The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice
Open accessAbstract
This paper provides empirical evidence that distinguishes between alternative conceptualizations of the risky decision making process. Two studies investigate whether cross-situational differences in choice behavior should be interpreted in the expected utility framework as differences in risk attitude (as measured by risk-averse vs. risk-seeking utility functions) or as differences in the perception of the relative riskiness of choice alternatives as permitted by risk-return interpretations of utility functions, leaving open the possibility of stable cross-situational risk preference as a personality trait. To this end, we propose a way of assessing a person's inherent risk preference that factors out individual and situational differences in risk perception. We document that a definition of risk aversion and risk seeking as the preference for options perceived to be more risky or less risky, respectively, provides the cross-situational stability to a person's risk preference that has eluded more traditional definitions. In Experiment 1, commuters changed their preferences for trains with risky arrival times when the alternatives involved gains in commuting time rather than losses. However, changes in preference coincided with changes in the perception of the riskiness of the choice alternatives, leaving the perceived risk attitudes of a majority of commuters unchanged. Experiment 2, a stockmarket investment task, investigated changes in risk perception, information acquisition, and stock selection as a function of outcome feedback. Investors' stock selections and their perception of the risk of the same stocks were different in a series of decisions in which they lost money than in a series in which they made money. As in Experiment 1, differences in choice and in risk perception were systematically related, such that the majority of investors had the same preference for perceived risk in both series of decisions. Our results provide empirical support for the usefulness of recent risk-return conceptualizations of risky choice (Bell [Bell, D. E. 1995. Risk, return, and utility. Management Sci. 41 23–30.], Jia and Dyer [Jia, J., J. S. Dyer. 1994. A standard measure of risk and risk-value models. Working paper, University of Texas at Austin.], M. Weber and Sarin 1993).
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
Cited by
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146 · Cited by 3,325
A domain‐specific risk‐attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors
Weber, E. U., Blais, A., & Betz, N. E. (2002) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.414 · Cited by 2,936
Self-citationConsumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models
Mitchell, V. (1999) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090569910249229 · Cited by 1,582
A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations
Blais, A.-R., & Weber, E. U. (2006) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500000334 · Cited by 1,286
Self-citationNeuronal Reward and Decision Signals: From Theories to Data
Schultz, W. (2015) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00023.2014 · Cited by 1,126
Metadata
- Authors
- Weber, E. U., & Milliman, R. A.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-144
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2142837234
- Cited by
- 827
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.43.2.123
- The paper
- Weber, E. U., & Milliman, R. A. (1997). Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.2.123
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.