↓ Skip to main content

Knowing Where to Draw the Line: Perceptual Differences between Risk-takers and Non-Risk-Takers

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Knowing Where to Draw the Line: Perceptual Differences between Risk-takers and Non-Risk-Takers
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0091880
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam T. Biggs, Paul C. Stey, Christopher C. Davoli, Daniel Lapsley, James R. Brockmole

Abstract

There are a variety of reasons someone might engage in risky behaviors, such as perceived invulnerability to harm or a belief that negative outcomes are more likely for others than for oneself. However, these risk-taking biases are often measured at a decision-making level or from the developmental perspective. Here we assessed whether or not risk-taking influenced perceptual judgments associated with risk. Participants were provided an objective task to measure individual differences in the perception of physical dimensions (i.e., actual size of a balloon) versus the perception of risk (i.e., size at which the balloon would explode). Our results show that specific differences in risk-taking personalities produce specific differences in perceptual judgments about risk, but do not affect perception of the actual dimensions. Thus, risk-takers differ from non-risk-takers in the perceptual estimations they make about risks, and therefore may be more likely to engage in dangerous or uncertain behaviors because they perceive risks differently.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 50%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2014.
All research outputs
#2,455,380
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#31,402
of 194,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,607
of 243,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#910
of 5,485 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,485 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.