Developing and Validating a Multi-Domain Risk Attitudes Scale in the Multi-Ethnic Asian Population in Singapore

Abstract

Maladaptive risk attitudes, such as extreme risk seeking and risk aversion, are closely linked to psychopathology such as psychopathy and anxiety. Having culturally appropriate assessments of risk attitudes is essential for the research of psychology and psychopathology of responses to risk in a target population. We aimed to develop and validate the multi-domain risk tolerance (MDRT) scale for the multi-ethnic Singaporean population. Initial items were constructed from revising the item pool used in the previous study via interviews with Singaporean community-dwelling adults (N = 31). The candidate items of the MDRT were then tested and selected via a subsequent survey study (N = 882). A second longitudinal study (N = 1003) with two time-point measurements was conducted to validate the MDRT scale. The results suggested that the scale had satisfactory structural validity, criterion validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. The MDRT scale also demonstrated scalar measurement invariance across genders and age groups. The results further highlighted the importance of cultural adaptation of measures in risk attitudes and continuing improvement of assessment and understanding of risk attitudes across populations.

Keywords

risk tolerance risk-taking measurement invariance domain-specific Singapore Southeast Asia

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blais

A.-R.

Weber

E. U.

(2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000334

Breuer

Kollath

Salzmann

A. J.

Von Nitzsch

(2013). The assessment of risk behavior: A cross-cultural analysis using the Dospert scale. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2292364

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Chen

Hsu

C.-L.

Lin

A. J.

(2020). Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 54, 101142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2020.101142

Cheung

H. Y.

Tao

(2013). Risk perception and risk-taking attitude: A comparison between Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese undergraduate students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0048-7

Dohmen

Falk

Huffman

Sunde

Schupp

Wagner

G. G.

(2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x

(2014). Testing risk-taking behavior in Chinese undergraduate students. PLoS One, 9(5), e97989. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097989

Farnham

Ziegler

Blanke

Stone

Hatz

Puhan

M. A.

(2018). Does the DOSPERT scale predict risk-taking behaviour during travel? A study using smartphones. Journal of Travel Medicine, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/tay064

Fryt

Szczygieł

Duell

(2022). Positive and negative risk-taking: Age patterns and relations to domain-specific risk-taking. Advances in Life Course Research, 54, 100515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2022.100515

10.

Galizzi

M. M.

Miraldo

Stavropoulou

(2016). In sickness but not in wealth: Field evidence on patients’ risk preferences in financial and health domains. Medical Decision Making, 36(4), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15626406

11.

Gloede

Menkhoff

Waibel

(2015). Shocks, individual risk attitude, and vulnerability to poverty among rural households in Thailand and Vietnam. World Development, 71, 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.11.005

12.

Golino

Christensen

A. P.

Moulder

Garrido

L. E.

Jamison

Shi

(2023). Eganet—Exploratory graph analysis: A framework for estimating the number of dimensions in multivariate data using network psychometrics. R package version 2.0.6. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.EGAnet

13.

Golino

Epskamp

(2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLoS One, 12(6), e0174035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174035

14.

Golino

Shi

Christensen

A. P.

Garrido

L. E.

Nieto

M. D.

Sadana

Thiyagarajan

J. A.

Martinez-Molina

(2020). Investigating the performance of exploratory graph analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000255

15.

Goretzko

Pham

T. T. H.

Bühner

(2021). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Current Psychology, 40, 3510–3521.

16.

Hardeweg

Menkhoff

Waibel

(2013). Experimentally validated survey evidence on individual risk attitudes in rural Thailand. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 61(4), 859–888. https://doi.org/10.1086/670378

17.

Teerawichitchainan

Tan

Lie Tan

E. R.

(2023). Risk attitudes in late adulthood: Do parenthood status and family size matter? Research on Aging, 45(5–6), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/01640275221116091

18.

Hoffmann

Muttarak

(2017). Learn from the past, prepare for the future: Impacts of education and experience on disaster preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand. World Development, 96, 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.016

19.

Jorgensen

T. D.

Pornprasertmanit

Schoemann

A. M.

Rosseel

(2022). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5-6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools

20.

Kim

T. H.

(2014). Domain specific relationships of 2D:4D digit ratio in risk perception and risk behavior. The Journal of General Psychology, 141(4), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2014.950188

21.

Kline

R. B.

(2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

22.

Koo

T. K.

M. Y.

(2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

23.

Lee

Ashton

M. C.

(2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment, 25(5), 543–556.

24.

Leong

F. T. L.

Okazaki

Tak

(2003). Assessment of depression and anxiety in East Asia. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.290

25.

Lönnqvist

J.-E.

Verkasalo

Walkowitz

Wichardt

P. C.

(2015). Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 119, 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.08.003

26.

Luong

Flake

J. K.

(2023). Measurement invariance testing using confirmatory factor analysis and alignment optimization: A tutorial for transparent analysis planning and reporting. Psychological Methods, 28(4), 905.

27.

Markiewicz

Ł.

Muda

Kubińska

Augustynowicz

. (2020). An explanatory analysis of perceived risk decision weights (perceived-risk attitudes) and perceived benefit decision weights (perceived-benefit attitudes) in risk-value models. Journal of Risk Research, 23(6), 739–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1628089

28.

Mata

Josef

A. K.

Hertwig

(2016). Propensity for risk taking across the life span and around the globe. Psychological Science, 27(2), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615617811

29.

Mognard

Naidoo

Laporte

Tibère

Alem

Khusun

Februhartanty

Niiyama

Ueda

Dasgupta

Dupuy

Rochedy

Yuen

J. L.

Ismail

M. N.

Nair

P. K.

Ragavan

N. A.

Poulain

J.-P.

(2023). “Eating out”, spatiality, temporality and sociality. A database for China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and France. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10, 1066737. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1066737

30.

R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/

31.

R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

32.

Reeck

Mullette-Gillman

O. A.

McLaurin

R. E.

Huettel

S. A.

(2022). Beyond money: Risk preferences across both economic and non-economic contexts predict financial decisions. PLoS One, 17(12), e0279125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279125

33.

Revelle

(2024). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University. R package version 2.4.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

34.

Rohrer

J. M.

(2017). Test-retest reliabilities of scales included in the socio-economic panel study. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3ncbt

35.

Rolison

J. J.

Hanoch

Wood

Liu

P.-J.

(2014). Risk-taking differences Across the adult life span: A question of age and domain. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 69(6), 870–880. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt081

36.

Rolison

J. J.

Shenton

(2020). How much risk can you stomach? Individual differences in the tolerance of perceived risk across gender and risk domain. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2144

37.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

38.

Schubert

(2006). Analyzing and managing risks—on the importance of gender differences in risk attitudes. Managerial Finance, 32(9), 706–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074350610681925

39.

Schwartz

Yamagishi

Hirahara

Onishi

Barnes

Rosman

Garcia

Lee

Butler

(2013). Risk perception and risk attitudes in Tokyo: A report of the first administration of DOSPERT+M in Japan. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(6), 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004721

40.

Shou

Liu

Takemura

Olney

(2024). Measuring risk tolerance among Japanese adults and cross-national comparison of its role in COVID-19 attitudes. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 1015-5759/a000831. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000831

41.

Shou

Olney

(2020). Assessing a domain-specific risk-taking construct: A meta-analysis of reliability of the DOSPERT scale. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S193029750000694X

42.

Shou

Olney

(2021). Attitudes toward risk and uncertainty: The role of subjective knowledge and affect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2217

43.

Shou

Olney

(2022). Measuring risk tolerance across domains: Scale development and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(4), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1966019

44.

Shou

Olney

Wang

M.-C.

(2023). Cross-cultural assessment and comparisons of risk tolerance across domains. Current Psychology, 42(18), 15368–15380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02843-3

45.

Steg

De Groot

J. I. M.

Dreijerink

Abrahamse

Siero

(2011). General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: The role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Society & Natural Resources, 24(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903214116

46.

Ullah

A. K. M. A.

Ming Yit Ho

. (2021). Globalisation and cultures in Southeast Asia: Demise, fragmentation, transformation. Global Society, 35(2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2020.1747992

47.

Van De Vijver

F. J. R.

(2020). Research methods in cross-cultural psychology. In Van

F. J. R.

Vijver

(Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.454

48.

Van Winsen

De Mey

Lauwers

Van Passel

Vancauteren

Wauters

. (2016). Determinants of risk behaviour: Effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer’s adoption of risk management strategies. Journal of Risk Research, 19(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.940597

49.

Vieider

F. M.

Lefebvre

Bouchouicha

Chmura

Hakimov

Krawczyk

Martinsson

(2015). Common components of risk and uncertainty attitudes across contexts and domains: Evidence from 30 countries. Journal of the European Economic Association, 13(3), 421–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12102

50.

Vieira

K. M.

Flores

S. A. M.

Mendes-Da-Silva

(2024). Perceived risks and benefits of medical remedies and procedures: What do men and women think? RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 25(1), eRAMG240026. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eramg240026.en

51.

Vilagut

(2024). Test-retest reliability. In A. C. Michalos, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 7180–7184). Springer International Publishing.

52.

Wang

Liu

Zhu

Jiang

(2024). The impact of risk aversion and migrant work experience on farmers’ entrepreneurship: Evidence from China. Agriculture, 14(2), 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020209

53.

Weber

E. U.

Blais

Betz

N. E.

(2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414

54.

Wichary

Pachur

(2015). Risk-taking tendencies in prisoners and nonprisoners: Does gender matter? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(5), 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1866

55.

World Bank. (2019). A brief overview on the road safety approach in Singapore. World Bank. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/33085

56.

Cheung

H. Y.

(2014). Confirmatory factor analysis of Dospert scale with Chinese university students. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.2466/09.03.PR0.114k15w2

57.

Zhang

D. C.

Foster

G. C.

McKenna

M. G.

(2019). Is the DOSPERT gender invariant? A psychometric test of measurement invariance. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2105

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB