Abstract
AbstractAlthough risk is often considered in the context of maladaptive behaviors, risks can also be positive, allowing individuals to pursue meaningful goals in a socially accepted way. In this study, we were interested in examining psychological profiles associated with positive and negative risk-taking in adults (N = 275, ages 19–71 years, M = 39.25; SD = 13.73) using latent profile analysis. Specifically, we examined whether distinct profiles of psychological characteristics such as future time perspective, tolerance to ambiguity, and sensitivity to reward and punishment are differentially associated with positive and negative risk-taking. We used the Future Time Perspective Scale (FTPS), the Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (MSTAT-II), the Short Version of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Scale (SPSRQ-SF), the Positive Risk-Taking Scale (PRTS), and the Negative Risk-Taking Scale (NRTS). Findings yielded two profiles: individuals in the first profile, characterized by lower sensitivity to punishment and higher tolerance to ambiguity, future time perspective, and sensitivity to reward, endorsed greater positive and negative risk-taking. Conversely, individuals in the second profile, characterized by heightened sensitivity to punishment and lower tolerance to ambiguity, future time perspective, and sensitivity to reward, endorsed lower positive and negative risk-taking. The study contributes to previous findings by identifying additional psychological characteristics that may be associated with both positive and negative risk-taking in adults.
Funder
National Science Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference42 articles.
1. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2021). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary second model. Mplus Web Notes: No. 21, Version 11. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/webnote21.pdf
2. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
3. Bardi, A., Guerra, V., & Ramdeny, G. (2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their differential relations to well-being in the context of an academic life transition. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003
4. Bors, D., Gruman, J. A., & Shukla, S. (2010). Measuring tolerance of ambiguity: Item polarity, dimensionality, and criterion validity. European Review of Applied Psychology-Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee, 60, 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2010.07.001
5. Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.014