Risk Choice: Intention vs. Action

IF 0.4 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
D.S. Kornienko, M.V. Baleva, N.P. Yachmeneva
{"title":"Risk Choice: Intention vs. Action","authors":"D.S. Kornienko, M.V. Baleva, N.P. Yachmeneva","doi":"10.17759/exppsy.2023160105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In decision-making research, the most common point of view is the synonymous similarity of intentions and actions. Most experimental procedures &amp;ldquo;reduce&amp;rdquo; them into a single act. Understanding the conventionality of separating these concepts, we distinguish two types of tasks. The first one involves only the intention and the second one also involves its subsequent behavioral implementation. The purpose of our study is to compare the risky choice as an intention and as an action. The hypothesis of various manifestations of risk-related personality traits in choice as an intention and as an action was tested. 462 students from 17 to 46 years old (M=21.20, SD=3.09) became participants in the study, including 80 male (17.3%) and 382 female (82.7%). To measure risk as intention, the participants were offered a case describing a hypothetical gambling game. To measure risk as an action, it was proposed to play a computer game of similar content. The results of one-way ANOVA (between group measures) showed that the choice of risk at the level of intention did not allow to fix the personal correlates of the decision making, however, at the level of real actions, its correlations with the Dark Triad and Uncertainty Tolerance appeared. These empirical facts were interpreted in the logic of cognitive, motivational and socio-psychological approaches. The results obtained can be used in the field of forecasting economic risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":43135,"journal":{"name":"Eksperimentalnaya Psikhologiya","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eksperimentalnaya Psikhologiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2023160105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In decision-making research, the most common point of view is the synonymous similarity of intentions and actions. Most experimental procedures &ldquo;reduce&rdquo; them into a single act. Understanding the conventionality of separating these concepts, we distinguish two types of tasks. The first one involves only the intention and the second one also involves its subsequent behavioral implementation. The purpose of our study is to compare the risky choice as an intention and as an action. The hypothesis of various manifestations of risk-related personality traits in choice as an intention and as an action was tested. 462 students from 17 to 46 years old (M=21.20, SD=3.09) became participants in the study, including 80 male (17.3%) and 382 female (82.7%). To measure risk as intention, the participants were offered a case describing a hypothetical gambling game. To measure risk as an action, it was proposed to play a computer game of similar content. The results of one-way ANOVA (between group measures) showed that the choice of risk at the level of intention did not allow to fix the personal correlates of the decision making, however, at the level of real actions, its correlations with the Dark Triad and Uncertainty Tolerance appeared. These empirical facts were interpreted in the logic of cognitive, motivational and socio-psychological approaches. The results obtained can be used in the field of forecasting economic risks.

风险选择:意图vs.行动
在决策研究中,最常见的观点是意图和行为的同义相似性。大多数实验程序“他们变成了一个单一的行为。理解了分离这些概念的惯例,我们区分了两种类型的任务。前者只涉及意图,后者还涉及其随后的行为实施。我们研究的目的是比较作为意图的风险选择和作为行动的风险选择。对风险相关人格特征在选择作为一种意图和一种行动中的各种表现形式的假设进行了检验。462名17 ~ 46岁的大学生(M=21.20, SD=3.09)成为研究对象,其中男性80人(17.3%),女性382人(82.7%)。为了衡量风险作为意图,参与者被提供了一个描述假想赌博游戏的案例。为了将风险作为一种行为来衡量,研究人员建议玩一款内容相似的电脑游戏。单因素方差分析(组间测量)的结果表明,在意图水平上的风险选择不允许修复决策的个人相关性,然而,在实际行动水平上,其与黑暗三合一和不确定性容忍的相关性出现了。这些经验事实在认知、动机和社会心理学方法的逻辑中得到解释。所得结果可用于经济风险预测领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Eksperimentalnaya Psikhologiya
Eksperimentalnaya Psikhologiya PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
50.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信