IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0097989.html

Testing Risk-Taking Behavior in Chinese Undergraduate Students

Author

Listed:
  • Xiufang Du
  • Jia Li
  • Xiulian Du

Abstract

The DOSPERT, developed by Weber, Blais and Betz, can be used to measure risk behaviors in a variety of domains. We investigated the use of this scale in China. The participants were 1144 undergraduate students. After we removed some items that were not homogeneous, a principal component analysis extracted six components that accounted for 44.48% of the variance, a value similar to that obtained in the analysis conducted by Weber et al. Chinese undergraduates scored higher on the investment subscale compared with the results of Weber’s study. The analysis of individual differences indicated that there was a significant gender difference in the ethical, investment and health/safety subscales, where males scored significantly higher than females. The type of home location was also significant on the ethical and health/safety subscales, where undergraduates from the countryside scored lower than undergraduates from cities and towns on the ethical subscale, and undergraduates from towns scored higher than those from other two areas on the health/safety subscale. Male undergraduates from towns scored higher than male undergraduates from other areas on the gambling subscale.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiufang Du & Jia Li & Xiulian Du, 2014. "Testing Risk-Taking Behavior in Chinese Undergraduate Students," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097989
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097989
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097989&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0097989?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. Christine R. Harris & Michael Jenkins & Dale Glaser, 2006. "Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 48-63, July.
    2. Xiaoxiao Hu & Xiaofei Xie, 2012. "Validation of the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale in Chinese college students," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 181-188, March.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2005. "Individual Risk Attitudes: New Evidence from a Large, Representative, Experimentally-Validated Survey," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 511, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Donkers, Bas & Melenberg, Bertrand & Van Soest, Arthur, 2001. "Estimating Risk Attitudes Using Lotteries: A Large Sample Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 165-195, March.
    5. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. 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.
    8. Luigi Guiso & Monica Paiella, 2008. "Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(6), pages 1109-1150, December.
    9. Guiso, Luigi & Jappelli, Tullio & Pistaferri, Luigi, 2002. "An Empirical Analysis of Earnings and Employment Risk," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(2), pages 241-253, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yiyun Shou & Joel Olney, 2020. "Assessing a domain-specific risk-taking construct: A meta-analysis of reliability of the DOSPERT scale," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 112-134, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2012. "The Intergenerational Transmission of Risk and Trust Attitudes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(2), pages 645-677.
    3. Coppola, Michela, 2014. "Eliciting risk-preferences in socio-economic surveys: How do different measures perform?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Laine, Tei & Silander, Tomi & Sakamoto, Kayo, 2020. "What distinguishes people who turn into tax evaders when properly incentivized from those who don’t? An experimental study using hypothetical scenarios," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    5. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    7. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    8. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Halko, Marja-Liisa & Kaustia, Markku & Alanko, Elias, 2012. "The gender effect in risky asset holdings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 66-81.
    12. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Osberghaus, Daniel, 2016. "Extreme weather and risk preference: Panel evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-032, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Daniela Beckmann & Lukas Menkhoff, 2008. "Will Women Be Women? Analyzing the Gender Difference among Financial Experts," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 364-384, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2003. "Do the Wealthy Risk More Money? An Experimental Comparison," Discussion Papers 03-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    16. 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.
    17. von Gaudecker, H.M. & van Soest, A.H.O. & Wengstrom, E., 2008. "Selection and Mode Effects in Risk Preference Elicitation Experiments," Discussion Paper 2008-11, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Renato Frey & Shannon M. Duncan & Elke U. Weber, 2023. "Towards a typology of risk preference: Four risk profiles describe two-thirds of individuals in a large sample of the U.S. population," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 1-17, February.
    19. Dang, Duc Anh, 2012. "On the sources of risk preferences in rural Vietnam," MPRA Paper 38058, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Stefano Iezzi, 2008. "Investors' risk attitude and risky behavior: a Bayesian approach with imperfect information," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 692, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.

    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:pone00:0097989. 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.