Beyond Risk Seeking and Risk Aversion

European Journal of Personality
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)

DOI: 10.1002/per.426
Beyond Risk Seeking and Risk Aversion:

Personality and the Dual Nature
of Economic Risk Taking
TOMASZ ZALESKIEWICZ*
Institute of Organization and Management, Wroclaw University of Technology,
Smoluchowskiego 25, 50-372 Wroclaw, Poland
Abstract
In economic theories it is assumed that risk aversion is a typical human attitude toward
risk, and differences are determined by the curvature of the utility function. The results of
psychological studies have indicated, however, that people differ in how they make
nancial decisions under uncertainty and what motivates them to take economic risks.
This paper introduces two kinds of risk taking, instrumental risk taking and stimulating
risk taking, and reports their empirical examination in two studies. The purpose of these
studies was to test the reliability and validity of the StimulatingInstrumental Risk
Inventorya method used to measure the two risk taking tendencies. It was found that
instrumental risk taking is related to risk preference in the investment domain and is
determined by personality traits connected with orientation toward the future, the
tendency to think rationally, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. Stimulating risk taking
was found to be related to the preference for recreational, ethical, health, and gambling
risks and was associated with personality features connected with paratelic orientation,
arousal seeking, impulsivity, and strong sensation seeking. Copyright # 2001 John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Are people risk seeking or risk averse? When and why do they engage in uncertain
situations, and what causes them to avoid risk, on the other hand? The search for answers
to these questions has stimulated numbers of empirical studies both in economics and
psychology.
The most inuential eld of researchdecision theoryhas dealt with the problem of
how people should behave in a risky situation to maximize the chances of success (positive
*Correspondence to: T. Zaleskiewicz, Institute of Organization and Management, Wroclaw University of
Technology, Smoluchowskiego 25, 50-372 Wroclaw, Poland. E-mail: zaleskiewich@ioz.pwr.wroc.pl
Contract/grant sponsor: KBN.
Contract/grant number: 5 H01F 012 20.
Copyright # 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 26 January 2001

Accepted 31 May 2001
S106
T. Zaleskiewicz
utility). Decision theoretic models have been established according to the set of rationality
axioms (e.g. frame independence, transitivity of preferences) and the purpose of these
models has been to indicate the principles of optimal choice (von Neuman and
Morgenstern, 1944). In normative models based on decision theory, similarly to those
established in economics and nance (e.g. Ingersoll, 1987), it is assumed that people are
risk averse, i.e. when confronted with a choice between a sure option and a lottery of an
equal expected value, they prefer the former. Such risk-averse choices are assumed to be
rooted in the curvature of the utility function, which is concave for gains. Empirical
research shows, however, that people's behaviour deviates from many axioms of utility
theory, being frame dependent (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981) and sensitive to heuristicdriven biases (Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky, 1982). The prospect theory of Kahneman
and Tversky (1979)one of the most inuential descriptive models of choiceindicates
that people are risk averse in the domain of gains but they become risk seeking in the
domain of losses. Other descriptive theories of choice have shown that people's attitudes
toward risk are related to several motivations, e.g. the desire for security or the desire for
gain (Lopes, 1987) and various affective states (Isen, 1993).
Normative and descriptive models of risk taking differ according to the way they
describe the dominant people's attitude to risk. On the other hand, they seem to be similar
in overlooking the possibility of considerable individual differences among individuals in
risk perception and risk taking.
In contrast to economic and decision theoretic models, a wide range of psychological
studies has shown that people differ in how they perceive risk and make their choices under
uncertainty in both economic and social domains (Trimpop, 1994; Bromiley and Curley,
1992). Individual differences in personality traits (Horvath and Zuckerman, 1992; Wong
and Carducci, 1991) and even in biochemical structures (Harlow and Brown, 1990) have
been also found to inuence nancial choices.
The distinction between the preferences of risk seeking and risk avoidance has been
found to be related to such individual features as locus of control, achievement motivation,
ambiguity avoidance or sensation seeking (Jonassen and Grabowski, 1993; Zuckerman,
1994a). It seems, however, that risky behaviour motivated by the need for achievement
differs from risky behaviour motivated by the need for stimulation. In the former case, risk
serves as an instrument to reach a particular economic goal in the future and in the latter it
is regarded as a source of strong and immediate emotional excitement.
It is argued here that while in the case of risky behaviour motivated by the need for
stimulation risk is experienced as something (emotionally) positive itself, in the case of
risk taking motivated by the need for reaching a goal, risk is felt as something
(emotionally) bad but necessary. Therefore the broad distinction between risk seeking and
risk avoidance, typical even of the psychological literature concerning decision making,
seems to oversimplify the problem.
This paper introduces a new conceptualization of individual differences in economic
risk taking, which takes into account its emotional and motivational bases and offers some
novel method of measurement.
In a recent experiment (Zaleskiewicz, 1999) it was found that people variously perceive
and react to risk contained in nancial situations which differ in their excitatory and
instrumental utility (e.g. gambling, horse-races, investing in the stock market, investing in
one's own education, etc). Moreover, risk taking in various choice dilemmas was found to
be determined by different individual and situational variables. Risk taking in stimulating
situations of strong excitatory value (e.g. gambling) was found to be inuenced by the
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
Personality and economic risk taking
S107
Table 1. Characteristics of stimulating risk taking and instrumental risk taking

Stimulating risk taking
Instrumental risk taking
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Uncontrollable
Magnitude of possible losses not important
Emotional processes more important
Positive arousal dominating
One concentrates mainly on possible gains
Impulsive decision making
(short time perspective)
7. Unconscious processing more important
Controllable
Magnitude of possible losses very important
Cognitive processes more important
Negative arousal dominating
One concentrates mainly on possible losses
Reective decision making (long time
perspective)
7. Conscious processing more important
sensation seeking motive and independent of the calculation of the magnitude of

consequences. Risky choices in instrumental economic situations (e.g. investing in one's
own education) were related to more rational (in the sense of decision theory) forms of
behaviour and depended on the analysis of the magnitude of possible outcomes.
Moreover, they were almost unrelated to the need for stimulation. Those two distinct forms
of risk preference have been labelled as stimulating risk taking and instrumental risk
taking. The hypothetical characteristics of both kinds of risky behaviour are shown in
Table 1.
The crucial difference between the two kinds of risky behaviour refers to the basic
motives that stimulate risk taking. The person who takes instrumental risk to reach some
future prot strives for controlling the environment to avoid the possibility of engaging in
an activity whose outcomes depend mainly on chance. Consistently, an instrumental
decision maker deliberates more the kinds of possible consequence, analyses the
probabilities and concentrates on negative outcomes. Therefore, instrumental risk taking is
assumed to be more achievement oriented, based on a more complex way of information
processing and the use of cognitive cues.
On the other hand, stimulating risk taking is an example of a more rapid, effortless and
even automatic behaviour. This form of risk is taken as a response to a strong need of
immediate sensations and excitement. In that sense, it does not play any instrumental role
in the behaviour of an individual but is rather subjected by some kind of hedonistic
orientation. The impulsive choices characteristic for stimulating risk takers are associated
with activities driven by positive feelings of which people are usually unaware. Therefore,
in this kind of rapid decisional behaviour people are hypothesized to use mainly `non
cognitive cues, including affective and physiological cues' (Donohew, Zimmerman, Cupp,
Novak, Colon and Abell, 2000, p. 1085).
Yet another distinction between the two kinds of risk taking refers to the feeling of
arousal. It is assumed that stimulating risk takers unconsciously experience the
physiological arousal connected with risky behaviour as pleasant and this experience
motivates them to seek this state further. Instrumental decision makers, on the other hand,
are interested in reaching the goal, and not in experiencing affects associated with risky
behaviour. Therefore, they try to avoid the arousal which is intensied by risk taking.
The two risk tendencies can be also compared through the following example. Person A
has $100 but she desperately needs $1000 by morning and chooses to play roulette.
Generally, she does not like gambling but she is aware that it is the only way to obtain the
necessary sum of money so quickly. Person B comes by a casino and chooses to go in,
driven by a desire for excitement. Then, she bets $100. In a formal sense, the two persons
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S108
T. Zaleskiewicz
Table 2. Hypothesized relationships between stimulatinginstrumental risk preferences and some

personality constructs
Theory description
CEST
(Epstein, 1998)
Reversal Theory
(Apter, 1992)
Sensation Seeking
(Zuckerman, 1994a)
Impulsivity
(Dickman, 1990)
Dominance of
experiential system
Dominance of
paratelic motivation,
arousal seeking
High
sensation seeking
High impulsivity
Dominance of
rational system
Dominance of
telic motivation,
arousal avoidance
Low
sensation seeking
Low impulsivity
take the same risk (assuming that the probability of wining in both cases is the same).
However, can we expect that these two persons would behave in an identical manner
in other relevant situations? Denitely not. Person A's behaviour reects the features of
instrumental risk taking, whereas person B is a typical example of a stimulating risk taker.
The features of the two risk dimensions were also used as a basis for hypothesizing
about possible associations with some personality traits. The expected directions of
correlational links are shown in Table 2. The rationale behind the choice of personality
traits considered in this research was their conceptual similarity to the two risk dimensions
of interest.
The experiential system is associated with affect and it represents rapid and effortless
information processing, whereas the rational system is related to a more deliberative
thinking (Epstein, 1998). Telic dominance reects a person's concentration on the means
of reaching the goal, and paratelic dominance reveals the state in which an individual is
concerned with the enjoyment of immediate sensations (Apter, 1992). Stimulating risk
taking was assumed to be related to experiential system and to paratelic dominance. In
contrast, instrumental risk taking was hypothesized to be associated with rational thinking
and telic orientation.
Sensation seeking is personality dimension dened by the willingness to take various
kinds of risk for the sake of excitement (Zuckerman, 1994a), therefore it was assumed to
correlate higher with stimulating risk taking. Impulsivity, dened as a tendency to
deliberate less (Dickman, 1990), was expected to be related more strongly to stimulating
risk taking, especially in the dysfunctional form of this personality trait.
Generally, it was assumed that stimulating risk taking is connected with more impulsive,
experiential, and action oriented personality features, whereas instrumental risk taking
correlates with less impulsive, rational and goal oriented personality traits.
AIMS OF THE CONTRIBUTION
This paper reports and discusses results of two studies whose general aim was to test the
assumptions concerning psychological processes and individual differences related to the
two risk dimensions. Another purpose was to test preliminarily the internal consistency
and validity of a new diagnostic methodthe Stimulating-Instrumental Risk Inventory
(SIRI)which could be used in the measurement of the two risk taking tendencies. The
next two sections describe the results of two studies to test these theoretical ideas.
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S109
In the rst part of Study 1 factor analysis was run on the scores obtained in the SIRI to
test its internal structure and select the best items for both risk taking scales. The aim of the
second part of Study 1 was to examine the relation between the two risk dimensions and
other domain-specic risk taking measures. In Study 2 the new instrument (SIRI) was
validated by assessing its empirical relations with personality constructs that are
theoretically relevant to the distinction between stimulating risk taking and instrumental
risk taking.
STUDY 1: THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE

STIMULATINGINSTRUMENTAL RISK INVENTORY
The possibility to diagnose the preferences of the two kinds of risk taking required a new
inventory. The current form of this inventory, called the StimulatingInstrumental Risk
Inventory (SIRI), was developed on the basis of preliminary ideas about the main
characteristics of both kinds of risk taking (see Table 1). Twenty-eight items were
constructed for three general topics: stimulating risk taking, instrumental risk taking, and
general cautiousness (risk avoidance in both its stimulating and instrumental form). The
majority of items were related to economic or business risks.
Study 1 consisted of two extensive parts (independent studies). The aim of the rst part
was to examine the internal structure of the new diagnostic method, to test its basic
psychometric features and to explore some of the hypothetical characteristics of
stimulating risk taking (SRT) and instrumental risk taking (IRT). The purpose of the
second part of Study 1 was to explore the relationships between SRT and IRT and other risk
taking measures which diagnose risk attitudes in the domain-specic contexts (Weber,
Blais and Betz, 1999). It was hypothesized that while SRT relates to recreational risk
taking, gambling, and ethical risk taking, IRT is connected with investment risk takinga
kind of behaviour oriented more toward a particular nancial goal and less toward the
search for excitement.
Method
Participants
In the rst part of the study, the SIRI was administered to 159 undergraduates in business
administration (94 women and 65 men). The average subject was 21.26 years old
(SD 0.82). The subjects participated in the study during the classes in behavioural
decision making, in groups of ca. 25 persons each.
In the second part of the study participants were 201 undergraduates in business
administration (86 women, 113 men; two persons did not mark their sex) whose average
age was 21.26 (SD 3.05). They were asked to complete two inventories: the
StimulatingInstrumental Risk Inventory and the Domain-Specic Risk-Attitude Scale
(Weber et al., 1999) during the classes in behavioural decision making and organizational
behaviour. They completed the questionnaires in groups of ca. 100 persons each.
Measures
The StimulatingInstrumental Risk Inventory contained, in its preliminary form, 28
statements, which were to be answered on a four-point scale, ranging from 1does not
describe me at allto 4describes me very well.
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S110
T. Zaleskiewicz
The Domain-Specic Risk-Attitude Scale (Weber et al., 1999) was developed to

diagnose risk taking tendencies in ve content domains, i.e. nancial (general, investment,
and gambling), health/safety, recreational, ethical, and social. The inventory consists of 53
statements describing various risky activities, and subjects are asked to indicate the
likelihood of engaging in each activity on a ve-point scale ranging from 1extremely
unlikelyto 5extremely likely. Weber et al. (1999) reported relatively high reliabilities
of the scales, ranging from 0.51 for the general nancial scale to 0.86 for the investment
scale.
Results
Factor structure of the StimulatingInstrumental Risk Inventory
In order to examine the internal structure of the SIRI, participants' answers were subjected
to the principal components factor analysis with Oblimin rotation. Eight eigenvalues were
higher than unity, but a two-factor solution seemed the best choice according to a scree-test
criterion (see Table 3).
The data analysis in this part of Study 1 proceeded in the following way. In the
rst step two factors were extracted, which represented the two relevant risk taking
dimensions. In the second step the iterative procedure was performed to obtain a clear
factorial solution with the items of interest only. The idea of the iterative procedure was
to drop item by item those items that were either theoretically not related to the two
risk dimensions or were not measuring well the factors (had low loadings). After
every item's exclusion, a principal components analysis (PCA) with Oblimin rotation
was run. The nal PCA was carried out on the 17 theoretically relevant items that
measured well the two factors of interest. The loadings of the two factors are shown in
Table 4.
The rst factor was labelled stimulating risk taking, and accounted for 18.3% of the
variance. This factor had the highest positive loadings on items representing excitement
connected with the engagement in risky activities. It also contained negative loadings on
items reecting the tendency to take risk even if it is not necessary to obtain an important
goal and in situations whose results depend on chance.
The second factorinstrumental risk takingaccounted for 17.6% of the variance. It
had the highest positive loadings on items representing the readiness to take risk when
there is a high chance to achieve some prot in the future.
Table 3. The rst eight eigenvalues obtained in the initial
solution of the principal components analysis on the 28
items of the StimulatingInstrumental Risk Inventory
Number of the eigenvalue factor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5.704
2.868
1.744
1.615
1.343
1.217
1.110
1.005
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S111
Table 4. Factor loadings of the StimulatingInstrumental Risk Inventory

Scale and item
F1
F1: Stimulating Risk Taking

1. If I play a game (e.g. cards) I prefer to play for money.
2. I enjoy risk taking.
3. I often take risk just for fun.
4. I take risk only if it is absolutely necessary to achieve an important goal.
5. I am attracted by different dangerous activities.
6. While taking risk I have a feeling of a very pleasant utter.
7. I avoid activities whose results depend too much on chance.
8. Gambling seems something very exciting to me.
9. In business one should take risk only if the situation can be controlled.
10. I make risky decisions quickly without an unnecessary waste of time.
F2: Instrumental Risk Taking
1. At work I would prefer a position with a high salary which could
be lost easily to a stable position but with a lower salary.
2. To achieve something in life one has to take risks.
3. If there is a big chance of prot I take even very high risks.
4. To gain high prots in business one has to take high risks.
5. If there was a big chance to multiply the capital I would invest my
money even in the shares of a completely new and uncertain rm.
6. I willingly take responsibility in my work-place.
7. The skill of reasonable risk taking is one of the most important
managerial skills.
F2
0.69
0.66
0.65
0.58
0.52
0.49
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.40
0.05
0.29
0.30
0.12
0.23
0.36
0.18
0.03
0.20
0.11
0.12
0.66
0.09
0.20
0.04
0.11
0.66
0.65
0.62
0.61
0.11
0.20
0.59
0.38
Both risk dimensions had moderate reliabilities (Cronbach's alphas): 0.73 for
instrumental risk taking and 0.76 for stimulating risk taking. The two factors were
positively correlated with each other (r 0.16).
Also, some statistically signicant sex differences were found. Men scored higher than
women both on stimulating risk taking (t(157) 3.04; p < 0.003) and instrumental risk
taking (t(157) 3.14; p < 0.002).
Stimulating and instrumental risk taking in relation to domain-specic risk attitudes
The aim of the second part of Study 1 was to verify the possibility of going further beyond
a simple distinction between risk seeking and risk avoidance. The relationships between
both risk taking dimensions and the tendencies to take risk in differenteconomic and
socialcontexts were analysed. The tendencies were measured by the Domain-Specic
Risk-Attitude Scale (Weber et al., 1999).
The factor solution of the SIRI in this fresh sample replicated very well that of the rst
part of this study. However, the correlation coefcient between the two factors was higher
than in the previous solution (r 0.32). Both risk dimensions had relatively good
reliabilities (Cronbach's alphas): 0.80 for SRT and 0.67 for IRT.
To examine the relationships between the two risk dimensions and context-specic risk
taking scales a linear regression analysis was performed with SRT and IRT as independent
variables and the domain-specic risk measures as dependent variables. Table 5 displays
the summary results of that analysis.
As can be seen in Table 5, SRT was signicantly and positively related to general
nancial risk taking and gambling. However, it was negatively related to nancial risk
taking in the investment domain. Moreover, SRT contributed signicantly to prediction of
the other four context-specic risk measures (ethical, social, recreational, and health). On
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S112
T. Zaleskiewicz
Table 5. Summary of linear regression predicting domain-specic risk taking measures from
stimulating risk taking and instrumental risk taking (N 201)
Variables
Beta
Financial riskgeneral; R 0.09

Financial riskgambling; R2 0.10
Financial riskinvestment; R2 0.19
Ethical risk; R2 0.08
Social risk; R2 0.17
Health risk; R2 0.10
Recreational risk; R2 0.34
0.26
0.06
3.24**
0.69
0.31
0.17
4.05**
2.21*
0.18
0.38
2.19*
4.71**
0.23
0.08
2.82**
0.94
0.27
0.20
3.42**
2.62**
0.37
0.09
4.54**
1.14
0.56
0.03
8.13**
0.46
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
the other hand, IRT contributed signicantly and positively to investment risk taking,
gambling, and social risk taking.
The domain-specic risk scales that distinguish between the two forms of risk taking
(are associated exclusively with only one form) are the general nancial risk scale, the
ethical risk scale, the health risk scale, and the recreational risk scale (all four related only
to SRT). However, the strongest distinction was found with respect to the investment risk
scalepositively associated with IRT and negatively with SRT.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 showed that it is possible to distinguish between the two different
kinds of risky behaviour: stimulating risk taking and instrumental risk taking. Factor
analysis of the StimulatingInstrumental Risk Inventory indicated that the two risk
dimensions are correlated but, on the other hand, they represent different psychological
tendencies. Items measuring SRT reveal the tendency to engage in risky activities to
experience strong emotional excitement, whereas items which measure IRT represent the
readiness to take risk to obtain a particular (nancial or social) goal in the future. Items
which loaded on the SRT factor indicated that this kind of risk taking is irrespective of
whether the person wants to reach the future goal or not, being more present oriented and
paratelic (Apter, 1992). Moreover, people who take risk for the sake of excitement do not
tend to avoid activities whose consequences depend mainly on chance.
It was found that men scored higher on both risk dimensions that women. Sex
differences in risk taking found in this study are similar to those obtained in earlier
experiments on risky decision making (Byrnes, Miller and Schafer, 1999).
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S113
The relationships between stimulating and instrumental risk taking and domain-specic
risk dimensions obtained in Study 1 conrmed the adequacy of going beyond a simple
distinction between risk seeking and risk aversion. It was found that individuals who
scored higher on the SRT scale tended to engage in activities connected with ethical,
health, and recreational risks but, at the same time, they were not interested in investment
risk takingthe typical way of instrumental risk takers' behaviour. Interestingly, the
results of linear regression showed that instrumental risk taking appeared to be more
selective than stimulating risk taking, i.e. IRT was not correlated with many kinds of
context-specic risky behaviour.
Generally, the results of Study 1 showed that both risk taking tendencies can be reliably
measured and that they are connected with different domain-specic risky behaviours.
However, the instrument needed further validation by assessing its relation to personality
constructs. The theoretical validation was a primary aim of the second study.
STUDY 2: INSTRUMENTAL VERSUS STIMULATING RISK
TAKING AND PERSONALITY
The general purpose of the second study was a further examination of the typical features
associated with both instrumental and stimulating risk taking. In particular, the
relationships between SRT and IRT and some personality traits were tested. The
hypotheses about the directions of these relationships were shown in Table 2. The second
aim of this research was to test the validity of the StimulatingInstrumental Risk Inventory.
Method
Participants
The subjects were 196 undergraduates in business administration (97 women, 97 men; two
persons did not mark their sex). They participated in the research during the classes in
behavioural decision making and behavioural nance. Their average age was 22.71
(SD 3.82).
Measures
Five questionnaires administered to subjects were the StimulatingInstrumental Risk
Inventory (SIRI), the Paratelic Dominance Scale (PDS; Gotts, Kerr and Wangeman, 2000),
the Dickman Impulsivity Inventory (DII; Dickman, 1990), the RationalExperiential
Inventory (REI; Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj and Heier, 1996), and the Sensation Seeking
Scale (SSS V; Zuckerman, 1994a).
The Paratelic Dominance Scale (Gotts et al., 2000) is a 21-item inventory. In the
original form it requires subjects to respond in a truefalse format to statements that
describe telic and paratelic orientations. The questionnaire has three subscales: future
oriented (the tendency to organize and plan long-term goals), arousal seeking (preference
for situations of high excitatory value), and playfulness (the desire for immediate
sensations). The reliabilities of the subscales were reported respectively as 0.86, 0.72, and
0.49.
The Dickman Impulsivity Inventory (Dickman, 1990) is a 23-item measure of
individual differences of two types of impulsivity: functional impulsivity and dysfunctional
impulsivity. The former subscale diagnoses the tendency to act rapidly when this is optimal
and the latter reects the tendency to act rapidly when this is not optimal. Both scales are
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S114
T. Zaleskiewicz
responded to in a truefalse format. A recent examination of Dickman's measures has

reported relatively high reliability coefcients: 0.76 for FI, and 0.84 for DI.
The RationalExperiential Inventory (Epstein et al., 1996) was designed to measure
individual differences in intuitiveexperiential and analyticalrational thinking. In the
present study a short form of the REI was used (5 items in each subscale). The rst
subscaleneed for cognitionreects the engagement in intellectual activities. The
second subscalefaith in intuitionis a measure of condence in one's intuitive
abilities. Originally, the statements were to be responded to on a ve-point scale (from 1
completely falseto 5completely true). The authors reported internal consistencies for
the scales as 0.73 and 0.72 respectively.
The Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1994a) is a 40-item measure, where each
item contains two choices. Subjects are requested to choose the one that describes more
accurately their individual preferences. The general scale consists of four subscales: thrill
and adventure scale (the tendency to engage in adventurous sports and activities),
experience seeking (the desire for non-conforming lifestyle), disinhibition (need for strong
social stimulation), and boredom susceptibility (the avoidance of monotonous and
unchanging situations). Zuckerman (1994a) reported high internal consistency (0.82 for
TAS; 0.67 for ES; 0.78 for Dis; 0.65 for BS) and validity of the scales.
Procedure
The four inventories (SIRI, PDS, DII, and REI) were combined into one broad
questionnaire labelled as a personality inventory, and all the statements were mixed
randomly to disguise the purpose of the scale. The items were to be answered on a vepoint scale, whose end-points were described as 1does not describe me at all; 5
describes me very well. The SSS V was given to the participants separately, because it uses
a different response format.
Results
Psychometric properties of the SIRI
The factor structure in this sample was basically replicating previously found solutions,
although a few items had some minor changes in loadings. A PCA with Oblimin rotation
was performed on the overall sample of the two studies (n 556). The factorial solution is
reported in Table 6 and substantially conrms the original solution obtained in the rst part
of the rst study. (The items in Table 6 are displayed in the same order as in Table 4 to
make the comparison between the two solutions easier.)
The rst factorstimulating risk takingaccounted for 22.1% of the total variance,
and the second factorinstrumental risk takingfor 13.2% of the variance. The factors
were correlated (r 0.28).
The comparison between the factor solution in the overall sample (see Table 6) and the
initial solution found in Study 1 (see Table 4) showed that the structure of the rst factor is
almost unchanged. However, some slight changes were found with respect to the second
factor. In the overall solution two items measuring IRT (`At work I would prefer a position
with a high salary which could be lost easily to a stable position but with a lower salary'
and `If there is a big chance of prot I take even very high risks') had somewhat higher
loadings on the SRT factor than in the initial solution.
The reliabilities of the two scales in the overall solution are 0.77 for SRT and 0.67
for IRT.
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S115
Table 6. Factor loadings of the StimulatingInstrumental Risk Inventory on the overall sample
(n 556)
Scale and item
F1: Stimulating Risk Taking
1. If I play a game (e.g. cards) I prefer to play for money.
2. I enjoy risk taking.
3. I often take risk just for fun.
4. I take risk only if it is absolutely necessary to achieve
an important goal.
5. I am attracted by different dangerous activities.
6. While taking risk I have a feeling of a very pleasant utter.
7. I avoid activities whose results depend too much on chance.
8. Gambling seems something very exciting to me.
9. In business one should take risk only if the situation can be controlled.
10. I make risky decisions quickly without an unnecessary waste of time.
F2: Instrumental risk taking
1. At work I would prefer a position with a high salary which
could be lost easily to a stable position but with a lower salary.
2. To achieve something in life one has to take risks.
3. If there is a big chance of prot I take even very high risks.
4. To gain high prots in business one has to take high risks.
5. If there was a big chance to multiply the capital I would invest
my money even in the shares of a completely new and uncertain rm.
6. I willingly take responsibility in my work-place.
7. The skill of reasonable risk taking is one of the most
important managerial skills.
F1
F2
0.58
0.68
0.71
0.58
0.05
0.21
0.09
0.06
0.59
0.59
0.66
0.48
0.33
0.54
0.10
0.26
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.33
0.42
0.11
0.38
0.07
0.22
0.64
0.47
0.67
0.43
0.04
0.27
0.45
0.66
The main part of the data analysis in Study 2 consisted in the examination of
associations between the two relevant risk dimensions and personality scales. The pearson
correlational analysis and linear regression were used to test the hypothesized relationships between instrumental risk taking and stimulating risk taking and personality traits
considered in this research.
Correlations between risk taking dimensions and personality
Means, standard deviations and reliabilities (Cronbach's alphas) for both risk taking
measures and personality scales are shown in Table 7.
As can be seen in Table 7, reliabilities of the two SIRI's scales are almost identical to
those found considering the overall sample and they remain relatively high. Pearson
product-moment correlations between the two risk measures and personality dimensions
considered in this study are displayed in Table 8.
As can be seen, of the two risk taking measures, only SRT is positively related to the
general measure of paratelic orientation and one of its subcomponents: playfulness. The
second subscale of paratelic orientationarousal seekingcorrelated signicantly with
both risk dimensions, but the relation with IRT is much weaker than that with SRT. The
two risk taking scales were positively connected with impulsivity, but SRT seemed to be
more impulsive, especially in the dysfunctional sense of this personality dimension. Both
IRT and SRT correlated positively with the intuitive mode of information processing;
however, the value of these correlations was rather weak. Only IRT was connected with the
tendency to act rationally and the need for thinking. Ultimately, SRT, as well as IRT, was
related to the need for stimulation, but the values of the correlations suggest that this need
was much stronger for those individuals who scored higher on the SRT scale.
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S116
T. Zaleskiewicz
Table 7. Means, standard deviations and reliabilities (Cronbach's alphas) for the SIRI, PDS, DII,
REI, SSS V measures with their subscales
Measure
SIRI
PDS
Future oriented
Arousal seeking
Playfulness
Paratelic orientation
DII
Functional impulsivity
Dysfunctional impulsivity
REI
Rationality
Intuition
SSS V
Thrill and adventure seeking
Experience seeking
Disinhibition
Boredom susceptibility
SSS V total
Mean
SD
Reliability
26.11
25.68
7.83
4.57
0.82
0.66
31.21
15.09
21.46
53.34
5.73
4.45
4.93
11.22
0.81
0.74
0.51
0.79
35.79
32.73
7.57
8.73
0.79
0.80
17.05
26.21
3.93
3.22
0.70
0.70
6.47
5.69
4.78
4.58
21.52
2.43
2.17
2.29
1.91
6.33
0.72
0.61
0.63
0.47
0.81
Table 8. Pearson correlations between stimulating risk taking and instrumental risk taking, and
some personality traits (N 196)
Paratelic orientation (general)
Playfulness
Arousal seeking
Future orientation
Impulsivity (general)
CEST
Rationality
Intuition
SSS V (general)
Experience seeking
Disinhibition
0.48**
0.27**
0.79**
0.10
0.74**
0.62**
0.60**
0.09
0.03
0.35**
0.12
0.47**
0.50**
0.27**
0.11
0.18**
0.58**
0.48**
0.53**
0.38**
0.26**
0.30**
0.16*
0.40**
0.27**
0.29**
0.33**
0.24**
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Because of the existence of sex differences in risk taking tendencies it seemed

reasonable to examine the correlations separately in two gender groups. The results are
shown in Table 9.
In the group of men the correlation between the two measures of risk taking was lower
than in the group of women (0.34, p < 0.01, for men; 0.60, p < 0.01, for women). Also the
comparison of relationship between IRT and SRT and personality dimensions displayed
some gender-based differences. The main differences concern the correlational links
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S117
Table 9. Pearson correlations between stimulating risk taking and instrumental risk taking, and
some personality traits in women (N 97) and men (N 96)
Personality trait
Women
Men
Women
Men
0.49**
0.20*
0.83**
0.01
0.76**
0.66**
0.52**
0.51**
0.35**
0.79**
0.19
0.69**
0.54**
0.61**
0.20*
0.04
0.54**
0.13
0.53**
0.56**
0.26**
0.01
0.02
0.12
0.12
0.37**
0.39**
0.25*
0.26**
0.15
0.55**
0.42**
0.55**
0.33**
0.20*
0.07
0.24*
0.57**
0.48**
0.51**
0.35**
0.24*
0.21*
0.15
0.37**
0.19
0.29**
0.33**
0.23*
0.39**
0.18
0.36**
0.29**
0.28**
0.26**
0.18
Paratelic orientation (general)

Playfulness
Arousal seeking
Future orientation
Impulsivity (general)
CEST
Rationality
Intuition
SSS V (general)
Experience seeking
Disinhibition
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
between the two risk taking preferences and such personality variables as general paratelic
orientation, arousal seeking, impulsivity, rationality, and intuition. Generally, in the group
of women, instrumental risk taking appeared to be more paratelic, impulsive, and
connected with the rational thinking construct, while in the group of men one can see
clearer distinctions in the relationships between both risk taking measures and personality
traits. In this group instrumental risk taking was found to be a more rational and telic and
less impulsive mode of risky behaviour. The expected relation between SRT and intuitive
mode of thinking was found only in the men's sample.
Linear regression: predicting risk taking from personality traits
Table 10 shows the results of linear regression analysis performed to examine the unique
associations between risk taking tendencies (dependent variables) and personality traits
(independent variables) in more detail.
The data shown in Table 10 indicate that such personality dimensions as orientation
towards the future, rational mode of information processing, both measures of impulsivity,
and disinhibition can be regarded as statistically signicant predictors of IRT. The overall
model was found to be statistically signicant (F(11, 184) 10.02, p < 0.0001; R2 0.37).
Even higher signicance of the model was found when SRT was considered as a
dependent variable: F(11, 184) 45.01, p < 0.0001; R2 0.73). The data from Table 10
suggest that ve personality dimensions are important predictors of this kind of risk taking,
namely arousal seeking, functional impulsivity, dysfunctional impulsivity, and the two
subscales of sensation seeking: thrill and adventure seeking, and disinhibition.
Discussion
Eleven personality dimensions were considered in this research as correlates of SRT and
IRT. It was hypothesized that SRT is associated with individual characteristics that
stimulate an individual to search for emotional arousal arising from an engagement in
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S118
T. Zaleskiewicz
Table 10. Summary of linear regression predicting stimulating risk taking and instrumental risk
taking from some personality traits (N 196)
Personality trait
Paratelic orientation
Playfulness
Arousal seeking
Future orientation
Impulsivity
CEST
Rationality
Intuition
SSS V
Experience seeking
Disinhibition
Multiple R2
Beta
Beta
0.02
0.44
0.01
0.43
7.43**
0.21
0.04
0.08
0.16
0.45
0.90
2.28*
0.25
0.19
4.99**
3.62**
0.38
0.15
5.04**
1.96*
0.05
0.02
1.12
0.63
0.15
0.10
2.32*
1.64
0.12
0.07
0.12
0.08
0.73
2.69**
1.41
2.49**
1.64
0.08
0.01
0.21
0.01
0.37
1.22
0.21
2.89**
0.20
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
risky activities of strong excitatory value. On the other hand, one could expect that IRT
correlates with those personality variables that cause a decision maker to behave in a more
rational and goal-oriented way. Many of these expectations appeared to be conrmed but
some unexpected results were found too.
The personality constructs that really distinguished between the two risk dimensions
were future orientation and rational information processingboth connected only with
IRTand arousal seeking and thrill and adventure seeking, which were associated
exclusively with SRT.
Surprisingly, two forms of impulsivity correlated with both kinds of risk taking.
However, dysfunctional impulsivity seemed to play a different role in SRT than in IRT. As
the results of linear regression showed, functional impulsivity was a much more signicant
predictor of IRT than dysfunctional impulsivity, but this difference was not so clear when
SRT was considered as a dependent variable. It seems that SRT is a more generally
impulsive behaviour than IRT. However, the correlation between impulsivity and both risk
dimensions suggests that risk taking, irrespectively of its form, can not be regarded
exclusively as a reective behaviour because a decision maker who wants to take the
opportunity to reach high prot is required to respond very quickly. The importance of
impulsivity in risk taking was conrmed by the associations between the two risk scales
and disinhibitionthe sensation seeking measure strongly related to an impulsive
behaviour (Zuckerman, 1994b).
Four independent variables (intuition, playfulness, experience seeking, and boredom
susceptibility) were irrelevant in regression predicting the two risk measures. Experience
seeking (ES) and boredom susceptibility (BS) are subscales of sensation seeking that do
not relate directly to risk taking. ES encompasses `seeking of novel sensations and
experiences through the mind and senses' (Zuckerman, 1994a, p. 31) rather than
engagement in risky activities. BS, on the other hand, `represents an intolerance for
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S119
repetitive experience' (Zuckerman, 1994a, p. 32); therefore, its association with risky
behaviour is only indirect. Items measuring intuition in the REI (Epstein et al., 1996) `refer
to having condence in one's feelings and immediate impressions' (Epstein et al., 1996,
p. 394). At least in that interpretation intuition does not seem to be associated with any
kind of risk taking. Theoretically, SRT was hypothesized to be a mode of behaviour which
engages quick judgments and choices based on intuition and emotion. In that sense the
relation between SRT and intuition requires further empirical evaluation.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
General psychologists differentiate between two modes of thinking and information
processing. The rst mode has variously been called intuitive, emotional, heuristic, or
experiential, and the second mode rational, analytical, objective, or logical (Epstein et al.,
1996). The theory introducing this distinction is Epstein's (1998) cognitiveexperiential
self theory. It is a general theory of personality, which `proposes that people process
information by two parallel, interactive systems: a rational system and an experiential
system' (Epstein et al., 1996, p. 391). The rst system is referred to as, among other things,
holistic, automatic, and affective. The second system is referred to as, among other things,
analytic, intentional, and logical.
However, the research on decision making seems to be immune to this distinction.
People's economic and nancial choices have typically been described as rational, i.e.
based on the axioms of expected utility theory and Bayesian learning. Additionally,
decision making has been considered as independent of the inuence of emotions and
heuristic thinking. Moreover, risk preferences have been elicited from choices between
simple lotteries and the curvatures of the utility function, which caused researchers to
think about decision making under uncertainty in terms of a simple distinction between
risk taking or risk aversion.
Yet, results of some studies have indicated that risk itself does not seem to be a
consistent construct. Levenson (1990) found in his study that two kinds of risk can be
differentiated, referred to as antisocial risk and antistructural risk. While the former was
found to be related to such behavioural features as pleasure-seeking, reward-seeking,
and emotional arousability, the latter was described as prosocial, adventurous, and oriented
toward self-actualization and the search for peak experiences. Trimpop, Kerr and
Kirkcaldy (1999) carried out factor analysis on different measures of risk taking
and sensation seeking. They found that risk can be regarded as a multi-dimensional
construct, and one should consider various forms of risky behaviour, i.e. planned, reckless,
or assertive risk taking with different levels of personal control.
The idea behind the conception of economic and social decision making under
uncertainty presented in this paper was that risk taking behaviour can be motivated by
different needs which stimulate the engagement of different modes of information
processing. The two kinds of risk taking introduced were instrumental risk taking
(orientation toward a particular economic goal) and stimulating risk taking (orientation
toward the search for excitement). In that sense, the conception went beyond a simple
distinction between risk taking and risk avoidance, which has dominated the majority of
risk theories both in economics and psychology. A person who takes risks to reach
something in the future can, at the same time, avoid recreational risks of strong excitatory
value. The goal of the two studies presented in this paper was to test the psychometric
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S120
T. Zaleskiewicz
parameters (reliability and external validity) of the StimulatingInstrumental Risk

Inventorya method used in the diagnosis of the two risk taking tendencies in question.
Factor analysis performed on participants' responses in the SIRI showed that two kinds
of risk preference can be distinguished, which are related either to instrumental or
sensational value of risk. The two risk taking scales were found to be moderately
intercorrelated. This is not surprising because some people reect risk taking tendency
independently of the kind of risk; they can be referred to as general risk takers. On the
other hand, other individualsgeneral risk avoidersreject risk in any form. However,
some people's preferences go beyond that simple distinctionthey reect a tendency to
take only one of two modes of risk: either instrumental or stimulating. Moreover, different
risk preferences are variously related to economic and social risk attitudes. It was found
that while people who scored higher on the stimulating risk scale were prone to take
recreational, ethical, and health risks, as well as risk of gambling, those who scored higher
on the instrumental risk scale were ready to take business risks connected with investment.
Clearly, investing money requires taking risk but it offers reaching high nancial prot in
the future. This kind of risk, however, seems to be unattractive or boring for those who are
referred to as stimulating risk lovers. They prefer rather recreational or gambling risks
because of their high excitatory and emotional value.
Interestingly, the link between the two risk dimensions appeared to be gender
dependent. Instrumental risk taking was more closely related to stimulating risk taking in
the group of women than among men. It may be that women, who manifest stronger risk
aversion than men (see Byrnes et al., 1999 and results of Study 1 in this paper), do not
differentiate between various kinds of risk as adequately as men and try to avoid risk in
every form. It seems, however, that another explanation referring to the evolutionary roots
of risk taking behaviour can be also considered here. A successful adaptation to our
ancestors' environment required men to recognize accurately which kind of risk they are
facing because they had to make risky choices more often than women (Zuckerman,
1994a).
Another aim of the research reported in this paper was to test the relationships between
risk taking in its two forms and some personality constructs. It was hypothesized that
instrumental risk taking is associated with a different set of personality traits than
stimulating risk taking. Generally, the preliminary expectations assumed that the former
kind of risk should be connected with those individual characteristics that stimulate people
to behave in a more goal-oriented and less impulsive manner. In contrast, stimulating risk
taking was expected to be related to more paratelic, impulsive, and sensation-seekingoriented features. Generally, the results of correlational analysis and linear regression
conrmed most of these assumptions. Instrumental risk taking was found to be related to
such personality traits as orientation toward the future, rational thinking (need for
cognition), functional and, at a lower level, dysfunctional impulsivity, and disinhibition.
Stimulating risk taking was associated with arousal seeking, dysfunctional and functional
impulsivity, thrill and adventure seeking, and disinhibition. The data obtained here suggest
that when risk is taken as an instrument to reach some prot it is primarily determined by
traits stimulating orientation toward a future goal and the tendency to think rationally and
deliberate more, but when risk taking is stimulated by the search for excitement it seems to
be determined by paratelic orientation toward arousal seeking.
Surprisingly, both kinds of risky behaviour were positively related to impulsivity and
disinhibition. At least two possible explanation can be offered here. Firstly, one cannot
expect that risk taking would be a kind of strictly reective behaviour, even in its
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S121
instrumental form. If anybody wants to take advantage of some market chances, she has to
act very quickly. This explanation is supported by the result indicating that instrumental
risk preference was strongly related to functional impulsivity. Secondly, the connection
between instrumental risk taking and disinhibition may be caused by the specicity of the
sampleparticipants were relatively young people, and such subjects have been found in
many studies to score very high on this dimension of sensation seeking (Zuckerman,
1994a). This idea could be examined if a more differentiated group of individuals (in terms
of their age) participated in the research.
The results of linear regression also showed that the personality constructs used in the
analysis as independent variables were more accurate predictors of stimulating risk taking
than instrumental risk taking (the R2 parameter was higher when stimulating risk taking
served as a dependent variable). This effect can suggest that IRT is a more complex
construct, whereas SRT is connected in the main with the traits related to sensation and
arousal seeking. For example, in a recent experiment Zaleskiewicz (1999) has found that
IRT is highly determined by the estimation of possible losses.
Risk is inseparably connected with almost all economic activities, but still there are
more questions than answers about its basic dimensions and determinants (Yates, 1992).
Many debated questions refer to whether risk aversion is a typical attitude of people or to
what extent risky behaviour is determined by personality-driven intrinsic tendencies
(Schoemaker, 1993). This paper proposed that economic risk should be considered as a
multi-dimensional construct and introduced two different kinds of risk taking:
instrumental risk and stimulating risk. Such conceptualization, which goes beyond a
simple distinction between risk seeking and risk avoidance, gives the opportunity to look
at the problem of risk itself and its determinants from another point of view. However, the
answer to the question of whether it is a more accurate way of exploring decision making
requires more empirical examination.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks Czeslaw Nosal, Marco Perugini and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Apter MJ. 1992. The Dangerous Edge. The Psychology of Excitement. Free Press: New York.
Bromiley P, Curley S. 1992. Individual differences in risk taking. In Risk Taking Behaviour, Yates F
(ed.). Chichester: Wiley; 87132.
Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. 1999. Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin 125: 367383.
Dickman SJ. 1990. Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: personality and cognitive correlates.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 95102.
Donohew L, Zimmerman R, Cupp PS, Novak S, Colon S, Abell R. 2000. Sensation seeking,
impulsive decision-making, and risky sex: implications for risk-taking and design of interventions.
Personality and Individual Differences 28: 10791091.
Epstein S. 1998. Cognitiveexperiential self theory. In Advanced Personality, Barone DF, Hersen M,
Van Hasselt VB (eds). Plenum: New York; 211238.
Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V, Heier H. 1996. Individual differences in intuitiveexperiential and
analyticalrational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 390405.
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)
S122
T. Zaleskiewicz
Gotts GH, Kerr JH, Wangeman JF. 2000. Towards an international scale of telicparatelic
dominance. Personality and Individual Differences 28: 217227.
Harlow WV, Brown K. 1990. Understanding and assessing nancial risk tolerance: a biological
perspective. Financial Analysts Journal 46: 5062.
Horvath P, Zuckerman M. 1992. Sensation seeking, risk appraisal, and risky behavior. Personality
and Individual Differences 14: 4152.
Ingersoll JE. 1987. Theory of Financial Decision Making. Rowman and Littleeld: Totowa, NJ.
Isen AM. 1993. Positive affect and decision making. In Handbook of Emotions, Lewis M, Haviland
JM (eds). Guilford: New York; 261277.
Jonassen D, Grabowski B. 1993. Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction.
Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertinty: Heuristics and Biases.
Cambridge University Press: New York.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica
47: 263291.
Levenson M. 1990. Risk taking and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:
10731080.
Lopes L. 1987. Between Hope and Fear: the psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology 20: 255295.
Schoemaker PJH. 1993. Determinants of risk-taking: behavioral and economic views. Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty 6: 4973.
Trimpop RM. 1994. The Psychology of Risk Taking Behaviour. North-Holland: Amsterdam.
Trimpop RM, Kerr JH, Kirkcaldy B. 1999. Comparing personality constructs of risk-taking behavior.
Personality and Individual Differences 26: 237254.
Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:
453458.
Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton
University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Weber EU, Blais A, Betz N. 1999. A Domain-Specic Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk
Perceptions and Risk Behaviors. working paper.
Wong A, Carducci B. 1991. Sensation seeking and nancial risk taking in everyday money matters.
Journal of Business and Psychology 5: 525530.
Yates JF. 1992. Risk-Taking Behavior. Wiley: Chichester.
Zaleskiewicz T. 1999. Between excitement and investment: individual differences in nancial risk
taking. Polish Psychological Bulletin 30: 153165.
Zuckerman M. 1994a. Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. Cambridge
University Press: New York.
Zuckerman M. 1994b. Impulsive unsocialised sensation seeking: the biological foundations of a
basic dimension of personality. In Temperament: Individual Differences at the Interface of Biology
and Behavior, Bates J, Wachs T (eds). Washington, DC: APA; 219255.
Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)

Beyond Risk Seeking and Risk Aversion

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Beyond Risk Seeking and Risk Aversion

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

European Journal of Personality

Eur. J. Pers. 15: S105S122 (2001)