@misc{ZambranoCurcioUrbigBoenteetal., author = {Zambrano-Curcio, Andr{\´e}s Felipe and Urbig, Diemo and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Schmutzler, Jana}, title = {At the Risk of Loss: Experimental Evidence on the Discriminant Validity of Self-Reported Measures of Risk Preferences}, series = {SSRN eLibrary}, journal = {SSRN eLibrary}, issn = {1556-5068}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4371973}, pages = {1 -- 39}, abstract = {In recent years, there has been increasing use of experimentally validated self-reported items to measure individuals' risk preferences, specifically risk aversion. While previous research supports their convergent validity, we argue that self-reported risk preference measures capture a broad spectrum of additional constructs involved in risky decision-making, notably including loss aversion as a potential confound. In broader applications, such as observational studies, associations with other constructs enhance a measurement's ability to predict risk-taking behaviors across diverse natural environments, often arising from the interplay of different constructs better captured by comprehensive self-reported measures than by narrower, construct-specific incentivized measures. Conversely, in focused tests where each construct has unique behavioral implications, using broad self-reported measures as a replacement for construct-specific incentivized measurements can result in significant endogeneity issues. By analyzing three samples from two independent studies, we demonstrate that even after accounting for incentivized risk preference measures that remove latent construct associations and focus on measurement-related confounds, self-reported risk preferences maintain a substantial association with incentivized loss aversion measures, indicating that the measurement captures a mixture of both risk and loss aversion. We also observe that the strength of associations depends on whether individuals interpret risk-taking as accepting higher variances or higher losses. Based on this finding, we propose a simple procedure that utilizes this individual heterogeneity in the confounding effect's strength to enhance the robustness of conclusions drawn from analyses of self-reported risk preference measures}, language = {en} } @misc{UrbigBoenteSchmutzleretal., author = {Urbig, Diemo and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Schmutzler, Jana and Zambrano-Curcio, Andr{\´e}s Felipe and Andonova, Veneta}, title = {Diverging associations of dimensions of competitiveness with gender and personality}, series = {Personality and Individual Differences}, volume = {176}, journal = {Personality and Individual Differences}, issn = {0191-8869}, doi = {10.1016/j.paid.2021.110775}, pages = {6}, abstract = {More attention must be paid to the multidimensional nature of competitiveness to better understand how competitiveness relates to personality and gender. We focus on three dimensions: Desire to Win (DW), Personal Development competitiveness (PD), and Enjoyment of Competition (EC). Our empirical exploratory analysis is based on a large sample of 1520 individuals. We control for interdimensional correlations, correct for multiple testing, and use conservative thresholds to provide robust evidence on dimension-specific associations of competitiveness with personality, operationalized via the HEXACO framework, and gender. Independent of the respectively other competitiveness dimensions, DW relates to less honesty-humility and less agreeableness, PD to more emotionality, and EC to more extraversion and less emotionality. EC is the sole source of gender differences among the correlated competitiveness dimensions.}, language = {en} }