Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1038/s41562-024-02085-2
Alexandra Bagaïni, Yunrui Liu, Madlaina Kapoor, Gayoung Son, Paul-Christian Bürkner, Loreen Tisdall, Rui Mata
{"title":"风险偏好措施的时间稳定性和收敛有效性的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Alexandra Bagaïni, Yunrui Liu, Madlaina Kapoor, Gayoung Son, Paul-Christian Bürkner, Loreen Tisdall, Rui Mata","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02085-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding whether risk preference represents a stable, coherent trait is central to efforts aimed at explaining, predicting and preventing risk-related behaviours. We help characterize the nature of the construct by adopting a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analytic approach to summarize the temporal stability of 358 risk preference measures (33 panels, 57 samples, 579,114 respondents). Our findings reveal noteworthy heterogeneity across and within measure categories (propensity, frequency and behaviour), domains (for example, investment, occupational and alcohol consumption) and sample characteristics (for example, age). Specifically, while self-reported propensity and frequency measures of risk preference show a higher degree of stability than behavioural measures, these patterns are moderated by domain and age. Crucially, an analysis of convergent validity reveals a low agreement across measures, questioning the idea that they capture the same underlying phenomena. Our results raise concerns about the coherence and measurement of the risk preference construct. Bagaïni et al. use an individual participant data meta-analytic approach to summarize the temporal stability of 358 risk preference measures, finding evidence of low agreement across measures.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"9 4","pages":"700-712"},"PeriodicalIF":15.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.comhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02085-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review and meta-analyses of the temporal stability and convergent validity of risk preference measures\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Bagaïni, Yunrui Liu, Madlaina Kapoor, Gayoung Son, Paul-Christian Bürkner, Loreen Tisdall, Rui Mata\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41562-024-02085-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Understanding whether risk preference represents a stable, coherent trait is central to efforts aimed at explaining, predicting and preventing risk-related behaviours. We help characterize the nature of the construct by adopting a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analytic approach to summarize the temporal stability of 358 risk preference measures (33 panels, 57 samples, 579,114 respondents). Our findings reveal noteworthy heterogeneity across and within measure categories (propensity, frequency and behaviour), domains (for example, investment, occupational and alcohol consumption) and sample characteristics (for example, age). Specifically, while self-reported propensity and frequency measures of risk preference show a higher degree of stability than behavioural measures, these patterns are moderated by domain and age. Crucially, an analysis of convergent validity reveals a low agreement across measures, questioning the idea that they capture the same underlying phenomena. Our results raise concerns about the coherence and measurement of the risk preference construct. Bagaïni et al. use an individual participant data meta-analytic approach to summarize the temporal stability of 358 risk preference measures, finding evidence of low agreement across measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Human Behaviour\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"700-712\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.comhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02085-2.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Human Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02085-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Human Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02085-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

了解风险偏好是否代表了一种稳定、连贯的特征,对于解释、预测和预防风险相关行为的努力至关重要。我们通过采用系统回顾和个体参与者数据元分析方法来总结358个风险偏好指标(33个小组,57个样本,579,114名受访者)的时间稳定性,从而帮助表征结构的性质。我们的研究结果揭示了测量类别(倾向、频率和行为)、领域(例如投资、职业和酒精消费)和样本特征(例如年龄)之间和内部的显著异质性。具体来说,虽然风险偏好的自我报告倾向和频率测量比行为测量显示出更高程度的稳定性,但这些模式受到领域和年龄的调节。至关重要的是,对趋同效度的分析揭示了不同测量方法之间的一致性较低,质疑它们捕捉到相同潜在现象的观点。我们的研究结果引起了对风险偏好结构的一致性和测量的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
A systematic review and meta-analyses of the temporal stability and convergent validity of risk preference measures
Understanding whether risk preference represents a stable, coherent trait is central to efforts aimed at explaining, predicting and preventing risk-related behaviours. We help characterize the nature of the construct by adopting a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analytic approach to summarize the temporal stability of 358 risk preference measures (33 panels, 57 samples, 579,114 respondents). Our findings reveal noteworthy heterogeneity across and within measure categories (propensity, frequency and behaviour), domains (for example, investment, occupational and alcohol consumption) and sample characteristics (for example, age). Specifically, while self-reported propensity and frequency measures of risk preference show a higher degree of stability than behavioural measures, these patterns are moderated by domain and age. Crucially, an analysis of convergent validity reveals a low agreement across measures, questioning the idea that they capture the same underlying phenomena. Our results raise concerns about the coherence and measurement of the risk preference construct. Bagaïni et al. use an individual participant data meta-analytic approach to summarize the temporal stability of 358 risk preference measures, finding evidence of low agreement across measures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Human Behaviour
Nature Human Behaviour Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
36.80
自引率
1.00%
发文量
227
期刊介绍: Nature Human Behaviour is a journal that focuses on publishing research of outstanding significance into any aspect of human behavior.The research can cover various areas such as psychological, biological, and social bases of human behavior.It also includes the study of origins, development, and disorders related to human behavior.The primary aim of the journal is to increase the visibility of research in the field and enhance its societal reach and impact.
期刊最新文献
Social determinants of health and epigenetic clocks: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 140 studies. Author Correction: Methodological considerations for evaluating policy impacts on transgender and non-binary youth suicidality. LGBTQ laws and public opinion change. Decriminalizing same-sex relationships and its impact on social media discussions in Asia. A reporting checklist for large language models in behavioural science.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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