IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/oaefxx/v4y2016i1p1232225.html

Financial and ethical risk-taking by young adults: A role for family dynamics during childhood

Author

Listed:
  • Shelia M. Kennison
  • Erin E. Wood
  • Jennifer Byrd-Craven
  • Megan L. Downing

Abstract

The research tested the hypothesis that childhood relationships with parents were related to risk-taking by young adults. Prior research has shown that risk-taking by young children is related to their interactions with mothers and fathers. Few studies have examined how family relationships during childhood are related to risk-taking by young adults. We assessed risk-taking using the domain-specific risk-taking scale (DOSPERT), which measures five domains of risk-taking: ethical, financial, health, recreational, and social. We also assessed sensation-seeking, a personality trait that has been shown to be a predictor of risk-taking and family dynamics, using a measure that quantifies positive and negative childhood relationships with each parent. The three key results were (1) negative mother interactions predicted men’s financial risk-taking; (2) negative father interactions and disinhibition predicted men’s ethical risk-taking; and (3) women’s ethical risk-taking was predicted by negative father interactions, low positive mother interactions, and boredom susceptibility. Implications for identifying young adults most at-risk for ethical and financial risk-taking are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Shelia M. Kennison & Erin E. Wood & Jennifer Byrd-Craven & Megan L. Downing, 2016. "Financial and ethical risk-taking by young adults: A role for family dynamics during childhood," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1232225-123, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:oaefxx:v:4:y:2016:i:1:p:1232225
    DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2016.1232225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/23322039.2016.1232225
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/23322039.2016.1232225?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Blais, Ann-Renee & Weber, Elke U., 2001. "Domain-specificity and gender differences in decision making," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 47-69, April.
    3. Liora Zimerman & Shaul Shalvi & Yoella Bereby-Meyer, 2014. "Self-reported ethical risk taking tendencies predict actual dishonesty," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 58-64, January.
    4. 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)

    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. Celse, Jérémy & Max, Sylvain & Steinel, Wolfgang & Soraperra, Ivan & Shalvi, Shaul, 2019. "Uncertain lies: How payoff uncertainty affects dishonesty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-125.
    2. 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.
    3. Eva M. Krockow & Masanori Takezawa & Briony D. Pulford & Andrew M. Colman & Samuel Smithers & Toshimasa Kita & Yo Nakawake, 2018. "Commitment-enhancing tools in Centipede games: Evidencing European–Japanese differences in trust and cooperation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 61-72, January.
    4. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    5. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "The Role of Theory of Mind and “Small Talk” Communication in Strategic Decision-Making," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 409, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    6. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Amanda Safford & James Sundali & Federico Guerrero, 2018. "Does Experiencing a Crash Make All the Difference? An Experiment on the Depression Babies Hypothesis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Debapriya Jojo Paul & Julia Henker & Sian Owen, 2019. "The aggregate impacts of tournament incentives in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 441-476, June.
    12. Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kuzubaş, Tolga U. & Saltoğlu, Burak, 2017. "Measures of individual risk attitudes and portfolio choice: Evidence from pension participants," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 186-203.
    13. 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.
    14. Christoph Buehren & Tim Meyer & Christian Pierdzioch, 2020. "Experimental Evidence on Forecaster (anti-) Herding in Sports Markets," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202038, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    15. Nicolao Bonini & Stefania Pighin & Enrico Rettore & Lucia Savadori & Federico Schena & Sara Tonini & Paolo Tosi, 2019. "Overconfident people are more exposed to “black swan” events: a case study of avalanche risk," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1443-1467, October.
    16. Huynh, Luu Duc Toan & Stratmann, Philipp & Rilke, Rainer Michael, 2024. "No influence of simple moral awareness cues on cheating behaviour in an online experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    17. Ploner, Matteo & Saredi, Viola, 2020. "Exploration and delegation in risky choices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Baert, Stijn, 2015. "Hiring a Homosexual, Taking a Risk? A Lab Experiment on Employment Discrimination and Risk Aversion," IZA Discussion Papers 9536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Nguyen, Thi Tuyet Mai, 2017. "An examination of independent directors in Vietnam," OSF Preprints ay6dv, Center for Open Science.
    20. Utz Weitzel & Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Julia Rose & Lauren Cohen, 2020. "Bubbles and Financial Professionals," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(6), pages 2659-2696.

    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:taf:oaefxx:v:4:y:2016:i:1:p:1232225. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/OAEF20 .

    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.