IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/buc/jgbeco/v2y2008i3p53-70.html

Individual Risk Propensity and Risk Background

Author

Listed:
  • April Bernard
  • Osaretin Iyare
  • Winston Moore

Abstract

The paper considers the role that socio-psychological and socio-cultural factors play in individual decisions to take risk. The study employs four main measures of risk propensity: the mean probability of engaging in an investment, insurance or everyday gamble and the amount that would be invested in a hypothetical lottery. The study finds that gender had a significant influence on the probability of engaging in investment and everyday risk decisions, but a relatively insignificant impact on insurance decisions. The most important risk background variables were experience in making gambling decisions and confidence in making investment decisions. Similar results are obtained when the lottery-type measure of risk was employed.

Suggested Citation

  • April Bernard & Osaretin Iyare & Winston Moore, 2008. "Individual Risk Propensity and Risk Background," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(3), pages 53-70, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:buc:jgbeco:v:2:y:2008:i:3:p:53-70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ubplj.org/index.php/jgbe/article/view/536
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terrance Odean., 1996. "Volume, Volatility, Price and Profit When All Trader Are Above Average," Research Program in Finance Working Papers RPF-266, University of California at Berkeley.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. Carmen M. Reinhart & Vincent Raymond Reinhart, 2002. "What Hurts Emerging Markets Most? G3 Exchange Rate or Interest Rate Volatility?," NBER Chapters, in: Preventing Currency Crises in Emerging Markets, pages 133-170, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Kelsey, David & Quiggin, John, 1992. "Theories of Choice under Ignorance and Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 133-153.
    5. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:6:p:1887-1934 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 33-47, July.
    7. Renate Schubert, 1999. "Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 381-385, May.
    8. Conlisk, John, 1993. "The Utility of Gambling," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 255-275, June.
    9. Garbarino, Ellen & Strahilevitz, Michal, 2004. "Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(7), pages 768-775, July.
    10. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    11. Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1990. "Are Risk-Attitudes Related Across Domains and Response Modes?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1451-1463, December.
    12. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    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. Alice Wieland & James Sundali & Markus Kemmelmeier & Rakesh Sarin, 2014. "Gender differences in the endowment effect: Women pay less, but won't accept less," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 558-571, November.
    2. Deck, Cary & Lee, Jungmin & Reyes, Javier A. & Rosen, Christopher C., 2013. "A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-24.
    3. Dawn Branley-Bell & Yolanda Gómez & Lynne Coventry & José Vila & Pam Briggs, 2021. "Developing and Validating a Behavioural Model of Cyberinsurance Adoption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    7. James Alm & Antoine Malézieux, 2021. "40 years of tax evasion games: a meta-analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 699-750, September.
    8. Humaira Mumtaz & Iqbal Javed & Allah Bakhsh, 2019. "Impact of Psychological Consequences on Poverty: An Evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Economic Impact, Science Impact Publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 70-79.
    9. Moghaddasi Kelishomi, Ali & Sgroi, Daniel, 2022. "The Relationship between Cognitive Ability and Risk Preferences in a Developing Nation: Findings from the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 15266, IZA Network @ LISER.
    10. Jonathan J. Rolison & Yaniv Hanoch & Stacey Wood & Pi-Ju Liu, 2014. "Risk-Taking Differences Across the Adult Life Span: A Question of Age and Domain," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 69(6), pages 870-880.
    11. Zamri Ahmad & Haslindar Ibrahim & Jasman Tuyon, 2017. "Institutional investor behavioral biases: syntheses of theory and evidence," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(5), pages 578-603, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Jorge Hernández-Pérez & Salvador Cruz Rambaud & Tomás Lorenzana de la Varga, 2019. "Economic situation, the key to understanding the links between CEOs’ personal traits and the financial structure of large private companies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.
    15. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    16. Bougherara, Douadia & Friesen, Lana & Nauges, Céline, 2022. "Risk-taking and skewness-seeking behavior in a demographically diverse population," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 83-104.
    17. Martin Eling & Irina Gemmo & Danjela Guxha & Hato Schmeiser, 2024. "Big data, risk classification, and privacy in insurance markets," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 49(1), pages 75-126, March.
    18. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    19. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    20. Miklánek, Tomáš & Zajíček, Miroslav, 2020. "Personal traits and trading in an experimental asset market," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism

    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:buc:jgbeco:v:2:y:2008:i:3:p:53-70. 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: Dominic Cortis, University of Malta (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ubpl.co.uk/ .

    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.