Predicting (un)healthy behavior: A comparison of risk-taking propensity measures

Helena Szrek · Li‐Wei Chao · Shandir Ramlagan · Karl Peltzer

130 citations0/0 files storedJudgment and Decision Making

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies Behavioral Health and Interventions

Abstract

We compare four different risk-taking propensity measures on their ability to describe and to predict actual risky behavior in the domain of health. The risk-taking propensity measures we compare are: (1) a general measure of risk-taking propensity derived from a one-item survey question (Dohmen et al., 2011), (2) a risk aversion index calculated from a set of incentivized monetary gambles (Holt & Laury, 2002), (3) a measure of risk taking derived from an incentive compatible behavioral task-the Balloon Analog Risk Task (Lejuez et al., 2002), and (4) a composite score of risk-taking likelihood in the health domain from the Domain-Specific Risk Taking (DOSPERT) scale (Weber et al., 2002). Study participants are 351 clients of health centers around Witbank, South Africa. Our findings suggest that the one-item general measure is the best predictor of risky health behavior in our population, predicting two out of four behaviors at the 5% level and the remaining two behaviors at the 10% level. The DOSPERT score in the health domain performs well, predicting one out of four behaviors at the 1% significance level and two out of four behaviors at the 10% level, but only if the DOSPERT instrument contains a hypothetical risk-taking item that is similar to the actual risky behavior being predicted. Incentivized monetary gambles and the behavioral task were unrelated to actual health behaviors; they were unable to predict any of the risky health behaviors at the 10% level. We provide evidence that this is not because the participants had trouble understanding the monetary trade-off questions or performed poorly in the behavioral task. We conclude by urging researchers to further test the usefulness of the one-item general measure, both in explaining health related risk-taking behavior and in other contexts.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 130 citations exist upstream.

References

2002Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects 2011INDIVIDUAL RISK ATTITUDES: MEASUREMENT, DETERMINANTS, AND BEHAVIORAL CONSEQUENCES 2002A domain‐specific risk‐attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors 2002Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).1999The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework \n 2009Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain 2008Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference 2006Domain Specificity in Experimental Measures and Participant Recruitment

Cited by

2020Less Facebook use – More well-being and a healthier lifestyle? An experimental intervention study 2020Behavioral measures to fight COVID-19: An 8-country study of perceived usefulness, adherence and their predictors 2018How to measure self-esteem with one item? validation of the German single-item self-esteem scale (G-SISE)2016Risk taking across the life span: A comparison of self-report and behavioral measures of risk taking.2019

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.