The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Individual Differences in Risky Decision Making: A Meta‐analysis of Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task
Abstract
SUMMARY: To represent the state‐of‐the‐art in an effort to understand the relation between personality and risk taking, we selected a popular decision task with characteristics that parallel risk taking in the real world and two personality traits commonly believed to influence risk taking. A meta‐analysis is presented based on 22 studies of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task from which correlations with sensation seeking and impulsivity assessments could be obtained. Results calculated on a total of 2120 participants showed that effect size for the relation of sensation seeking with risk taking was in the small–moderate range ( = .14), whereas the effect size for impulsivity was just around the small effect size threshold ( = .10). Although we considered participants' demographics as moderators, we found only significantly larger effect sizes for the older adolescents and young adults compared with other ages. The findings of the present review supported the view that inconsistencies in personality–risk research were mostly due to random fluctuations of specific effect sizes, rather than to lack of theoretical ties or to measurement unreliability. It is also concluded that studies aimed at relating individual differences in personality to performance in experimental decision tasks need an appropriate sample size to achieve the power to produce significant results. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 · Cited by 7,306
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00064-7 · Cited by 4,123
INDIVIDUAL RISK ATTITUDES: MEASUREMENT, DETERMINANTS, AND BEHAVIORAL CONSEQUENCES
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x · Cited by 3,896
A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking
Steinberg, L. (2008) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002 · Cited by 3,644
Cited by
Stability and change in risk-taking propensity across the adult life span.
Josef, A. K., Richter, D., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., Wagner, G. G., Hertwig, R., & Mata, R. (2016) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000090 · Cited by 305
Anxiety, Depression, and Decision Making: A Computational Perspective
Bishop, S. J., & Gagne, C. (2018) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-080317-062007 · Cited by 240
Suzuki, T., Gu, P., Grove, T. B., Hammond, T., Collins, K. M., Pamidighantam, P., Arnold, P. D., Taylor, S. F., Liu, Y., Gehring, W. J., et al. (2023) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2022.10.020 · Cited by 20
Effects of heat exposure and ice slurry ingestion on risk-taking behavior in healthcare workers
ALHADAD, S. B., PONAMPALAM, R., LIM, L. S. X., LOW, I. C. C., KSHITIJ, R., ABDUL KARIM, A. B., SALAMOON, Z. B., MARIMUTHU, Y. S., & LEE, J. K. W. (2024) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003486 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Lauriola, M., Panno, A., Levin, I. P., & Lejuez, C. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-22
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20-36
- ISSN
- 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0771
- OpenAlex
- W1501006459
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 125
- FWCI
- 9.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individual Differences in Risky Decision Making: A Meta‐analysis of Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bdm.1784
- The paper
- Lauriola, M., Panno, A., Levin, I. P., & Lejuez, C. W. (2014). Individual Differences in Risky Decision Making: A Meta‐analysis of Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1784
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
