Skip to main content
Log in

Adjusting risky situations: A theoretical framework and empirical test

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Experienced executives frequently try to modify the risky situations they face in order to make them more favorable rather than simply choosing from among available decision options. This article investigates several types of risk adjustments such as trying to influence the situation through bargaining and spending resources, gathering information, developing new options, and consulting one's superiors. A theoretical framework is presented that characterizes different types of adjustments and relates them to variables such as perceived risk, perceived control, perceived responsibility, decisiveness, and risky choice. The framework is tested using experienced decision makers who respond to four simulated risky business decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, S. (1980), “Risk Making Management,” Business Horizons 23, 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, I.S. and Thomas, H. (1985), “Toward a Contingency Model of Strategic Risk Taking,” Academy of Management Review 10, 230–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D.F. and Rich, S.U. (1964), “Perceived Risk and Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Marketing Research 1, 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, I. and Becker, G.S. (1972). “Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection,” Journal of Political Economy 80, 623–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1984). “Setting Standards: A Systematic Approach to Managing Public Health and Safety Risks,” Management Science 30, 823–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1984). “Foundations of Risk Measurement: Risk as Probable Loss,” Management Science 30, 396–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, N., Saunders, D.R. and Wand, B. (1957) “The In-basket Test,” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 71, 438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, A.E. (1975). “Quantification of Investors Perceptions of Common Stocks—Risk and Return Dimensions,” Journal of Finance 30, 1301–1316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higbee, K.L. and Streufert, S. (1969). “Perceived Control and Riskiness,” Psychonomic Science, 17, 105–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohenemser, C., Kates, R.W. and Slovic, P. (1983). “The Nature of Technological Hazard,” Science 220, 378–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D.N., Hourany, L. and Vidmar, N.J. (1972). “A Four-Dimensional Interpretation of Risk Taking,” Journal of Personality 40, 483–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. and Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Confict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, R. (1985). Chancing It. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, N. and Wallach, M.A. (1964). Risk Taking: A Study of Cognition and Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liverant, S. and Scodel, A. (1960). “Internal and External Control as Determinants of Decision Making under Conditions of Risk,” Psychological Reports 7, 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, D. (1980). “Several Possible Measures of Risk,” Theory and Decision 12, 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K.R. and Wehrung, D.A. (1984). “The Risk In-Basket,” Journal of Business 57, 367–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K.R. and Wehrung, D.A. (1986). Taking Risks: The Management of Uncertainty. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. and Shapira, Z. (1987). “Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking,” Management Science 33, 1404–1418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldman, D. (1974). “Chance and Skill: A Study of Roulette,” Sociology 8, 407–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J.W. (1973). “Alternative Approaches to Decision Making under Risk: Moments versus Risk Dimensions,” Psychological Bulletin 80, 439–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, I. (1974). “Perceived Risk and Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,” in: M.J. Schlinger (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. II. Urbana: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistic. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. (1980). Experiments on Decisions under Risk: The Expected Utility Hypothesis. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. (1989). “Preferences for Information on Probabilities vs. Prizes: The Role of Risk Taking Attitudes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 37–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1962). “Convergent Validation of Risk Taking Measures,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65, 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1964). “Assessment of Risk Taking Behavior,” Psychological Bulletin 61, 220–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickland, L., Lewici, R.J. and Katz, A.M. (1966). “Temporal Orientation and Perceived Control as Determinants of Risk Taking,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2, 143–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner, A. (1962). “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias,” 57, 348–368.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

University of British Columbia

Chinese University of Hong Kong

This study was supported by grants from The Centre of International Business Studies at The University of British Columbia, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wehrung, D.A., Lee, KH., Tse, D.K. et al. Adjusting risky situations: A theoretical framework and empirical test. J Risk Uncertainty 2, 189–212 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056137

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056137

Key words

Navigation