Risk Choice: Intention vs. Action

In decision-making research, the most common point of view is the synonymous similarity of intentions and actions. Most experimental procedures “reduce” them into a single act. Understanding the conventionality of separating these concepts, we distinguish two types of tasks. The first one involves only the intention and the second one also involves its subsequent behavioral implementation. The purpose of our study is to compare the risky choice as an intention and as an action. The hypothesis of various manifestations of risk-related personality traits in choice as an intention and as an action was tested. 462 students from 17 to 46 years old (M=21.20, SD=3.09) became participants in the study, including 80 male (17.3%) and 382 female (82.7%). To measure risk as intention, the participants were offered a case describing a hypothetical gambling game. To measure risk as an action, it was proposed to play a computer game of similar content. The results of one-way ANOVA (between group measures) showed that the choice of risk at the level of intention did not allow to fix the personal correlates of the decision making, however, at the level of real actions, its correlations with the Dark Triad and Uncertainty Tolerance appeared. These empirical facts were interpreted in the logic of cognitive, motivational and socio-psychological approaches. The results obtained can be used in the field of forecasting economic risks.

1. Diev V.S. Neopredelennost', riski prinyatie reshenii v mezhdistsiplinarnom kontekste [Uncertainty, risk and decision-making in an interdisciplinary context]. Sibirskii filosofskii zhurnal = Siberian Journal of Philosophy, 2019. V. 17(4). P. 41—52. DOI:10.25205/2541-7517-2019-17-4-41-52 (In Russ.).
2. Egorova M.S. Makiavellizm v structure lichnostnykh svoistv [Machiavellianism in the structure of personality traits]. Vestnik Permskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Seriya 10. Differentsial'naya psikhologiya = Bulletin of the Perm State Pedagogical University. Series 10. Differential Psychology. 2009. V. 1/2. P. 65—80. (In Russ.).
3. Egorova M.S., Sitnikova M.A., Parshikova O.V. Adaptatsiya Korotkogo oprosnika Temnoi triady [Adaptation of the Short Dark Triad]. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological research. 2015. V. 8(43). P. 1. URL: http://psystudy.ru (Accessed 11.09.2021). (In Russ.).
4. Kahneman D. Dumai medlenno... reshai bistro [Thinking, fast and slow]. Moscow: AST, 2017. 653 p. (In Russ.).
5. Kozeletskii Yu. Psikhologicheskaya teoriya reshenii [Psychological theory of decision]. Moscow: Progress, 1979. 504 p. (In Russ.).
6. Kornilova T.V. Psikhologiya neopredelennosti: edinstvo intellektual'no-lichnostnoi regulyatsii reshenii I vyborov [Psychology of ambiguity: unity of intellectual and personal regulation of decisions and choices]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological journal. 2013. V. 34(3). P. 89—100. (In Russ.).
7. Kornilova T.V. Psikhologiya riska I prinyatiya reshenii [Psychology of risk and decision-making]. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2003. 284 p. (In Russ.).
8. Kornilova T.V., Pavlova E.M., KrasavtsevaYu.V., Razvalyaeva A.Yu. Svyaz' freiming-effekta s individual'nymi razlichiyami u studentov-medikov i studentov-psikhologov [Relationship between the framing effect and individual differences in medical students and psychology students]. Natsional'nyi psikhologicheskii zhurnal = National Psychological Journal. 2017. V. 4(28). P. 17—29. DOI:10.11621/npj.2017.0402 (In Russ.).
9. Kornilova T.V., Chumakova M.A. Shkaly tolerantnosti i intolerantnosti k neopredelennosti v modifikatsii oprosnika C. Badnera [Tolerance and intolerance of ambiguity in the modification of Budner's questionnaire]. Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya = Experimental psychology. 2014. V. 7(1). P. 92—110. (In Russ.).
10. Kornilova T.V., Chumakova M.A., Kornilov S.A., Novikova M.A. Psikhologiya neopredelennosti: Edinstvo intellektual'no-lichnostnogo potentsiala cheloveka [Psychology of uncertainty: The unity of the intellectual and personal potential of a person]. Moscow: Smysl, 2010. 334 p. (In Russ.).
11. Krasavtseva Yu.V. Emotsional'noe predvoskhishchenie v protsesse prinyatiya reshenii [Emotional Anticipation in Decision Making]: dis. ... kand. psikhol. nauk: 19.00.01. Moscow, IP RAN, 2021. 250 p. (In Russ.).
12. Lebedev A.N. Kvazieksperimental'noe issledovanie prinyatiya reshenii v usloviyakh ravnoznachnogo vybora [Quasi-experimental studyof decision-making under conditions of equal choice] // Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya = Experimental psychology. 2018. V. 11(4). P. 79—93. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2018110407 (In Russ.).
13. Leont'ev D.A., Ovchinnikova E.Yu., Rasskazova E.I., Fam A.Kh. Psikhologiya vybora [The psychology of choice]. Мoscow: Smysl, 2015. 463 p. (In Russ.).
14. Shlyapnikov V.N. Volya: poteryannoe zveno sovremennoi zarubezhnoi psikhologii [Will: the lost link of contemporary foreign psychology] // Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya = Experimental psychology. 2022. V 15(1). P. 72—87. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2022150105 (In Russ.).
15. Carleton R.N. The intolerance of uncertainty construct in the context of anxiety disorders: Theoretical and practical perspectives // Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. 2012. V. 12(8). P. 937—947. DOI:10.1586/ern.12.82
16. Cassotti M., Habib M., Poirel N., Aïte A., Houdé O., Moutier S. Positive emotional context eliminates the framing effect in decision-making // Emotion. 2012. V. 12(5). P. 926—931. DOI:10.1037/a0026788
17. Cooke D.J., Michie C., Hart S.D., Clark D.A. Reconstructing psychopathy: clarifying the significance of antisocial and socially deviant behavior in the diagnosis of psychopathic personality disorder // Journal of personality disorders. 2004. V. 18(4). P. 337—357. DOI:10.1521/pedi.2004.18.4.337
18. Crysel L.C., Crosier B.S., Webster G.D. The Dark Triad and risk behavior // Personality and Individual Differences. 2013. V. 54(1). P. 35—40. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.029
19. Dorison C.A., Heller B.H. Observers penalize decision makers whose risk preferences are unaffected by loss—gain framing // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2022. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1037/xge0001187
20. FeldmanHall O., Glimcher P., Baker A.L., Phelps E.A. Emotion and decision-making under uncertainty: Physiological arousal predicts increased gambling during ambiguity but not risk // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2016. V. 145(10). P. 1255—1262. DOI:10.1037/xge0000205
21. Foster J.D., Shenesey J.W., Goff J.S. Why do narcissists take more risks? Testing the roles of perceived risks and benefits of risky behaviors // Personality and Individual Differences. 2009. V. 47. P. 885—889. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.008
22. Glasman L.R., Albarracín D. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation // Psychological Bulletin. 2006. V. 132(5). P. 778—822. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778
23. Grover S., Furnham A. The moderating effects of emotional stability on the relationship between the Dark Triad and different measures of risk-taking // Personality and Individual Differences. 2020. P. 110450. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110450
24. Guassi Moreira J.F., Méndez Leal A.S., Waizman Y.H., Saragosa-Harris N., Ninova E., Silvers J.A. Early caregiving adversity differentially shapes behavioral sensitivity to reward and risk during decision-making // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2022. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1037/xge0001229
25. Lee K., Ashton M.C. Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure // Personality and Individual Differences. 2005. V. 38(7). P. 1571—1582. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016
26. Malesza M., Ostaszewski P. Dark side of impulsivity — Associations between the Dark Triad, self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity // Personality and Individual Differences. 2016. V. 88. P. 197—201. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.016
27. Mittal C., Griskevicius V. Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people’s childhood environment: A life history theory approach // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014. V. 107(4). P. 621—637. DOI:10.1037/a0037398
28. Rauthmann J.F., Will T. Proposing a multidimensional Machiavellianism conceptualization // Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 2011. V. 39(3). P. 391—404. DOI:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.3.391
29. Schneider E., Streicher B., Lermer E., Sachs R., Frey D. Measuring the zero-risk bias: Methodological artefact or decision-making strategy? // Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2017. V. 225(1). P. 31—44. DOI:10.1027/2151-2604/a000284
30. Skeem J.L., Cooke D.J. Is criminal behavior a central component of psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the debate // Psychological Assessment. 2010. V. 22(2). P. 433—445. DOI:10.1037/a0008512