The following post is a review/critique of :
Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. (1995). Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (6), 1573-1592.
This article aims to contribute to the extensive research on human risk taking behaviors by suggesting that previous theories (like prospect theory) and shown effects are mediated by some cognitive mechanisms – Risk Propensity and Risk Perception. The model suggested by the article is very clear and straightforward which conveys the contribution in the process that occurs in the risk decision making situations.
As a general statement regarding varying effect of mediation variables and a positive note on the paper, I believe it is very difficult to pre-determine in theory construction when a full or partial effect will take place, as is clearly shown by some of the results in the paper. The paper hypothesized a partial mediator that was found to be much stronger (Risk Propensity mediated by Risk Perception leading to Risky Decision Making behavior), and a suggested full mediator was found to be partial (Problem Framing effects Risky Decision Making behavior both directly and through Risk Perception). The number of variables and their constructs make mediation quite confusing, so I believe in that sense that article did a very good job and the model that appeared is also quite interesting, even if it doesn’t have the full criticizing effect on prospect theory and the likes as was hoped.
To show some of the challenges with mediation, “Outcome History”’s effect on Risk Propensity could seem to some as insufficient, as there could be another mediator in between that has to do with “Self Efficacy” for example. Previous record of success would contribute to higher self efficacy (perception of your ability to beat the odds, or do better than the odds) that would lead to reduced perception of risk, perhaps mediated by high levels of risk propensity. The “mediation game” could perhaps be played again and again.
A few things about the method used – continuing the point on self-efficacy, I believe the method used with the race situation is very much self efficacy related, based on previous experience of success in the area. Framing this about others would involved “others efficacy” in the person’s perception of their ability to do well. Either way, framing the question with “you have always derived a sense of self-assurance from your successful track record” (page 1581) sound more like self-efficacy than “outcome history” to me.
Furthermore, the yes/no question on the decision to be made reflects, in my view, more of risk propensity (which is measured using some scale I’m not familiar with) than actual risk behavior since there is no actual action taken, which really makes me wonder about that full mediation between the two variables and what it means. A stricter test would be to have this applied to a real-life situation in which a decision was really forced to be made by the participant, with – and I believe this is important – actual personal implications for the person in order for him to relate to the risk prescribed (risk relevancy, if you wish).
You may also like -
Incoming search terms:
- a high level of risk propensity
- risk propensity in decision making
- determinants of risky decision-making behavior: a test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity
- determinants of risky decision-making behavior a test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity
- what is risks propensity
- risky decision making
- role of risk propensity in the decision making process
- role of risk propensity in the decision-making process