IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v20y2017i2p256-276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-determination and risk: the role of life goals and causality orientation in domain-specific risk propensity

Author

Listed:
  • Hakim Djeriouat

Abstract

A growing body of risk research shows that risk is content specific. Accordingly, various studies have highlighted some factors that could explain why people’s risk propensity may arise in certain domains of risk (e.g. the financial domain) but not in other domains (e.g. the recreational domain). Until now, no research has examined motivation as a possible correlate of domain-specific risk propensity. On the basis of self-determination theory (SDT), we examined the role of both extrinsic life goals (i.e. superficial goal striving, including fame, money, and physical attraction) and control-orientated personality style (i.e. feeling that one’s behaviors are governed by external contingencies) in the propensity to take risks in various domains (social, ethical, recreational, financial, and health/safety). A community sample of 197 participants completed measures scaled to assess extrinsic life goals, controlled orientation, and domain-specific propensity (DOSPERT). The results showed that pursuing extrinsic goals and being control oriented increased the propensity to take ethical, recreational, financial, and health/safety risks but decreased the propensity to take social risks. In addition, to corroborate that risk propensity is domain specific, these results indicate that superficial life aspiration and sensitivity to social pressures are highly predictive of instrumental risks (e.g. ethical and financial), moderately predictive of health risks, and negatively predictive of ego-threatening risks (e.g. social risk). The results are discussed in light of the domain-specific risk literature and in the perspective of interventions based on SDT.

Suggested Citation

  • Hakim Djeriouat, 2017. "Self-determination and risk: the role of life goals and causality orientation in domain-specific risk propensity," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 256-276, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:2:p:256-276
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1043573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2015.1043573
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2015.1043573?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gino, Francesca & Pierce, Lamar, 2009. "The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 142-155, July.
    2. 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..
    3. Nigel Nicholson & Emma Soane & Mark Fenton-O'Creevy & Paul Willman, 2005. "Personality and domain-specific risk taking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 157-176, 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. Marco R Steenbergen & Tomasz Siczek, 2017. "Better the devil you know? Risk-taking, globalization and populism in Great Britain," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(1), pages 119-136, March.
    2. Steinel, Wolfgang & Valtcheva, Kalina & Gross, Jörg & Celse, Jérémy & Max, Sylvain & Shalvi, Shaul, 2022. "(Dis)honesty in the face of uncertain gains or losses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Bazerman, Max H. & Sezer, Ovul, 2016. "Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 95-105.
    4. Gian Seloni & Sri Kusrohmaniah & Galang Lufityanto, 2023. "The perils of acting rashly: Risk-taking propensity impeding emotion-based learning in entrepreneurs [Les dangers de l’audace: La propension à prendre des risques entrave l’apprentissage basé sur l," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 89-110, March.
    5. Daphne Sobolev & Bryan Chan & Nigel Harvey, 2017. "Buy, sell, or hold? A sense-making account of factors influencing trading decisions," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1295618-129, January.
    6. Pepper, Alexander & Gore, Julie, 2014. "The economic psychology of incentives: An international study of top managers," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 350-361.
    7. Thomas Dohmen & Simone Quercia & Jana Willrodt, 2023. "On the psychology of the relation between optimism and risk taking," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 193-214, October.
    8. Yogita Singh & Mohd. Adil & S. M. Imamul Haque, 2023. "Personality traits and behaviour biases: the moderating role of risk-tolerance," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3549-3573, August.
    9. Gino, Francesca & Margolis, Joshua D., 2011. "Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 145-156, July.
    10. Hönl, Andreas & Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Risk attribution theory: An exploratory conceptualization of individual choice under uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 20-27.
    11. Jasna Auer Antoncic & Bostjan Antoncic & Matjaz Gantar & Robert D. Hisrich & Lawrence J. Marks & Alexandre A. Bachkirov & Zhaoyang Li & Pierre Polzin & Jose L. Borges & Antonio Coelho & Marja-Liisa Ka, 2018. "Risk-Taking Propensity and Entrepreneurship: The Role of Power Distance," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(01), pages 1-26, March.
    12. Gee, Phillip & Neal, Andrew & Vancouver, Jeffrey B., 2018. "A formal model of goal revision in approach and avoidance contexts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 51-61.
    13. Fawad Ahmad, 2020. "Personality traits as predictor of cognitive biases: moderating role of risk-attitude," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(4), pages 465-484, June.
    14. Lamb, Tracy L. & Winter, Scott R. & Rice, Stephen & Ruskin, Keith J. & Vaughn, Austin, 2020. "Factors that predict passengers willingness to fly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    15. Pittarello, Andrea & Rubaltelli, Enrico & Rumiati, Rino, 2013. "You can’t be better than me: The role of the reference point in modulating people’s pursuit of wealth," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 65-76.
    16. Ningyu Tang & Jingqiu Chen & Kaili Zhang & Thomas Li-Ping Tang, 2018. "Monetary Wisdom: How Do Investors Use Love of Money to Frame Stock Volatility and Enhance Stock Happiness?," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 1831-1862, August.
    17. Natalia Montinari & Michela Rancan, 2018. "Risk taking on behalf of others: The role of social distance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 81-109, August.
    18. Huhtala, Anni & Remes, Piia, 2017. "Quantifying the social costs of nuclear energy: Perceived risk of accident at nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 320-331.
    19. K Amber Curtis, 2016. "Personality’s effect on European identification," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 429-456, September.
    20. Simon Gollisch & Barbara Hedderich & Ludwig Theuvsen, 2016. "Reference points and risky decision-making in agricultural trade firms: A case study in Germany," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260773, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).

    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:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:2:p:256-276. 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/RJRR20 .

    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.