Province Specific Hazard-Grip Measure - Research Paper Example

Risk taking experiment Name Date Institution Abstract Domain Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale, allows researchers and practitioners to assess both conventional risk attitudes and perceived-risk attitudes in different individuals. Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale is a psychometric scale that assesses risk taking levels in people in five main domains which are financial, health/safety, recreational, ethical, and social decisions. The results got from the specific domains are used to rate the likelihood that an individual would engage in domain-specific risk activities. An optional risk taking scale has been added to further asses the subjects of research perception to the level and magnitude of the risks they are expected to partake and the expected benefits that they would gain if they went ahead and acted on the risk subject under discussion. (Kisser, Krosnick, & Lavrakas, 2000) In this risk subject report we are going to analyze risk taking on individuals in a specific age group and they are going to answer both parts of the risk taking scale. Introduction In nearly all situations that people go through in all walks of life and in different situations, we can determine the behavior of individuals to their purported risk attitude that is if an individual is a risk taker or a person who likes to take the least amount of risk in a given situation. What we all call risk is the possibility of losing something of value when one undertakes a certain action. The real possibility of losing is what we refer to as risk. An individual’s attitude towards risk can be used as a selection tool in different situations like in job hiring, new companies love to hire people who are risk takers. Old companies that like to stick to rules love hiring people who have an aversion for risk. How an individual makes a decision involving risk may be determined in such situations. Risk taking attitude is different in individuals mainly because of the way they have been raised from different backgrounds, their past experiences when undertaking actions in risky situations and their way of life. Business people are more likely to take risk as compared to doctors. Each individual accesses risks differently. In this experiment we are going to see how different people would act in risky situations and we are going to focus risk taking according to a specific age group and gender. Method The risk taking attitude scale which is in short referred to as DOSPERT evaluates the The subjects behavioral and how they are likely to react, if they are to engage in behaviors originating from five risk domains which are ethical, financial, health/safety, social and recreational. From this domains, a risk taking scale which is simply measured using a 7 point scale that rate from extremely unlikely which is the lowest score of 1 to extremely likely which is the highest score of 7. The numbers in between determine the level of an individual’s likelihood or unlikelihood to partake in the risk activity from the list provided in form of a list. We also have a subscale that has item ratings. The item ratings added are in a subscale which has scores indicating greater risk taking the five domains Participants and procedure The group completing the DOSPERT Scale consisted of 300 respondents; 160 women, 130 male and 10 of unknown gender. Most of these participants were aged 22-25 and are still in college. Sharing similar demographic characteristics, the group completing the DOSPERT. I recruited the participants in via e-mail; they filled-out the computer-based survey in a laboratory. All of the participants provided demographic background information first and subsequently completed the scales; they performed the task in about 60-90 minutes. The DOSPERT scale contains three separate response scales: ‘Risk-Taking’, ‘Risk-Perceptions’, and ‘Expected Benefits’. Coefficients from the latter two can be used to assess risk-attitude. Each response scale uses the same items from the five domain subscales show in Table 1 below. Each DOSPERT scale item is labeled ‘F ‘,‘S’, ‘E’, ‘R’, ‘H/S’ or’ These letters indicate the subscale to which the item belongs. F = Financial, S = Social, E = Ethical, R = Recreational, and H/S =Health/Safety The group completing the DOSPERT Scale consisted of 300 respondents; 160 women, 130 male and 10 of unknown gender. Most of these participants were aged 22-25 and are still in college. Sharing similar demographic characteristics, the group completing the DOSPERT. I recruited the participants in via e-mail; they filled-out the computer-based survey in a laboratory. All of the participants provided demographic background information first and subsequently completed the scales; they performed the task in about 60-90 minutes. Each participant was to fill the scores as in the table below Domain subscale X Likelihood of partaking the risk (Perceived Risk Ethical (E) Financial (Investment/Gambling) (F/I, F/G) Health/Safety (H/S) Recreational (R) Social (S) Table 1 RESULTS DOSPERT Score Overall N=300 Female N=160 mean male N=130 mean Undetermined sex n=10 mean Overall mean Min score per participant Max score per participant RISK PERCEPTION Ethical 855 525 3.3 310 2.40 30 3 2.85 1 7 Financial 1020 580 3.6 390 3.0 50 5 3.4 1 7 Health/safety 703 301 1.9 370 2.8 32 3.2 2.34 3 7 Recreational 1807 1080 6.8 684 5.3 43 4.3 6.02 1 7 social 1080 510 3.2 560 4.3 10 1.0 3.6 1 7 RISK TAKING Ethical 1060 560 3.5 480 3.7 20 2.0 3.5 1 7 Financial 1886 950 6.0 896 6.9 40 4.0 6.2 3 7 Health/safety 1079 530 3.3 493 3.8 56 5.6 3.59 4 7 Recreational 1000 523 3.3 425 3.26 52 5.2 3.33 1 7 social 805 399 2.5 383 2.9 21 2.1 2.68 1 7 Table 2 Note. M = mean, Minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) ratings are 1 and 7, respectively. The participants showed that they are more likely to participate in recreational risks as compared to ethical financial health and safety and social risk. Health and safety risk scored the lowest points meaning the subjects are less likely to engage in risk activities involving their health. Perceived risk in financial situation scored the highest number of points too The participants of this study are individuals nested students within schools; the study subjects provide an excellent survey to multilevel modeling way of calculating risk. There were 300 participants in this study, there being 160 females, 130 males and 10 people of undetermined sex. They filled the available questions in the computer lab and filled the answers to the questions on both levels of the DOSPERT scale. Discussion In the social risk taking domain, the student population that I recruited my participants from they are still getting over the authority figures in their lives hence the social risk score was substantially low as compared to the recreation risk, Recreation scored a higher level because the participants are a young population and still want to engage in risky behavior in search of excitement and fun, likelihood of the participants engaging in the health and safety risks was low, and this is due to the increased sex education and awareness in protecting from diseases that are caused by unprotected sex. This awareness may have led the participants not to want to engage in health and safety risky behavior. The perceived risk in the health and safety behavior was relatively low as compared to the risk involved in partaking the risk behavior. This is because most of the subjects would not participate in that risky behavior in the first place hence sees no need to give high scores in the perceived risks In the financial domain the research subjects scored a bit high as compared to social, health and ethical, it is interesting however to note that the perceived risk that would be due to partaking financial risk scored the highest. This is because as much as the subjects want to take financial risk to enrich themselves, the risk that the opportunity fails is very high hence the subjects perceive they stand to lose the most in a financial situation. The ethical domain scored a relatively similar score in the risk perceived and the likelihood of partaking the risk. Ethical matters are very different in individuals yet somehow similar in people of a particular age groups, there are some behaviors people in a specific age group are likely to engage in as compared to other age groups hence the relatively mean score. Conclusion The perception of risk is different in all individuals, risk activities always have a level of uncertainty, the consequences whether negative or positive and the level of satisfaction that can be achieved from partaking in a risk activity in whatever domain is what determines whether an individual would undertake a risk activity. The level of risk and the satisfaction is what varies among the individuals and people perceive things that are risky according to their gut level. The level of risk that an individual perceive may be due to the environment that the persons has been around, past experience in a similar situation involving the same risk, religious background and so many other determinants including an individual’s personality. Age groups also show that they play a major role in the risk an individual can partake. Living in a big community like in a school institution are likely to have relatively similar is taking perception as compared to people who live in different regions. . References Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R. and Betz, N. E. (2002), A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Article first published online: 1 August 2002 A.-R ,Blais, E. U., & Weber, (2006) A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, https://sites.google.com/a/decisionsciences.columbia.edu/dospert/ Bromiley, P., & Curley, S. (1992). Individual differences in risk taking. In. J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior. New York. Weber, E. U. (2001). Personality and risk taking. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences Oxford. Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P., & Weber, E. U. (1998). Crosscultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach. Risk Analysis, De Leeuw ,Kreft, I., &, J. Introducing Multilevel Modeling. London. D. G , Finucane,, Peters,. MacGregor,& Slovic. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman, (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More

Participants and procedure

The group completing the DOSPERT Scale consisted of 300 respondents; 160 women, 130 male, and 10 of unknown gender. Most of these participants were aged 22-25 and are still in college. Sharing similar demographic characteristics, the group completing the DOSPERT. I recruited the participants via e-mail; they filled out the computer-based survey in a laboratory. All of the participants provided demographic background information first and subsequently completed the scales; they performed the task in about 60-90 minutes.

The DOSPERT scale contains three separate response scales: ‘Risk-Taking’, ‘Risk-Perceptions’, and ‘Expected Benefits’. Coefficients from the latter two can be used to assess risk-attitude. Each response scale uses the same items from the five domain subscales show in Table 1 below.

Each DOSPERT scale item is labeled ‘F ‘, ‘S’, ‘E’, ‘R’, ‘H/S’, or’ These letters indicate the subscale to which the item belongs. F = Financial, S = Social, E = Ethical, R = Recreational, and H/S =Health/Safety

The group completing the DOSPERT Scale consisted of 300 respondents; 160 women, 130 male, and 10 of unknown gender. Most of these participants were aged 22-25 and are still in college. Sharing similar demographic characteristics, the group completing the DOSPERT. I recruited the participants via e-mail; they filled out the computer-based survey in a laboratory. All of the participants provided demographic background information first and subsequently completed the scales; they performed the task in about 60-90 minutes.

The participants showed that they are more likely to participate in recreational risks as compared to ethical financial health and safety and social risk. Health and safety risk scored the lowest points meaning the subjects are less likely to engage in risky activities involving their health.

Perceived risk in financial situation scored the highest number of points too.

The participants of this study are individuals who nested students within schools; the study subjects provide an excellent survey to multilevel modeling way of calculating risk. There were 300 participants in this study, there being 160 females, 130 males, and 10 people of undetermined sex. They filled the available questions in the computer lab and filled the answers to the questions on both levels of the DOSPERT scale.

Discussion

In the social risk-taking domain, the student population that I recruited my participants from they are still getting over the authority figures in their lives hence the social risk score was substantially low as compared to the recreation risk,

Recreation scored a higher level because the participants are a young population and still want to engage in risky behavior in search of excitement and fun, the likelihood of the participants engaging in the health and safety risks was low, and this is due to the increased sex education and awareness in protecting from diseases that are caused by unprotected sex. This awareness may have led the participants not to want to engage in health and safety risky behavior. The perceived risk in the health and safety behavior was relatively low as compared to the risk involved in partaking the risk behavior. This is because most of the subjects would not participate in that risky behavior in the first place hence sees no need to give high scores in the perceived risks

 In the financial domain the research subjects scored a bit high as compared to social, health, and ethical, it is interesting however to note that the perceived risk that would be due to partaking financial risk scored the highest. This is because as much as the subjects want to take the financial risk to enrich themselves, the risk that the opportunity fails is very high hence the subjects perceive they stand to lose the most in a financial situation.

Read More