An explanatory analysis of perceived risk decision weights (perceived-risk attitudes) and perceived benefit decision weights (perceived-benefit attitudes) in risk-value models

Abstract

All decision making requires a trade-off between risks and values. While Markowitz defined risk as the variance of returns (thus reasoning that investors should consider it as undesirable), the more general risk–value framework allows risk to be defined as a person’s subjective judgments. Psychological risk–return models go further, decomposing observed behavior (risk taking) into two processes: (1) a judgment of benefits and risks and (2) a trade-off between perceived benefits and perceived risks, with a person-specific willingness to trade-off units of returns (benefits) for units of risk, conceptualized as attitude toward perceived risk (PRA) and attitude toward perceived benefits (PBA). PRA and PBA describe the degree to which people find perceived risks and benefits attractive, all other things being equal, and are assumed to be relatively stable across situations and domains. We test this assumption in an empirical study, checking the temporal stability of PRA and PBA (using the a Domain-Specific Risk-Taking [DOSPERT] scale ) and the cross-task stability of PBA (performing comparisons between the DOSPERT and the Columbia Card Task[CCT]). Finally, we explain both PRA and PBA using the Big Five personality dimensions and Stimulating–Instrumental Risk Inventory (SIRI), showing that PBA weights increase with openness to experience, while the negative effect of perceived risk on risk taking (PRA) increases with conscientiousness and decreases with stimulating risk taking. The results show that PBA and PRA can be treated as traits which, in some instances at least, are stable across time and tasks, and which can be partially explained by personality, providing a link to the idea of a personality dependent ‘ideal point’ for risk preference.