IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0225884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The higher they go the harder they could fall: The impact of risk-glorifying commercials on risk behavior

Author

Listed:
  • David F Urschler
  • Hanna Heinrich
  • Stefanie Hechler
  • Peter Fischer
  • Thomas Kessler

Abstract

Previous research on risk-glorifying media has provided encompassing evidence for a positive connection between risk-glorifying contents and (a) risk-positive emotions, (b) risk-positive cognitions and attitudes, and (c) risk-positive behavioral inclinations. Nevertheless, little evidence shows whether risk-glorifying content increases actual risk behavior. We conducted three experimental studies to assess whether risk-glorifying commercials increase risk behavior. In all studies, participants were randomly assigned to a risk-glorifying or a neutral commercial. Additionally, in Study 2 participants were randomly assigned to an arousal or a non-arousal condition to test the mediating effect of arousal. In Study 3, we tested the mediating effect of the accessibility to risk-positive cognitions. We measured participants’ risk behavior via the risk assessment ramp (RAR). Our results revealed that participants who watched the risk-glorifying commercial walked faster to the jumping-off point (Studies 1, 2, & 3) and would have jumped from a higher level (Studies 2 & 3), thus, indicating the exposure to risk-glorifying media content increases people’s risk behavior. Neither arousal nor the accessibility to risk-positive cognitions mediated the effect of risk-glorifying media content. Beyond our findings, we offer a new tool to assess risk behavior that is effective and easy to apply.

Suggested Citation

  • David F Urschler & Hanna Heinrich & Stefanie Hechler & Peter Fischer & Thomas Kessler, 2019. "The higher they go the harder they could fall: The impact of risk-glorifying commercials on risk behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0225884
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225884
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225884&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0225884?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    2. Altman, D.G. & Levine, D.W. & Coeytaux, R. & Slade, J. & Jaffe, R., 1996. "Tobacco promotion and susceptibility to tobacco use among adolescents aged 12 through 17 years in a nationally representative sample," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(11), pages 1590-1593.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    2. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    5. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    6. Liu, Xianglin & Tang, Yingmei & Miranda, Mario J., 2015. "Does Past Experience in Natural Disasters Affect Willingness-to-Pay for Weather Index Insurance? Evidence from China," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Bauermeister, Golo & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Risk Aversion and Inconsistencies - Does the Choice of Risk Elicitation Method and Display Format Influence the Outcomes?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235348, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Trestini, Samuel & Giampietri, Elisa & Smiglak-Krajewska, Magdalena, 2018. "Farmer behaviour towards the agricultural risk management tools provided by the CAP: a comparison between Italy and Poland," 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary 271978, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Andrea Leuermann & Sarah Necker, 2011. "Intergenerational Transmission of Risk Attitudes: A Revealed Preference Approach," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 412, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    10. Holst, Gesa Sophie & Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver, 2015. "Anchoring effects in an experimental auction – Are farmers anchored?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 106-117.
    11. Gotfredsen, Andreas & Nielsen, Carsten S. & Sebald, Alexander C. & Webb, Edward J.D., 2021. "Manipulating perception: The effect of product similarity on valuations and markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 263-286.
    12. Segovia, Michelle & Palma, Marco & Lusk, Jayson L. & Drichoutis, Andreas, 2022. "Visual formats in risk preference elicitation: What catches the eye?," MPRA Paper 115572, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Muriel Niederle, 2014. "Gender," NBER Working Papers 20788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    15. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff, 2014. "Measuring the risk attitude of decision-makers: are there differences between groups of methods and persons?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), pages 336-352, July.
    16. Marianne Lefebvre & Estelle Midler & Philippe Bontems, 2020. "Adoption of Environment-Friendly Agricultural Practices with Background Risk: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 405-428, July.
    17. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences: Firefighting in the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 9765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    19. Dixit, Vinayak V. & Harb, Rami C. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2015. "Measuring risk aversion to guide transportation policy: Contexts, incentives, and respondents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 15-34.
    20. Rafaï, Ismaël & Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2023. "Stated preferences outperform elicited preferences for predicting reported compliance with COVID-19 prophylactic measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0225884. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.