Higher Risk-taking Research Articles

Avocational sensation seeking in high and low risk-taking occupations

This study investigated whether people engaged in high risk-taking occupations (involving placing themselves or others in jeopardy) would seek or prefer highly stimulating activities of a nonvocational nature more than people engaged in low risk-taking occupations. One hundred air traffic controllers (high risk-takers) were compared with 78 civil service employees and college students (low risk-takers). The high risk-taking group scored significantly higher than the low risk-taking group on all five dimensions of the Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale, indicating a higher need for sensation stimulation. These findings lend support to the proposition that risk-taking as a response style is related to occupational group membership.

Risk Taking and the Set-Size Effect in Interpersonal Attraction

Summary It was hypothesized that risk-taking (RT) tendencies would interact with (a) evaluations of stimulus persons agreeing with the subjects on two, four, or eight attitudes, and (b) confidence in these evaluations. Analyses of variance revealed support for the set-size effect, but the interactions between set-size and RT level did not reach significance. Post hoc comparisons by means of a conservative test revealed that low RT subjects did increase their attraction and were more confident of their evaluations, given more information; while set-size did not significantly affect the responses of high RT subjects.

Group composition and the risky shift

Three relatively homogeneous group risk compositions consisting of High, Medium, and Low risk takers, respectively, were compared with Mixed groups composed of two High, one Medium, and two Low risk members. All composition conditions showed a risky shift, but Mixed groups showed a significantly greater shift than the more homogeneous groups, which did not differ from one another. Individual group members' reactions were also examined. In all composition conditions, magnitude of individual risky shift was inversely related to the member's relative initial risk position in the group. These results were predicted by Brown's Value hypothesis but were either not predicted by, or contradictory to, the Leadership, Diffusion of Responsibility, and Familiarization hypotheses. It was concluded that the heterogeneity of group member risk preferences is an important factor in risky shift, and that procedures of averaging over group members' scores have obscured the dynamics behind the phenomenon.

Are risk takers more persuasive than conservatives in group discussion?

This study investigated whether the phenomenon of shifts toward greater risk taking following discussion of risk-related materials can be attributed to greater general persuasiveness exerted by risk takers than by conservatives. Its procedure was to discover whether risk takers would be judged more persuasive than conservatives following discussion of risk-neutral materials. In the case of female discussion groups risk takers were judged slightly more persuasive than conservatives, but not at all in the case of male groups. Our conclusion was that the risky-shift phenomenon cannot be attributed to greater persuasiveness as a general characteristic of high-risk takers in male groups, and that this factor can play no more than a small role in female groups.

ARE RISK TAKERS MORE PERSUASIVE THAN CONSERVATIVES IN GROUP DISCUSSION?12

ABSTRACTThis study investigated whether the phenomenon of shifts toward greater risk taking following discussion of risk‐related materials can be attributed to greater general persuasiveness exerted by risk takers than by conservatives. Its procedure was to discover whether risk takers would be judged more persuasive than conservatives following discussion of risk‐neutral materials. Risk takers were judged slightly more persuasive than conservatives in the case of female discussion groups, but not at all in the case of male groups. Our conclusion was that the risky‐shift phenomenon cannot be attributed to greater persuasiveness as a general characteristic of high risk takers in male groups, while this factor can play no more than a small role in female groups.

GROUP INFLUENCE ON INDIVIDUAL RISK TAKING1

ABSTRACTDoes group interaction lead to greater conservatism or to greater risk taking in decisions than would obtain were the decisions arrived at individually.–or is there an averaging effect? This question was investigated with a procedure in which the protagonist in each of 12 everyday life situations must choose between two courses of action, one of which involves considerably more risk than the other but also is much more rewarding if successful. The S must decide on the lowest level of probability for the success of the risky alternative that he would deem sufficient to warrant its choice.A total of 218 liberal arts university students participated in the study. In the experimental condition, the Ss first arrived at individual decisions concerning each of the 12 situations; then, they were brought together in discussion groups of six with the request that they reach a group consensus on each decision; and afterward, they were asked to make all their decisions privately once again. Some Ss also made private decisions yet another time two to six weeks later. The group members' judgments of one another's relative degrees of influence and of popularity within the group also were obtained. There were 14 all‐male and 14 all‐female groups. In the control condition, Ss made their decisions individually each of two times with one week intervening, under instructions the second time that encouraged them to change rather than simply to recall their earlier decisions.It was found that (1) group decisions exhibit greater risk taking than appears in pre‐discussion individual decisions; (2) post‐discussion private decisions exhibit the same increase in risk taking as occurs in the group decisions; (3) the increase in risk taking resulting from the discussion process is still maintained after a subsequent period of two to six weeks has elapsed; (4) no shift in risk taking level occurs over time in the absence of the discussion process; and (5) degree of risk taking in pre‐discussion individual decisions and degree of judged influence within the group are positively related. Two interpretations of these findings were suggested, either or both of which may apply: (1) the knowledge that one's decisions are being made jointly with others leads to a diffusion of personal responsiblity, the outcome of which is an increased willingness to take risks; (2) high risk takers are more likely to take the initiative in social situations, with the result that they become more influential in the group.