IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v6y2016i3p2158244016666127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Abstract and Concrete Thinking on Risk-Taking Behavior in Women and Men

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Lermer
  • Bernhard Streicher
  • Rainer Sachs
  • Martina Raue
  • Dieter Frey

Abstract

Recent studies have demonstrated that participants with an abstract mind-set (high construal level [CL]) showed an increased risk affinity when compared with those with a concrete way of thinking (low CL). With regard to the importance of replicating research findings, we conducted a replication study and re-investigated the CL effect on risk-taking. Furthermore, we extended previous research by comparing experimental groups with a control group as well as by exploring effects of sex. The CL effect on risk-taking was as expected. However, risk-taking by the control group did not differ from that by the experimental groups. Both women and men took less risk after receiving concrete priming rather than abstract priming. However, men were generally more risk-seeking compared with women. Both effects (men being more risk-seeking than women and the CL effect) were successfully replicated.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Lermer & Bernhard Streicher & Rainer Sachs & Martina Raue & Dieter Frey, 2016. "The Effect of Abstract and Concrete Thinking on Risk-Taking Behavior in Women and Men," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:3:p:2158244016666127
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244016666127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244016666127
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244016666127?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. Eva Lermer & Bernhard Streicher & Rainer Sachs & Martina Raue & Dieter Frey, 2016. "Thinking Concretely Increases the Perceived Likelihood of Risks: The Effect of Construal Level on Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 623-637, March.
    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. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2017. "One Too Many? Understanding the Influence of Risk Factor Quantity on Perceptions of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1157-1169, June.
    2. Zhiyong Huang & Haoxian Wang & Wenyuan Zheng, 2021. "An extended hierarchical ordered probit model robust to heteroskedastic vignette perceptions with an application to functional limitation assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-19, March.
    3. John A. List & Ragan Petrie & Anya Samek, 2023. "How Experiments with Children Inform Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(2), pages 504-564, June.
    4. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    5. Castagna, Ana Carina & Pinto, Diego Costa & Mattila, Anna & de Barcellos, Marcia Dutra, 2021. "Beauty-is-good, ugly-is-risky: Food aesthetics bias and construal level," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 633-643.
    6. Wanyun Shao & Hamed Moftakhari & Hamid Moradkhani, 2020. "Comparing public perceptions of sea level rise with scientific projections across five states of the U.S. Gulf Coast region," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 317-335, November.
    7. Charlotte Jones & Donald W. Hine & Anthony D. G. Marks, 2017. "The Future is Now: Reducing Psychological Distance to Increase Public Engagement with Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 331-341, February.

    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:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:3:p:2158244016666127. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.