Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2018, Vol. 26 Issue (5) : 928-938     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00928
Regular Articles |
 New avenues for the development of domain-specific nature of risky decision making
 YUE Ling-Zi; LI Shu; LIANG Zhu-Yuan
 (CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing 100101, China) (Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)
Download: PDF(430 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract   The term “risk-domain specificity” refers to the domain-specific nature of risky decision making due to the presence of factors that are particular to a certain content domain. Based on classical risky decision making theories stemming from laws of expectation, risk-taking propensity is domain-general. On the other hand, substantial evidences from past studies indicate that risk-taking propensity is domain-specific. The literature on risk-domain specificity has witnessed considerable progress in terms of mechanisms, measurements, and independent variables. Theoretically, early mainstream mechanisms deconstructed risk behavior based on a risk-return framework, whereas recent studies have validated the mechanisms with new sets of evidence and explained risk-domain specificity from the perspectives of evolution, personality and motivation. In terms of measurements, Domain-specific Risk Taking Scale (DOSPERT), as a dominant scale, has been further validated in various cultures, content domains, and groups. In comparison, other scales based on different content domains have been proven to be consistent and valid. In terms of independent variables, the regularity of risk-domain specificity has been proposed from various perspectives, such as genetics, environment and individual differences. Future research may focus on content domain integration and theory validation in detailed content domains as well as exploring regularity and mechanisms of risk-domain specificity at an individual level.
Keywords risk      risk-taking propensity      risk domains      domain specificity     
ZTFLH:     
  B849:C91  
Fund: 
Corresponding Authors: LIANG Zhu-Yuan, E-mail: liangzy@psych.ac.cn     E-mail: E-mail: liangzy@psych.ac.cn
Issue Date: 31 March 2018
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
YUE Ling-Zi
LI Shu
LIANG Zhu-Yuan
Cite this article:   
YUE Ling-Zi,LI Shu,LIANG Zhu-Yuan.  New avenues for the development of domain-specific nature of risky decision making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(5): 928-938.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00928     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2018/V26/I5/928
[1] WANG Xinjian, ZHANG Huijuan, WU Di, LV Xiaokang.  Cultural influences on individual risk perception: Cultural cognition theory’s explanation[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(8): 1251-1260.
[2] ZHONG Yiping, ZHAN Youlong, LI Jin, FAN Wei.  Study on the mechanism and intervention of moral decision: Effects of self-relevance and risk level[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(7): 1093-1102.
[3] XIANG Peng; GENG Liuna; ZHOU Kexin; CHENG Xiao. Adverse effects and theoretical frameworks of air pollution: An environmental psychology perspective[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(4): 691-700.
[4] SONG Yunqiang; XU Ruiheng; XING Cai. Risk-sensitivity theory: Need motivates risky decision-making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(3): 486-499.
[5] LI Kai; GUO Yongyu; YANG Shenlong. Public risk perception of terror attacks[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(2): 358-369.
[6] Sun Jingwei; Li Jian; Zhang Hang . Humans represent visuo-spatial probability distribution as k-means clusters[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(Suppl.): 41-.
[7] YANG Qun; LI Yu; SUN Delin; LEE Tatia M. C.. The effects of stress on risky and social decision making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(6): 974-984.
[8] LI Aimei; TAN Lei; SUN Hailong; Xiong Guanxing; Pan Jiyang. The effect of sleep deprivation on risky choice: A dual-process models approach[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(5): 804-814.
[9] LU Jingyi; WANG Yue. The effect of psychological insecurity on risk preference[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(5): 676-683.
[10] LI Xiao-Ming; HE Ping; LIU Lin-Ying. Red graphical effect in risk avoidance behavior[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(3): 351-355.
[11] HUANG Wenqiang; YANG Shasha; YU Ping. Neural mechanisms of risky decision-making based on rodent research[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(11): 1767-1779.
[12] GU Ruolei; SHI Yuanyuan; YANG Jing; SHI Jing; CAI Huajian. The Influence of Anxiety on Social Decision Behavior[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(4): 547-553.
[13] LIU Yan; GU Chuanhua. Interpersonal Sensitivity: From Social Cognition to Psychological Risk Factor[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(3): 489-495.
[14] ZHANG Fenghua; ZHANG Yuting; XIANG Ling; HU Zhujing. The Cognitive and Neural Mechanism of Ambiguity Decision-making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(3): 364-374.
[15] LI Bin; XU Fuming; WANG Wei; ZHANG Hui; LUO Hanbing. Decision Making Processing and Individual Differences: The Perspective of Fuzzy-trace Theory[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(2): 316-324.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech