ASYMMETRY OF RISK PERCEPTION IN VARIOUS SOCIAL ROLES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-3209.3.2018.170951Keywords:
Risk aversion, Probability, Risk perception, Risk premium, Bank, Creditworthiness.Abstract
Abstract: The behavior of economic actors is profoundly influenced by biases. An attempt was made in this
study to assess how much an individual’s social role influences the divergence of risk sentiment in potential gain and potential loss situations. A sociological survey was carried out, and data from the Central Bank of Russia on the borrowings of banks demonstrating different creditworthiness levels were analyzed. A technique for quantitative assessment of risk perception was suggested and applied to Russian actors. The conditions for the lowest possible asymmetry of risk perception and for its divergence in private (home and family) versus public (on-the-job) behaviors were determined. It is demonstrated how the social role influences the perception of risk premium. The results of the study can be used to correctly transfer the inferences concerning an individual’s family behaviors to their on-the-job behaviours and
to build models to predict actions and to choose techniques for managing them.
Keywords: Risk aversion, Probability, Risk perception, Risk premium, Bank, Creditworthiness.
References
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Choudhry, R. M., Fang, D. (2008). Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on
constructions sites. Safety Science, 46(4), pp. 566–584.
Conine, T., McDonald, M., Tamarkin, M. (2015). On risk premia and preference for asymmetric gambles.
Journal of Business and Behavioral Science, 27(2), pp. 93–101
Cooper, D. (2003). Psychology, risk & safety: Understanding how personality & perception can inluence risk
taking. Professional Safety, 48(11), pp. 39–46.
Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the technical and environmental dangers.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Erev, I., Ert, E., Yechiam, E. (2008). Loss aversion, diminishing sensitivity, and the effect of experience on re-
peated decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), pp. 575–597.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks
and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), pp. 1–17.
Fischhoff, B. (1983). Predicting frames. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cogni-
tion, 9(1), pp. 103–116.
Fishburn, P., Kochenberger, G. (1979). Two-piece von Neumann – Morgenstern utility functions. Decision
Sciences, 10(4), pp. 503–518.
Gal, D. (2006). A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion. Judgment and Decision Mak-
ing, 1(1), pp. 23–32.
Harding, C.M., Eiser, J.R. (1984). Characterizing the perceived beneits of some health issues. Risk Analysis,
(2), pp. 131–141.
Hershey, J., Schoemaker, P. (1980). Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses: an expected-
utility analysis. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 47(1), pp. 111–132.
Highhouse, S., Johnson, M. (1996). Gain/loss asymmetry and riskless choice: Loss aversion in choices among
job finalists. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), pp. 225–233.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Karginova, V. (2016a). Metodicheskie podhody k kompleksnoj ocenke jekonomicheskogo potenciala regiona i
urovnja ego ispol'zovanija. Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, 8, pp. 86-97.
Karginova, V. (2016b). Ocenka i uchjot riska nedopoluchenija dohoda v regionah Rossii. In: Modeling and
Analysis of Safety and Risk in Complex Systems: Proceedings of the International Scientific School MA SR. Saint-
Petersburg, October 25-28, 2016. Saint-Petersburg: SUAI, pp. 150-154.
Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Fitzgerald, K. B. (1996). Conflicting views on fair siting processes: Evidence from Aus-
tria and the US. Risk Issues in Health, Safety and Environment, 7(2), pp. 119–134.
Monitoring stavok po vkladam v bankah RF. Available at: http://www.banki.ru/news/research/?id=1683728.
[Accessed 27.12.2016].
Payne, J., Laughhunn, D., Crum R. (1980). Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice
behavior. Management Science, 26 (10), pp. 1039–1060.
Rejtingi bankov. Available at: http://www.banki.ru/banks/ratings/. [Accessed 27.12.2016].
Rejtingi kreditosposobnosti bankov. Available at: http://www.raexpert.ru/ratings/bankcredit/. [Accessed
12.2016].
Sachau, D., Simmering, L., Adler, M. (2012). A birdie in the hand: asymmetry in golf risk preferences. Inter-
national Journal of Golf Science, 1(2), pp. 81–89.
Sekścińska, K., Trzcińska, A., Maison, D. A. (2016). The influence of different social roles activation on
women's financial and consumer choices. Frontiers in psychology, 7.
Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan Ltd.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Response mode, framing, and information processing effects
in risk assessment. In: New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Question Framing and Re-
sponse Consistency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 21-36.
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. London: printed for A. Millar, in the Strand; and A. Kincaid
and J. Bell, in Edinburgh.
Stanovich, K. (2010). Decision making and rationality in the modern world. New York: Oxford.
The hofstede centre. Available at: https://geert-hofstede.com/. [Accessed 27.12.2016].
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), pp. 453–458.
Yechiam, E., Hochman, G. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: review and analysis of the unique effects
of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), pp. 497–518.
Yechiam, E., Telpaz, A., Hochman, G. (2014). The complaint bias in subjective evaluations of incentives. Decision, 1(2), pp. 147–160.
Downloads
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
