Structure of the Dospert: Is There Evidence for a General Risk Factor?

The Domain-specific Risk-taking scale was designed to assess risk taking in specific domains. This approach is unconventional in personality assessment but reflects conventional wisdom in the decision community that cross-situational consistency in risk taking is more myth than reality. We applied bifactor analysis to a large sample (n = 921) of responses to the Domain-specific Risk Taking. Results showed that, in addition to domain-specific facets, there does appear to be evidence for a general risk-taking disposition. And this general appetite for risk appears to be useful for predicting real-world outcomes. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  E. Weber,et al.  A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors , 2002 .

[2]  E. Weber,et al.  A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for Adult Populations , 2006, Judgment and Decision Making.

[3]  Elke U. Weber,et al.  The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.

[4]  Seymour Epstein,et al.  The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. , 1979 .

[5]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: do we know what we think we know? , 2010, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  B. Roberts.  Personality Development and Organizational Behavior , 2006 .

[7]  Michael T. Brannick,et al.  Construction of a Job in General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. , 1989 .

[8]  S. West,et al.  A Comparison of Bifactor and Second-Order Models of Quality of Life , 2006, Multivariate behavioral research.

[9]  N. Feather,et al.  The impact of unemployment in relation to age and length of unemployment , 1987 .

[10]  Monica Gori,et al.  Cross-Sensory Facilitation Reveals Neural Interactions between Visual and Tactile Motion in Humans , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[11]  L. Cronbach.  Essentials of psychological testing, 2nd ed. , 1960 .

[12]  A. Neal,et al.  A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  S. Reise.  The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models , 2012 .

[14]  Karin A. Orvis,et al.  A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  A. Stewart,et al.  The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. , 1988, Medical care.

[16]  S. Reise,et al.  Bifactor Models and Rotations: Exploring the Extent to Which Multidimensional Data Yield Univocal Scale Scores , 2010, Journal of personality assessment.

[17]  Jordan B Peterson,et al.  Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  K. Holzinger,et al.  The Bi-factor method , 1937 .

[19]  Reid L. Skeel,et al.  The utility of personality variables and behaviorally-based measures in the prediction of risk-taking behavior , 2007 .

[20]  John P. Campbell,et al.  Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. , 1990 .

[21]  Mary L. Tenopyr,et al.  CONTENT?CONSTRUCT CONFUSION , 1977 .

[22]  E. Weber,et al.  Perceived risk attitudes: relating risk perception to risky choice , 1997 .

[23]  John Schmid,et al.  The development of hierarchical factor solutions , 1957 .

[24]  D N Jackson,et al.  A four-dimensional interpretation of risk taking. , 1972, Journal of personality.

[25]  J. Weller,et al.  Predicting domain-specific risk taking with the HEXACO personality structure , 2011 .

[26]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[27]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Attitudes toward objects as predictors of sin-gle and multiple behavioral criteria , 1974 .

[28]  Daniel A. Newman,et al.  How Important are Job Attitudes? Meta-Analytic Comparisons of Integrative Behavioral Outcomes and Time Sequences , 2006 .

[29]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[30]  Edward J. O'Brien,et al.  The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. , 1985 .

[31]  C. Fox,et al.  The Elusive Search for Stable Risk Preferences , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[32]  An evaluation of the Choice Dilemma Questionnaire as a measure of risk-taking propensity , 2000 .

[33]  D. Ones,et al.  Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[34]  Gilles E. Gignac.  Fluid intelligence shares closer to 60% of its variance with working memory capacity and is a better indicator of general intelligence , 2014 .

[35]  J. Carroll.  Human Cognitive Abilities , 1993 .

[36]  Yaniv Hanoch,et al.  Domain Specificity in Experimental Measures and Participant Recruitment , 2006, Psychological science.

[37]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  Investigating the Dimensionality of Counterproductive Work Behavior , 2003 .

[38]  E. Weber,et al.  Who Takes Risks When and Why? , 2011 .