Differences between risk perception and risk-taking are related to impulsivity levels

  1. A. Megías-Robles 1
  2. A. Cándido 2
  3. A. Maldonado 2
  4. S. Baltruschat 2
  5. A. Catena 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Málaga
    info

    Universidad de Málaga

    Málaga, España

    ROR https://ror.org/036b2ww28

  2. 2 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Revista:
International journal of clinical and health psychology

ISSN: 1697-2600

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 22

Número: 3

Páginas: 71-80

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1016/J.IJCHP.2022.100318 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: International journal of clinical and health psychology

Resumen

Background Although there is broad agreement that perceived risks determine risk-taking behavior, previous research has shown that this association may not be as straightforward as expected. The main objective of this study was to investigate if the levels of impulsivity can explain part of these controversial findings. Method A total of 1579 participants (Mage = 23.06, from 18 to 60 years; 69.4% women) were assessed for levels of risk perception, risk-taking avoidance, and impulsivity. Results The results showed that while impulsivity was significantly and negatively related to both risk perception and risk-taking avoidance, the relationship with risk-taking avoidance was significantly stronger than with risk perception. The levels of impulsivity predicted risk-taking avoidance even when controlling for risk perception. Conclusions These findings indicate that impulsivity can differentially affect risk perception and risk-taking. We propose that the stronger influence of impulsivity on risk-taking is due to the greater reliance of risk-taking, compared with risk perception, on automatic processes guided by impulses and emotions.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Baltruschat, S., C andido, A., Megías, A., Maldonado, A., & Catena, A. (2020). Risk proneness modulates the impact of impulsivity on brain functional connectivity. Human Brain Mapping, 41(4), 943–951.
  • Baltruschat, S., Megías-Robles, A., Candido, A., Maldonado, A., & Catena, A. (2021). Social and non-social brain areas in risk behaviour: the role of social context. Neuroscience, 465, 177–186.
  • Bohm, J., & Harris, D. (2010). Risk perception and risk-taking behavior of construction site dumper drivers. International Journal of Occupational Safety And Ergonomics, 16(1), 55–67.
  • Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26(2), 136.
  • Candido, A., Ordu~na, E., Perales, J. C., Verdejo-García, A., & Billieux, J. (2012). Validation of a short Spanish version of the UPPS-P impulsive behaviour scale. Trastornos Adictivos, 14(3), 73–78.
  • Cestac, J., & Delhomme, P. (2012). European road users' risk perception and mobility: the SARTRE 4 survey. IFSTTAR.
  • Chamorro, J., Bernardi, S., Potenza, M. N., Grant, J. E., Marsh, R., Wang, S., & Blanco, C. (2012). Impulsivity in the general population: a national study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46(8), 994–1001.
  • Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2007). Mood-based rash action and its components: Positive and negative urgency. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 839–850.
  • Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Clarifying the role of personality dispositions in risk for increased gambling behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 503–508.
  • Deckman, T., & DeWall, C. N. (2011). Negative urgency and risky sexual behaviors: A clarification of the relationship between impulsivity and risky sexual behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 674–678.
  • et Denommee, J. A., Foglia, V., Roy-Charland, A., Turcotte, K., Lemieux, S., & Yantzi, N. (2020). Cellphone use and young drivers. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 61(1), 22.
  • Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2015). Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS One, 10, (4) e0121945.
  • Dir, A. L., Coskunpinar, A., & Cyders, M. A. (2014). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between adolescent risky sexual behavior and impulsivity across gender, age, and race. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(7), 551–562.
  • Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58 (1), 51–100.
  • Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., Benthin, A. C., & Hessling, RM. (1996). A longitudinal study of the reciprocal nature of risk behaviors and cognitions in adolescents: what you do shapes what you think, and vice versa. Health Psychology, 15(5), 344.
  • IRTAD [International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group]. (2020). Road Safety Annual Report. of the potential consequences associated with risky driving behaviour. OECD/ITF Publishing.
  • Johnson, R. J., McCaul, K. D., & Klein, W. M. (2002). Risk involvement and risk perception among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25(1), 67–82.
  • Laird, R. D. (2020). Analytical challenges of testing hypotheses of agreement and discrepancy: Comment on Campione-Barr, Lindell, and Giron (2020). Developmental Psychology, 56(5), 970–977.
  • Lozano, L. M., Megías, A., Catena, A., Perales, J. C., Baltruschat, S., & Candido, A. (2017). Spanish validation of the domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT-30) scale. Psicothema, 29(1), 111–118.
  • Maldonado, A., Torres, M. A., Catena, A., Candido, A., & Megías-Robles, A. (2020). From riskier to safer driving decisions: the role of feedback and the experiential automatic processing system. Transportation Research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 73, 307–317.
  • Megías, A., Candido, A., Catena, A., Molinero, S., & Maldonado, A. (2014). The passenger effect: Risky driving is a function of the driver-passenger emotional relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 254–258.
  • Megías, A., Maldonado, A., Candido, A., & Catena, A. (2011). Emotional modulation of urgent and evaluative behaviors in risky driving scenarios. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 813–817.
  • Megías, A., Maldonado, A., Catena, A., Di Stasi, L. L., Serrano, J., & Candido, A. (2011). Modulation of attention and urgent decisions by affect-laden roadside advertisement in risky driving scenarios. Safety Science, 49(10), 1388–1393.
  • Megías, A., Navas, J. F., Petrova, D., Candido, A., Maldonado, A., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Catena, A. (2015). Neural mechanisms underlying urgent and evaluative behaviors: An fMRI study on the interaction of automatic and controlled processes. Human Brain Mapping, 36(8), 2853–2864.
  • Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 172.
  • Mills, B., Reyna, V. F., & Estrada, S. (2008). Explaining contradictory relations between risk perception and risk taking. Psychological Science, 19(5), 429–433.
  • Navas, J. F., Billieux, J., Perandres-Gomez, A., Lopez-Torrecillas, F., Candido, A., & Perales, J. C. (2017). Impulsivity traits and gambling cognitions associated with gambling preferences and clinical status. International Gambling Studies, 17(1), 102–124.
  • Navas, J. F., Martín-Perez, C., Petrova, D., Verdejo-García, A., Cano, M., Sagripanti-Mazuquín, O., Perandres-Gomez, A., Lopez-Martín, A., Cordovilla-Guardia, S., Megías, A., Perales, J. C., & Vilar-Lopez, R. (2019). Sex differences in the association between impulsivity and driving under the influence of alcohol in young adults: The specific role of sensation seeking. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 124, 174–179.
  • Perry, J. L., & Carroll, M. E. (2008). The role of impulsive behavior in drug abuse. Psychopharmacology, 200(1), 1–26.
  • Reniers, R. L., Murphy, L., Lin, A., Bartolome, S. P., & Wood, S. J. (2016). Risk perception and risk-taking behaviour during adolescence: The influence of personality and gender. PloS one, 11,(4) e0153842.
  • Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: Implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7 (1), 1–44.
  • Sanchez-Lopez, M. T., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., Gomez-Leal, R., & Megías-Robles, A. (2022). Evidence on the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Risk Behavior: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
  • Sheeran, P., Harris, P. R., & Epton, T. (2014). Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 511.
  • Sneed, C. D., Morisky, D. E., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Ebin, V., Malotte, C. K., Lyde, M., & Gill, J. K. (2001). Don't know' and 'didn't think of it': Condom use at first intercourse by Latino adolescents. Aids Care, 13(3), 303–308.
  • Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9–38.
  • Stevens, J. R. (2017). Impulsivity: How time and risk influence decision Making. Springer.
  • Torres, A., Catena, A., Megías, A., Maldonado, A., Candido, A., Verdejo-García, A., & Perales, J. C. (2013). Emotional and non-emotional pathways to impulsive behavior and addiction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 43.
  • Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290.
  • Weller, J. A., & Tikir, A. (2011). Predicting domain-specific risk taking with the HEXACO personality structure. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(2), 180–201.
  • World Medical Association. (2008). Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.
  • Yates, J. (1992). Risk-taking behavior. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common bisocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999–1029.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet