A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations

By Ann-RenÃ©e Blais, Elke U. Weber. Judgment and Decision Making, 2006

440 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper proposes a revised version of the original Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale developed by Weber, Blais, and Betz (2002) that is shorter and applicable to a {broader range of ages, cultures, and educational levels}. It also provides a French translation of the revised scale. Using multilevel modeling, we investigated the risk-return relationship between apparent risk taking and risk perception in 5 risk domains. The results replicate previously noted differences in reported degree of risk taking and risk perception at the mean level of analysis. The multilevel modeling shows, more interestingly, that within-participants variation in risk taking across the 5 content domains of the scale was about 7 times as large as between-participants variation. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of the person-situation debate related to risk attitude as a stable trait.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, General Decision Sciences, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5505f8fa47b8accd845a5932de806b4302e55782

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In General Decision Sciences

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Personality and Risk Taking (2015, background): “…in which the same person often shows different degrees of risk-taking include games of chance/gambling, ﬁ nancial investing, business decisions, health decisions, recreational choices, social choices, and ethical decisions (MacCrimmon and Wehrung, 1986; Blais and Weber, 2006; Weber et al., 2002).”
The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research (2011, neutral): “…been previously advocated in consumer research (Kassarjian & Sheffet, 1991), in psychology generally (e.g., Cronbach, 1957, 1975; Lewin, 1943; Magnusson & Endler, 1977; Mischel, 1968, 2004; Ross & Nisbett, 1991), and in decision research speciﬁcally (Blais & Weber, 2006; Mohammed & Schwall, 2009).”
Biases in casino betting: The hot hand and the gambler’s fallacy (2006, neutral): “A large literature identifies individual differences in risk attitudes (e.g., Weber et al.,1992; Blais & Weber, 2006; Harris et al., 2006).”
Scaling the Security Wall: Developing a Security Behavior Intentions Scale (SeBIS) (2015, background): “• Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DoSpeRT) [4], which measures propensity for risk-taking across five dimensions: ethical (1), financial (2), health/safety (3), recreational (4), and social (5).”
Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research (2021, positive): “Reliability was measured using the NFC scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984), which measures the extent to which respondents like to engage in and enjoy thinking, and the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT; Blais & Weber, 2006), which evaluates self-reported risk-taking behavior.”
Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers (2012, neutral): “Dave et al. (2007) elicit 4Andersen et al.”
Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior (2011, background): “…has provided evidence for the validity of this measure by demonstrating that it is related to sensation seeking, dispositional risk-taking, intolerance for ambiguity, social desirability, performance on gambling tasks, and risky health decisions (see Blais & Weber, 2006; Weber et al., 2002).”
Predicting domain-specific risk taking with the HEXACO personality structure (2011, methodology): “Indeed, in this and past studies using the DOSPERT, the zero-order correlations observed between ethical and health/safety risks were stronger than correlations between any other two risk domain variables (Blais & Weber, 2006; Weber et al., 2002).”
Personality Psychology and Economics (2011, neutral): “, Slovic (1962); Kogan and Wallach (1967); Slovic (1972); Blais and Weber (2006); Johnson, Wilke, and”