Pre-print The effect of construal level on risk-taking.

In a series of studies, we examined the influence of people’s mind-set (construal level; CL: abstract vs. concrete) on their risk-taking behavior. We measured differences in CL (Study 1, CL as trait) and manipulated CL (Studies 1 to 5, CL as state) with different priming methods, which were unrelated to the dependent variable of risk-taking behavior (Studies 1, 3, 4, and 5: Balloon Analogue Risk Task; Study 2: Angling Risk Task). In all studies, abstract CL resulted in greater risk-taking compared to concrete CL, which led to lower risk-taking. Risky and safe game strategies mediated the CL effect on risk-taking. A concrete mind-set increased the safe game strategy whereas an abstract mind-set increased the risky game strategy. Furthermore, different potential mediators were explored (i.e., focus on payoffs and probabilities; prevention vs. promotion focus; attention to pros vs. cons; mood). A concrete mind-set increased prevention strategies as well as a negative mood when compared to an abstract mind-set. In turn an abstract mind-set increased attention to pros (of an action). construals increase payoff sensitivity. Concrete construals, on the other hand, promote probability sensitivity. The opposite is true in the loss domain, where abstract construals promote risk aversion and concrete riskiness. Some of the first research on the influence of CL on risk preferences was by Sagristano and colleagues (2002) who investigated the impact of CL on preferences (probabilities vs. payoffs) in different games of chance by manipulating temporal distance (Studies 1-3: same day (near) vs. in two months (distant); Study 4: next day vs. in 2 months). As predicted by CLT, the results indicated that temporal distance increased the influence of outcomes (payoffs, desirability concerns) and decreased the influence of winning probabilities (feasibility concerns) on participants’ preferences. Specifically, the authors showed that participants were willing to take more risks in distant-future gambles than in the near-future. Participants were willing to bid and risk losing more money for low-probability (of winning) but high-payoff gambles (risky choice), as opposed to high-probability but low-payoff gambles (non-risky choice) in the distant-future. Furthermore the authors showed that the inverse was true for near-future gambles, i.e. people are less willing to take risks in near-future gambles as participants showed a higher preference for gambles with high-probabilities but low-payoff as opposed to gambles with low-probabilities but high-payoff in near-future gambles. However, two questions remain unanswered: abstract thinking. Therefore, it is assumed that CL is a very important aspect in safety considerations. In line with Chandler and Pronin (2012), who showed that thought speed influences risk-taking, we propose that interventions designed to boost concrete thinking would decrease people’s tendency to put themselves at risk. These findings emphasize the trainability of risk-behavior skills, especially in contexts where less riskiness is more advantageous. This is, for example, of particular relevance to motorcyclists, and road traffic in general, sports (e.g., mountaineering) or decision-making in private and business contexts (e.g., taking out insurance). These findings could, for instance, be incorporated into road safety trainings with the aim of increasing safety by teaching road users how they can activate a concrete mind-set while driving. It would also be useful in high-risk sports to know whether one can increase safety by activating a concrete mind-set. As a concrete example, mountain guides could be given a guideline prompting them to carefully reconsider their situation in detail at certain intervals during the trip.