Aspiracje a ocena ryzyka i wybór

• Autorzy: Joanna Sokołowska , Krzysztof Ducal , Karolina Chlebowska

Warianty tytułu

Impact of Aspirations on Risk Judgment and on Risky Choices

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Celem prezentowanych badań było: (1) sprawdzenie, czy ocena i akceptacja ryzyka to dwa niezależne procesy psychologiczne oraz (2) jaki wpływ na oba procesy ma poziom aspiracji. Sprawdzano, czy oceny ryzyka są niezależne, a wybory zależne od aspiracji. W Eksperymencie 1, 72 pracownikom firmy high-tech prezentowano pakiety akcyjne. Poziom aspiracji, zdefiniowany jako procentowy zysk z inwestycji, był narzucony przez instrukcję. W Eksperymencie 2, 93 uczestnikom turniejów brydżowych prezentowano rozkłady kart oraz pary możliwych kontraktów, z których pierwszy dawał pewną niższą, a drugi niepewną wyższą wygraną. Poziom aspiracji, narzucany przez instrukcję, odnosił się do liczby punktów IMP w rozgrywce knock-out. W obu eksperymentach zastosowano schemat porównań międzygrupowych dla dwóch poziomów aspiracji. Respondenci oceniali ryzyko prezentowanych opcji i wybierali jedną z nich. Na podstawie uzyskanych wyników można stwierdzić, że oceny ryzyka były takie same, niezależnie od poziomu aspiracji, natomiast wybory respondentów były różne, przy różnym poziomie aspiracji. Jest to zgodne z tezą, że ocena i akceptacja ryzyka to dwa niezależne procesy psychologiczne. (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

The presented experiments are aimed at determining: (1) whether risk perception and risk acceptance are two distinct psychological processes and (2) how aspirations affect each process. It has been tested whether risk is independent of and preferences are depend on aspirations. In Experiment 1 72 employees of a high-tech company were presented with pairs of risky projects. The aspiration level was defi ned as the target return on the project and was set through an explicit instruction. In Experiment 2 93 bridge players were presented with pairs of contracts - one a sure thing and the other a risky one. The aspiration level was related to the team IMP points after the fi rst part of a knockout tournament and was set through an instruction. In both experiments with a between-subject design, two different aspiration levels were set for each group. All respondents were asked to judge riskiness of presented options and to select one. The results indicate that risk perception is insensitive to changes in aspirations, but preferences are. This supports distinctness of risk perception and risk acceptance. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Ryzyko; Ocena ryzyka; Teoria wyboru; Postrzeganie ryzyka

EN

Risk; Risk assessment; Choice theory; Risk perception

• Czasopismo: Decyzje
• Rocznik: 2012
• Numer: nr 17
• Strony: 65--86

Twórcy

autor

Joanna Sokołowska

• Instytut Psychologii PAN

autor

Krzysztof Ducal

• Sygnity S.A.

autor

Karolina Chlebowska

• PricewaterhouseCoopers

Bibliografia

• Ali, M.M. 1977. Probability and utility estimates for racetrack bettors. "Journal of Political Economy" 85 (4): 801-815.
• Audia, P.G., Greve, H.R. 2006. Less likely to fail: low performance, fi rm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. "Management Science" 52(1): 83-94.
• Bell, D.E. 1995. Risk, return, and utility. "Management Science" 41: 23-30.
• Bell, D.E. 1988. One-switch utility functions and measures of risk. "Management Science" 34: 1416-1424.
• Bowman, E.H. 1982. Risk seeking by troubled fi rms. "Sloan Management Review" 23(4): 33-42.
• Coombs, C.H. 1975. Portfolio theory and the measurement of risk. W: M.F. Kaplan, S. Schwartz (red.). Human Judgment and decision process. New York: Academic Press.
• Fiegenbaum, A. 1990. Prospect theory and the risk-return association. "Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization" 14: 187-203.
• Fiegenbaum, A., Thomas, H. 1988. Attitudes toward risk and the risk-return paradox: Prospect theory explanations. "Academy of Management Journal" 31: 85-106.
• Friedman, M., Savage, J.L. 1948. The utility analysis of choice involving risk. "Journal of Political Economy" 56: 279-304.
• Grifi th, R.M. 1949. Odds adjustments by American horse-race bettors. "The American Journal of Psychology: 62(2): 290-294.
• Greve, H.R. 1988. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. "Administrative Science Quarterly" 44: 58-86.
• Jia, J., Dyer, J.S., Butler, J.C. 1999. Measure of perceived risk. "Management Science" 45(4): 519-532.
• Jia, J., Dyer, J.S. 1996. A standard measure of risk and risk-value models. "Management Science" 42: 1691-1705.
• Johnson, J. G., Wilke, A., Weber, E.U. 2004. Beyond a trait view of risk-taking: A domain-specific scale measuring risk perceptions, expected benefi ts, and perceived-risk attitude in German-speaking populations. "Polish Psychological Bulletin" 35: 153-163.
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. "Econometrica" 47: 263-291.
• Keller, L.R, Sarin, R.K., Weber, M. 1986. Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles. "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process" 38: 114-130.
• Lehner, J.M. 2000. Shifts of reference points for framing of strategic decisions and changing riskreturn association. "Management Science" 46: 63-76.
• Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. 1973. Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: an extended replication in Las Vegas. "Journal of Experimental Psychology" 101 (1): 16-20.
• Lopes L.L. 1990. Re-modeling risk aversion: A comparison of Bernoullian and rank dependent value approaches. W: G.M. von Fuerstenberg (ed.). Acting under uncertainty: Multidisciplinary conceptions, Boston: Kluwer, 267-299.
• Lopes L.L. 1987. Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. "Advances in Experimental Social Psychology" 20: 255-295.
• Lopes L.L. 1984. Risk and distributional inequality. "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance" 10: 465-485.
• Lopes, L.L., Oden, G.C. 1999. The role of aspiration level in risky choice: a comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. "Journal of Mathematical Psychology" 43: 286-313.
• March, J.G., Shapira, Z. 1992. Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. "Psychological Review" 99: 172-183.
• March, J.G., Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspective on risk and risk taking. "Management Science" 33: 1404-1418.
• Markowitz, H. 1959. Portfolio Selection. New York: Wiley.
• Markowitz, H. 1952. The utility of wealth. "Journal of Political Economy" 60 (2): 151-158
• Mellers, B.A., Schwartz, A., Weber E.U. 1997. Do risk attitudes refl ect in the eye of the beholder? W: A.A.J. Marley (red.) Choice, Decision, and Measurement. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, s. 57-71.
• Miller, K.D., Bromiley, P. 1990. Strategic risk and corporate performance: An analysis of alternative risk measures. "Academy of Management Journal" 4: 756-779.
• Miller, K.D., Chen, W.R. 2004. Variale organizational risk preferences: tests of the March-Shapira model. "Academy of Management Journal" 47: 105-115.
• McGlothlin, W.H. Stability of Choices Among Uncertain Alternatives. "American Journal of Psychology" 69: 604-15.
• Payne, J.W. 1975. Relation of perceived risk to preferences among gambles. "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance" 104: 86-94.
• Quiggin, J. 1982. A theory of anticipated utility. "Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization" 3: 324-345.
• Rosetti, R.N. 1965. Gambling and rationality. "Journal of Political Economy" 73 (6): 595-607.
• Sarin, R.K., Weber, M. 1993. Risk-value models. "European Journal of Operational Research" 70: 135-149.
• Shapira, Z. 1994. Risk Taking: A managerial perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Sokołowska, J. 2006. Risk Perception and Acceptance: One Process or Two? "Experimental Psychology" 53 (4): 247-259.
• Sokołowska, J., Pohorille, A. 2000. Models of Risk and Choice: Challenge or danger. "Acta Psychologica" 104: 339-369.
• Sokołowska, J., Tyszka, T. 1995. Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental hazards. "Risk Analysis" 15: 733-743.
• Tversky A., Kahneman, D. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulaative representation of uncertainty. "Journal of Risk and Uncertainty" 5: 297-323.
• Weber, E.U., & Millman, R. 1997. Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice. "Management Science" 43: 122-143.
• Weber, E.U., & Hsse, C.K. 1998. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception but cross-cultural similarities in risk attitudes toward risk. "Management Science" 44: 1205-1217.
• Weber, E.U., Anderson, C., & Birnbaum, M.H. 1992. A theory of perceived risk and attractiveness. "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes" 52: 492-523.
• Weber, E.U., Bottom, W.P. 1989. Axiomatic measures of perceived risk: some tests and extensions. "Journal of Behavioral Decision Making" 2: 113-131.
• Wiesman, R.M., Broomiley. 1996. Toward a model of risk in declining organizations: An experimental examination of risk, performance, and decline. "Organizational Science" 7: 524-543.