Individual differences in risk-propensity: Associations between personality and behavioral measures of risk
Sandeep Mishra and Martin L Lalumiere
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that various forms of risky behavior are highly associated among individuals, and such personality traits as impulsivity, sensation-seeking, and low self-control are correlated with risk-taking. However, little evidence indicates that self-report measures of personality traits associated with risky behavior significantly correlate with a behavioral preference for risk. We examined whether personality questionnaire measures of traits associated with risk (impulsivity, sensation-seeking, low self-control) were correlated with various behavioral measures of risk (future discounting, probabilistic risky choice). We show that measures of risk-propensity comprise three principal components: Future Discounting, Risky Personality, and Variance Preference. Risky Personality and Variance Preference were significantly correlated. Future Discounting was not associated with either of the other risk components. Together, the results provide some evidence suggesting that stable personality traits may represent proximate mechanisms through which a behavioral preference for risky outcomes manifests.
Freitag, 11. Oktober 2013
Donnerstag, 10. Oktober 2013
A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking
A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking
Laurence Steinberg; 2008
Abstract
This article proposes a framework for theory and research on risk-taking that is informed by developmental neuroscience. Two fundamental questions motivate this review. First, why does risk-taking increase between childhood and adolescence? Second, why does risk-taking decline between adolescence and adulthood? Risk-taking increases between childhood and adolescence as a result of changes around the time of puberty in the brain’s socio-emotional system leading to increased reward-seeking, especially in the presence of peers, fueled mainly by a dramatic remodeling of the brain’s dopaminergic system. Risk-taking declines between adolescence and adulthood because of changes in the brain’s cognitive control system – changes which improve individuals’ capacity for self-regulation. These changes occur across adolescence and young adulthood and are seen in structural and functional changes within the prefrontal cortex and its connections to other brain regions. The differing timetables of these changes make mid-adolescence a time of heightened vulnerability to risky and reckless behavior.
Laurence Steinberg; 2008
Abstract
This article proposes a framework for theory and research on risk-taking that is informed by developmental neuroscience. Two fundamental questions motivate this review. First, why does risk-taking increase between childhood and adolescence? Second, why does risk-taking decline between adolescence and adulthood? Risk-taking increases between childhood and adolescence as a result of changes around the time of puberty in the brain’s socio-emotional system leading to increased reward-seeking, especially in the presence of peers, fueled mainly by a dramatic remodeling of the brain’s dopaminergic system. Risk-taking declines between adolescence and adulthood because of changes in the brain’s cognitive control system – changes which improve individuals’ capacity for self-regulation. These changes occur across adolescence and young adulthood and are seen in structural and functional changes within the prefrontal cortex and its connections to other brain regions. The differing timetables of these changes make mid-adolescence a time of heightened vulnerability to risky and reckless behavior.
Life history variables and risk-taking propensity
Life history variables and risk-taking propensity
XT Wang, DJ Kruger, A Wilke
Abstract
We examined the effects of life-history variables on risk-taking propensity, measured by subjective likelihoods of engaging in risky behaviors in five evolutionarily valid domains of risk, including between-group competition, within-group competition, environmental challenge, mating and resource allocation, and fertility and reproduction. The effects of life-history variables on risk-taking propensity were domain specific, except for the expected sex difference, where men predicted greater risk-taking than women in all domains. Males also perceived less inherent risk in actions than females across the five domains. Although the age range in the sample was limited, older respondents showed lower risk propensity in both between- and within-group competition. Parenthood reduced risk-taking propensity in within- and between-group competitions. Higher reproductive goal setting (desiring more offspring) was associated with lower risk-taking propensity. This effect was strongest in the risk domains of mating and reproduction. Having more siblings reduced risk-taking propensity (contrary to our initial prediction) in the domains of environmental challenge, reproduction, and between-group competition. Later-born children showed a higher propensity to engage in environmental and mating risks. Last, shorter subjective life expectancy was associated with increased willingness to take mating and reproductive risks. These results suggest that life-history variables regulate human risk-taking propensity in specific risk domains.
XT Wang, DJ Kruger, A Wilke
Abstract
We examined the effects of life-history variables on risk-taking propensity, measured by subjective likelihoods of engaging in risky behaviors in five evolutionarily valid domains of risk, including between-group competition, within-group competition, environmental challenge, mating and resource allocation, and fertility and reproduction. The effects of life-history variables on risk-taking propensity were domain specific, except for the expected sex difference, where men predicted greater risk-taking than women in all domains. Males also perceived less inherent risk in actions than females across the five domains. Although the age range in the sample was limited, older respondents showed lower risk propensity in both between- and within-group competition. Parenthood reduced risk-taking propensity in within- and between-group competitions. Higher reproductive goal setting (desiring more offspring) was associated with lower risk-taking propensity. This effect was strongest in the risk domains of mating and reproduction. Having more siblings reduced risk-taking propensity (contrary to our initial prediction) in the domains of environmental challenge, reproduction, and between-group competition. Later-born children showed a higher propensity to engage in environmental and mating risks. Last, shorter subjective life expectancy was associated with increased willingness to take mating and reproductive risks. These results suggest that life-history variables regulate human risk-taking propensity in specific risk domains.
Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence:
Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979
Ian J Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der, Timothy C Bates
There is scientific and popular dispute about whether there are sex differences in cognitive abilities and whether they are relevant to the proportions of men and women who attain high-level achievements, such as Nobel Prizes. A recent meta-analysis (Lynn, R., and Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: a meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481–498.), which suggested that males have higher mean scores on the general factor in intelligence (g), proved especially contentious. Here we use a novel design, comparing 1292 pairs of opposite-sex siblings who participated in the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY1979). The mental test applied was the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), from which the briefer Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores can also be derived. Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of g (less than 7% of a standard deviation) from the ASVAB and AFQT, but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in intellectual eminence.
Ian J Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der, Timothy C Bates
There is scientific and popular dispute about whether there are sex differences in cognitive abilities and whether they are relevant to the proportions of men and women who attain high-level achievements, such as Nobel Prizes. A recent meta-analysis (Lynn, R., and Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: a meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481–498.), which suggested that males have higher mean scores on the general factor in intelligence (g), proved especially contentious. Here we use a novel design, comparing 1292 pairs of opposite-sex siblings who participated in the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY1979). The mental test applied was the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), from which the briefer Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores can also be derived. Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of g (less than 7% of a standard deviation) from the ASVAB and AFQT, but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in intellectual eminence.
Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2013
Montag, 7. Oktober 2013
Identifying and explaining apparent universal sex differences in cognition and behavior
Identifying and explaining apparent universal sex differences in cognition and behavior
Lee Ellis; October 2011
Personality and Individual Differences
Abstract
Lee Ellis; October 2011
Personality and Individual Differences
Abstract
With growing recognition that there are universal sex differences in cognition and behavior, four theories have been proposed to account for these differences: the founder effect theory, the social structuralist theory, the evolutionary theory, and the evolutionary neuroandrogenic (ENA) theory. The latter of these theories is described in considerable detail as offering an explanation for most of 65 recently identifiedapparent universal sex differences (AUSDs) in cognition and behavior. Regarding “ultimate causes” (why), ENA theory asserts that (a) evolutionary-genetic factors incline females to bias their mate choices toward males who are loyal and competent provisioners of resources and (b) males are merely a genetic variant on the female sex selected for responding to female mating biases. In terms of “proximate causes” (how), the theory maintains that high exposure to androgens has evolved to alter the male brain functioning in two specific ways relative to most female brains: (a) suboptimal arousal and (b) a rightward shift in neocortical functioning. These two functional patterns are described and hypothesized to incline males and females to learn differently in many respects. The most fundamental differences involve males learning ways of either complying with or circumventing female mate preferences. Numerous universal sex differences in cognition and behavior are hypothesized to result from these evolved neurohormonal factors, including most of the 65 AUSDs herein summarized in seven categorical tables.
Chimps of a feather sit together: chimpanzee friendships are based on homophily in personality
Chimps of a feather sit together: chimpanzee friendships are based on homophily in personality
Jorg J M Massen and Sonja E Koski
Available online 2 October 2013
Evolution and Human Behavior
Abstract
Several recent studies show that animal friendships, like human friendships, are durable and have fitness benefits by increasing survival, infant survival, or reproductive success. However, the determinants of especially non-kin friendships are unclear. Human non-kin friendships are partly determined by similarity in personality. We investigated personality similarity of friends in 38 captive chimpanzees. Within-subject comparisons revealed that friends are more similar than non-friends in their Sociability and Boldness. Subsequent analyses, including both kin- and non-kin dyads, revealed higher similarity in Sociability among all individuals who sat in contact more often, while in Boldness and Grooming Equity the positive effect of similarity was only found in non-kin individuals’ contact-sitting. Our results show that similar to humans, chimpanzees’ friendships are related to homophily in certain personality characteristics, particularly those relevant for socio-positive and cooperative behaviour. We suggest that having friends similar to self in personality decreases uncertainty in interactions by promoting reliability especially in cooperative contexts, and is consequently adaptive. Further, we suggest that homophily in human friendships dates back at least to our last common ancestor with chimpanzees.
Jorg J M Massen and Sonja E Koski
Available online 2 October 2013
Evolution and Human Behavior
Abstract
Several recent studies show that animal friendships, like human friendships, are durable and have fitness benefits by increasing survival, infant survival, or reproductive success. However, the determinants of especially non-kin friendships are unclear. Human non-kin friendships are partly determined by similarity in personality. We investigated personality similarity of friends in 38 captive chimpanzees. Within-subject comparisons revealed that friends are more similar than non-friends in their Sociability and Boldness. Subsequent analyses, including both kin- and non-kin dyads, revealed higher similarity in Sociability among all individuals who sat in contact more often, while in Boldness and Grooming Equity the positive effect of similarity was only found in non-kin individuals’ contact-sitting. Our results show that similar to humans, chimpanzees’ friendships are related to homophily in certain personality characteristics, particularly those relevant for socio-positive and cooperative behaviour. We suggest that having friends similar to self in personality decreases uncertainty in interactions by promoting reliability especially in cooperative contexts, and is consequently adaptive. Further, we suggest that homophily in human friendships dates back at least to our last common ancestor with chimpanzees.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)