RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Fattori, Karina Alessandra
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Howat-Rodrigues, Anna Beatriz Carnielli, Izar, Patrícia
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Psicologia (Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Online)
Texto Completo: http://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/ptp/article/view/10492
Resumo: We aimed to build, to standardize and to get evidence of the validity of a card game to study the risk-taking. We investigated risk-taking outcomes by a coefficient of variation and risk-adjusted performance measure. We work with the hypothesis that the valid instrument would differ with success gender differences, pointing men more likely to be risk-taker than women. In addition to the card game, initially with eight rounds, 243 answered the sociodemographic questionnaire. Results indicated the pertinence of six rounds and presented validity evidence based on response process and on external criterion, presenting higher risk-propensity scores for males than for females. We conclude that the instrument is innovative, considering losses in the study of risk, and proved to be valid for use with Brazilian sample.Keywords: risk; psychological measure; instrument; decision-making; quantitative Research
id UPM-1_dc7ba54f67c01d18314fac5dca5a83fc
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.editorarevistas.mackenzie.br:article/10492
network_acronym_str UPM-1
network_name_str Psicologia (Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCESJUEGO INCLINACIÓN AL RIESGO: CONSTRUCCIÓN, EVIDENCIA DE VALIDEZ Y DIFERENCIAS DE GÉNEROTHE RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCESWe aimed to build, to standardize and to get evidence of the validity of a card game to study the risk-taking. We investigated risk-taking outcomes by a coefficient of variation and risk-adjusted performance measure. We work with the hypothesis that the valid instrument would differ with success gender differences, pointing men more likely to be risk-taker than women. In addition to the card game, initially with eight rounds, 243 answered the sociodemographic questionnaire. Results indicated the pertinence of six rounds and presented validity evidence based on response process and on external criterion, presenting higher risk-propensity scores for males than for females. We conclude that the instrument is innovative, considering losses in the study of risk, and proved to be valid for use with Brazilian sample.Keywords: risk; psychological measure; instrument; decision-making; quantitative ResearchEste artículo tiene como objetivo construir, estandarizar y hasta pruebas de validez de una herramienta de juego de cartas para el estudio de la inclinación al riesgo. Investigamos los resultados de inclinación al riesgo del coeficiente de variación y medida de rendimiento ajustada al riesgo. Trabajamos con la hipótesis que el instrumento válido haria la diferencia con éxito diferencias sexuales apuntando hombres como más probable ao risco do que mujeres. Además del juego, inicialmente con ocho rondas, 243 participantes respondieron un cuestionario sociodemográfico. Los resultados indican la pertinencia de seis rondas y se presentó pruebas de validez basado en el proceso de respuesta y en criterios externos, presentando puntuaciones de propensión al riesgo más altas para los hombres que para las mujeres. Se concluye que el instrumento es innovador, considerando pérdidas en el estudio de riesgo y probado ser válido para su uso con muestra brasileña.Palabras clave: riesgo; medición psicológica; instrumento; toma de decision; investigación cuantitativa.Este artigo teve como objetivos construir, padronizar e levantar evidências de validade de um jogo de cartas para o estudo da propensão ao risco. Investigamos os resultados da propensão ao risco a partir do coeficiente de variação de ganhos e medi- da de desempenho ajustado de risco. Trabalhamos com a hipótese de que o instrumento válido diferenciaria com êxito diferenças sexuais, apontando homens como mais propensos a se arriscar do que mulheres. Adicionalmente ao jogo de cartas, inicialmente com oito rodadas, 243 participantes responderam a um questionário sociodemográfico. Resultados apontaram a pertinência de seis rodadas e apresentou indicativos de evidências de validade baseada no processo de resposta e em critério externo, apresentando maiores escores de propensão ao risco para homens do que para mulheres. Concluímos que o instrumento é inovador, visto a consideração de perdas no estudo do risco e mostrou-se como válido para utilização com amostra brasileira.Palavras-chave: risco; medida psicológica; instrumento; tomada de decisão; pesquisaquantitativa.Editora Mackenzie2017-07-17info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionAPapplication/pdfhttp://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/ptp/article/view/10492Journal Psychology: Theory and Practice ; Vol. 19 No. 1 (2017)Revista Psicologia: Teoría y Práctica; Vol. 19 Núm. 1 (2017)Revista Psicologia: Teoria e Prática; v. 19 n. 1 (2017)1980-69061516-3687reponame:Psicologia (Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Online)instname:Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM)instacron:UPMenghttp://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/ptp/article/view/10492/6592Fattori, Karina AlessandraHowat-Rodrigues, Anna Beatriz CarnielliIzar, Patríciainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2017-09-15T20:42:36Zoai:ojs.editorarevistas.mackenzie.br:article/10492Revistahttp://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/ptp/indexPRIhttp://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/ptp/oairevistapsico@mackenzie.br1980-69061516-3687opendoar:2017-09-15T20:42:36Psicologia (Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Online) - Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
JUEGO INCLINACIÓN AL RIESGO: CONSTRUCCIÓN, EVIDENCIA DE VALIDEZ Y DIFERENCIAS DE GÉNERO
THE RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
title RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
spellingShingle RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
Fattori, Karina Alessandra
title_short RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
title_full RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
title_fullStr RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
title_full_unstemmed RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
title_sort RISK-TAKING GAME: CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY EVIDENCE, AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
author Fattori, Karina Alessandra
author_facet Fattori, Karina Alessandra
Howat-Rodrigues, Anna Beatriz Carnielli
Izar, Patrícia
author_role author
author2 Howat-Rodrigues, Anna Beatriz Carnielli
Izar, Patrícia
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Fattori, Karina Alessandra
Howat-Rodrigues, Anna Beatriz Carnielli
Izar, Patrícia
description We aimed to build, to standardize and to get evidence of the validity of a card game to study the risk-taking. We investigated risk-taking outcomes by a coefficient of variation and risk-adjusted performance measure. We work with the hypothesis that the valid instrument would differ with success gender differences, pointing men more likely to be risk-taker than women. In addition to the card game, initially with eight rounds, 243 answered the sociodemographic questionnaire. Results indicated the pertinence of six rounds and presented validity evidence based on response process and on external criterion, presenting higher risk-propensity scores for males than for females. We conclude that the instrument is innovative, considering losses in the study of risk, and proved to be valid for use with Brazilian sample.Keywords: risk; psychological measure; instrument; decision-making; quantitative Research
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-07-17
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
AP
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/ptp/article/view/10492
url http://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/ptp/article/view/10492
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://editorarevistas.mackenzie.br/index.php/ptp/article/view/10492/6592
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora Mackenzie
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora Mackenzie
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal Psychology: Theory and Practice ; Vol. 19 No. 1 (2017)
Revista Psicologia: Teoría y Práctica; Vol. 19 Núm. 1 (2017)
Revista Psicologia: Teoria e Prática; v. 19 n. 1 (2017)
1980-6906
1516-3687
reponame:Psicologia (Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Online)
instname:Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM)
instacron:UPM
instname_str Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM)
instacron_str UPM
institution UPM
reponame_str Psicologia (Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Online)
collection Psicologia (Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Psicologia (Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Online) - Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie (UPM)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistapsico@mackenzie.br
_version_ 1754847729837670400

Registros relacionados