Cited by 761

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Personality and domain‐specific risk taking

Nicholson, Nigel, Soane, Emma, Fenton‐O'Creevy, Mark, Willman, Paul·2005·Journal of Risk Research

Abstract

The concept of risk propensity has been the subject of both theoretical and empirical investigation, but with little consensus about its definition and measurement. To address this need, a new scale assessing overall risk propensity in terms of reported frequency of risk behaviours in six domains was developed and applied: recreation, health, career, finance, safety and social. The paper describes the properties of the scale and its correlates: demographic variables, biographical self‐reports, and the NEO PI‐R, a Five Factor personality inventory (N = 2041). There are three main results. First, risk propensity has clear links with age and sex, and with objective measures of career‐related risk taking (changing jobs and setting up a business). Second, the data show risk propensity to be strongly rooted in personality. A clear Big Five pattern emerges for overall risk propensity, combining high extraversion and openness with low neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. At the subscale level, sensation‐seeking surfaces as a key important component of risk propensity. Third, risk propensity differs markedly in its distribution across job types and business sectors. These findings are interpreted as indicating that risk takers are of three non‐exclusive types: stimulation seekers, goal achievers, and risk adapters. Only the first group is truly risk seeking, the others are more correctly viewed as risk bearers. The implications for risk research and management are discus…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1366987032000123856

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 1997, A Risk Based Approach to Supervision
  2. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00084.x · DOI
  3. Browne MW, 1993, Testing Structural Equation Models, pp. 136–62
  4. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.158 · DOI
  5. Costa PT, 1997, NEO PI‐R and NEO‐FFI Professional Manual
  6. Digman JM, 1997, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246, 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Eysenck HJ, 1973, Eysenck on Extraversion
  8. Fagley NS, 1997, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 264, 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90041-0 · DOI
  9. Finucane ML, 2000, Health, Risk and Society, 2, 159, 10.1080/713670162 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Highhouse S, 1996, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 159, 10.1006/obhd.1996.0014 · DOI
  11. Hogan J, 1997, Handbook of Personality Psychology, pp. 849–70
  12. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.592 · DOI
  13. 10.1006/obhd.1994.1067 · DOI
  14. Kowert PA, 1997, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 611, 10.1177/0022002797041005001 · DOI
  15. Kühberger A, 1998, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23, 10.1006/obhd.1998.2781 · DOI
  16. MacCrimmon KR, 1986, Taking Risks: The Management of Uncertainty
  17. 10.1080/08870440108405487 · DOI
  18. McCrae RR, 1997, American Psychologist, 52, 509, 10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509 · DOI · Paper page
  19. McCrae RR, 1997, Handbook of Personality Psychology, pp. 825–47
  20. 10.1017/CBO9780511522116 · DOI
  21. Powell M, 1997, Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 605, 10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00026-3 · DOI
  22. Rauch A, 2000, International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology 2000, 15, 101
  23. Robins RW, 2001, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151, 10.1177/0146167201272002 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Salminen S, 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 33, 10.1016/S0001-4575(96)00059-0 · DOI
  25. Segal B, 1973, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 135, 10.1037/h0035594 · DOI
  26. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00003-2 · DOI
  28. Sitkin SB, 1992, Academy of Management Review, 17, 9, 10.5465/amr.1992.4279564 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.2307/256844 · DOI
  30. Slovic P, 2000, The Perception of Risk
  31. Ungemack JA, 1994, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10, 38, 10.1016/S0749-3797(18)30645-7 · DOI
  32. Vollrath M, 2002, Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1185, 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00080-0 · DOI
  33. Weber EU, 1997, Management Science, 43, 123, 10.1287/mnsc.43.2.123 · DOI
  34. Weber EU, 2002, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 1, 10.1002/bdm.414 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Weinstein E, 1969, Psychological Reports, 24, 499, 10.2466/pr0.1969.24.2.499 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01229.x · DOI
  37. Zuckerman M, 1974, Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 7, pp. 79–148
  38. 10.1111/1467-6494.00124 · DOI
  39. 10.1037/h0040995 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton‐O'Creevy, M., & Willman, P.
Affiliations
  • a London Business School , Regent's Park , London NW1 4SA, UK
  • b Kingston Business School , UK
  • c Open University Business School , UK
  • d Said Business School , Oxford, UK
Venue
Journal of Risk Research
Published
2005-03
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
157-176
ISSN
  • 1366-9877
  • 1466-4461
Cited by
761
References
4
Language
en

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