Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology
2020, Vol. 46 (Special edition), 38-43

Research Report

Preliminary study on the component of perceived benefit in risk-taking1）, 2）
Shingo MORIIZUMI＊ and Shinnosuke USUI＊＊
The present study aimed to explore the important factors related to perceived benefit in daily risk-taking behaviors.
A web-based questionnaire survey was conducted for five hundred respondents with a wide range of ages. The list ofrisk-taking behaviors in daily life was developed by consulting previous studies. The perceived benefit of such behaviors was evaluated using several indicators (e.g. whether the benefit can be obtained with certainty). Results of factor
analysis indicated that perceived benefit in risk-taking behavior was mainly evaluated by the intuitive thinking process. Multiple regression analysis also revealed the important effect of such intuitive thinking process on intention ofrisk-taking. Our research suggested the important components of perceived benefit in risk-taking behaviors. The findings should have also been discussed from the viewpoints of several theories such as the dual process theory used inindustrial and social psychology.
key words: Risk-taking, Perceived benefit, Risk perception

Introduction
It has been suggested that, intentional unsafe behaviors such as risk-taking and violation are particularly likely to lead to traffic accidents (e.g., Parker,
Reason, Manstead, & Stradling, 1995 ; Moriizumi,
Usui, & Nakai, 2012). With regard to intentional risktaking, various factors have been investigated including the effect of gender difference that males are
more likely to take risks than females (Byrnes, Miller,& Schafer 1999), and the complex effect of difference in age as a function of task demands ( Mata,
Josef, Samanez-Larkin, & Hertwig, 2011). Specifically, many studies demonstrated that, of all forms ofrisk-taking, the effects of perceived risk and perceived benefit ( recognition of returns from risktaking) are of prime importance (e.g., Mckenna &Horswill, 2006 ; Soane, Dewberry, & Narendran,2010; Dhami & Mandel, 2012).
In the background of these cognitions, there seems
to be the dual process theory, which is the basic human thought process ( e. g. , Finucane, Alhakami,
Slovic, & Johnson, 2000; Slovic, 2007; Nakayachi,2012). In this theory, two types of thought processes
1）

leading to decision making and judgment are assumed: “experiential system” (system 1) and “analytic system” (system 2). The former is a high-speed
and low-load thought mode based on affect. The latter is a high-load and low-speed thought mode that
follows logical and sophisticated processes. In daily
judgment, empirical systems generally take precedence over analytical systems (e.g., Nakayachi, 2012;
Small, Leowenstein, & Slovic, 2007), and analyticalsystem plays a role for monitoring empirical system.
Perceived risk has been evaluated in general terms
based on “the subjective levels of risk” (e.g., Finucane et al., 2000; Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002), andmore classically, much research has been done on therisk components as represented by the study of Slovic(1987) on dread risk and unknown risk and a study on
indices that numerically evaluated the probability andseverity of damage ( National Research Council,
1989). Meanwhile, regarding perceived benefit, unlike perceive risk, most studies have focused on general evaluation on “the subjective degree of benefit
for risky activity” without mentioning its components(e.g., Parsons, Siegel, & Cousins, 1997; Finucane etal., 2000; Weber et al., 2002). Several studies about

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K17864.
When submitting the present paper, the first author was at Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University＊
Faculty of Psychology, Tezukayama University, 3-1-3 Gakuenminami, Nara, 631-8585, Japane-mail: hs5126ms@tezukayama-u.ac.jp＊＊
Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, 1-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan2）

S. MORIIZUMI and S. USUI: Preliminary study on the component of perceived benefit in risk-taking

benefits associated with behaviors not restricted torisk-taking behaviors revealed that perceived benefit
can be captured by the effect of timing for gaining
benefits, typically illustrated by delay discounting(Mazur, 1987), and by probability and degree justlike perceived risk (Dhami & Mandel, 2012). If wenarrow down the focus to specific behaviors, perceived benefit is sometimes understood as offering a
concrete benefit, as smoking “looks cool” (Morrell,Song, & Halpern-Felsher, 2010 ) , drink-driving “ ischeaper than alternative ways of returning home ”(Dhami & Mandel, 2012), and not wearing a seatbelt
provides “ comfort ” ( Dhami & García-Retamero,2012).
Thus, perceived benefit associated with risk-taking
tends to be evaluated in general terms or according to
specific behavior, and the components of perceived
benefit common to broad forms of risk-taking havenot been clarified. Considering the inverse correlation
between perceived benefit and perceived risk (e.g.,
Sokolowska, & Sleboda, 2015; Finucane et al., 2000;
Alhakami & Slovic, 1994), the components of perceived benefit could be explored not only from psychological factors associated with said benefits but
also from the perspective of the components of perceived risk. Therefore, this study focuses on various
risk-taking behaviors in daily situations with the aimof revealing the components that constitute perceived
benefit associated with risk-taking, while at the sametime exploring how they influence behavior. This
study was conducted after obtaining approval fromthe Ethical Committee of Behavioral Sciences at theGraduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University (Approval No. 29-106).
MethodParticipants
Of all monitors registered in Rakuten Insight, Inc.,
500 subjects (250 males, 250 females) were selected
for a web survey. The mean age was 39.76 years (SD= 10.82). They were composed of 125 participantsfrom each age group, the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s.
Of the total participants, 48.6% were office workers(n = 243). Of all 47 prefectures in Japan, responses
were received from 43 prefectures (93.5%). Tokyo
had the greatest number of responders (13.8%).

（ 39 ）

Risk taking in daily life
Behaviors presented in the Risk-taking Behavior
Scale for Undergraduates (RIBS-U) as developed by
Oshio (2001) were used. The RIBS-U is a 12-item
questionnaire scale in which everyday risk-taking behaviors of undergraduate students were classified into
two factors: personal risk-taking (e.g., drink-driving,smoking cigarettes, committing a speeding violation
via auto or bike) and social risk-taking (e.g., runninga red-light, dashing for a train, absenteeism). The reliability and validity of the RIBS-U as a behavioral
scale have been reported (Oshio, 2001). This study
assesses the benefit of each risk-taking behavior considered in the following section. To this end, of all 12
forms of risk-taking behavior, two forms-“Arrive late
for a class or meeting” and “Break a promise” -thatseem to be difficult to evaluate about their benefits(both of these forms of behavior were classified as“social risk-taking” in Oshio (2001)) were excluded,
and the remaining 10 forms were assessed.
Evaluations of the perceived benefit in taking risks
In the present study, with reference to 15 items( (un) controllable, (not) dread, ( not ) global catastrophic, consequences ( not ) fatal, ( not ) equitable,catastrophic (individual), high (low) risk to future
generations, (not) easily reduced, risk decreasing (increasing), involuntary (voluntary), (not) observable,
unknown (unknown) to those exposed, effect delayed(immediately), new ( old ) risk, and risks unknown(known) to science) selected as primary components
in a study on the components of perceived risk (subjective perception of risks) by Slovic ( 1987 ) , four
items that authors deemed useful for the present studyof benefit (“intuitive goodness”, “ controllability, ”“voluntariness,” and “continuousness ( to future ) ” )were defined. Unlike the study of Slovic (1987), thepresent study focused on the benefits of the risktaking behaviors, which made it difficult to use thesame items as Slovic (1987). Therefore, the present
study considered whether participants were easy toevaluate the benefits in selecting items. Moreover, inreference to Dhami & Mandel (2012) which considers the relationship between risk behavior and perceived benefit, two items- “ importance ” and “ certainty”-were created. Additionally, based on a studyof delay discounting, an item on “timing (for gaining（ 40 ）

Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 46

Table 1

Items and these evaluations about the perceived benefit in taking risks

Items of perceived benefit

Assessment scale

Degree of feeling “intuitive goodness”
Degree of feeling “importance”
When the benefit can be gained
Degree of influence to one’s future(intuitive goodness)(importance)(timing)(continuousness)

Degree of improvement through one’s effort(controllability)

The degree of voluntary action
Whether benefit can be obtained with certainty(voluntariness)(certainty)

Table 2

Mean and standard deviation scoresof each perceived benefit
Mean (SD)

Items
Intuitive goodness
ImportanceTiming
PersistenceControllability
Voluntariness
Certainry(α=.91)(α=.94)(α=.94)(α=.94)(α=.97)(α=.94)(α=.95)2.07 (1.05)
2.27 (1.38)
4.61 (1.13)
4.35 (1.63)
3.54 (1.69)
3.44 (1.48)
2.49 (1.33)

benefit ) ” was created. For each item, participants
were asked to answer on a 7-point scale. The higher
the score, the higher the benefit is perceived to be. In
the study of Dhami & Mandel (2012), “certainty” wasevaluated by means of the scale, “0% (no chance atall) - 100% (absolutely certain)”. In some risk taking
such as skydiving, the behavior itself may be the end(Zinn, 2019). However, many of them seems to be
avoided if there is no return for the risk-taking. Thus,in the present study, “rarely” was used as the lowest
score label instead of “ no chance at all ” . Table 1
shows the questionnaire items concerning perceived
benefit used in the present study and its assessing
methods. For example, as for “intuitive goodness”,
we asked how much the benefits gained by the behaviors listed in the 10 items feel “intuitively good” foryou. Thus, participants were asked to answer a totalof 70 items-seven items each for ten forms of behavior mentioned above. In addition, as an intention toward each form of behavior, they were requested toanswer a 7-point scale question (1 = I do not want toengage in it at all to 7 = I definitely want to engage init) of “To what extent, do you want to perform the be-

Not good to Good
Not important to Important
Obtained immediately to Obtained later
No influence to the future to Influence remains in the
futureCannot improve through my effort to Can improvethrough my effort
Forced to do to Do voluntarily
Rarely obtained with certainty to Obtained

havior?”. Whereas the original study of Oshio (2001)
takes frequency (I do not engage in it at all to I often
engage in it) as an assessment item, the present study
measures the intention, due to research ethical issuesof the research firm.
Results
Components of the perceived benefit in risk taking
With regard to 7 items concerning perceived benefit, averaged indices were developed without considering the kinds of risk-taking ( α -coefficient is described in Table 2). Taking these seven items as observation variables, factor analyses were performed
based on the maximum likelihood method with promax rotation. Factors with the eigenvalue of 1 orgreater were extracted and a three-factor structure
was obtained. However, since the third factor wascomposed of just one item, a factor analysis was performed once again and two factors were extracted inconsideration of the scree plot and interpretability. As
a result, factor loadings for “timing” were low for
both the first and second factors (-.145, -.068 respectively ) , this item was removed and another factor
analysis was performed. The final results of factor
analyses are shown in Table 3. F1 consisted of “intuitive goodness,” “importance,” and “certainty,” withall having the factor loading of .60 or greater. F2 wascomprised of “voluntariness,” “controllability,” and“continuousness.” From these results, F1 was interpreted as perceived benefit of an experiential system(system 1) in the dual-process theory (e.g., Esptein,
1994; Slovic, 2007) and F2 was interpreted as perceived benefit of an analytic system (system 2), and F
1 and F2 were named as “perceived intuitive benefit”

（ 41 ）

S. MORIIZUMI and S. USUI: Preliminary study on the component of perceived benefit in risk-taking

Table 3Results of factor analysis
perceived intuitive
benefit (α=.77)

perceived analytic
benefit (α=.38)

.862
.701
.678
.132
.114
-.198

-.206
.000
.162
.533
.416
.333

Intuitive goodness
Importance
Certainty
VoluntarinessControllability
Continuousness(I) perceived intuitive benefit(II) perceived analytic benefit

(I)

(II)

-

.484
-

CFI=.975, RMSEA=.085

Table 5

Table 4 Mean and standard deviation scores of the intention
and perceived benefit of each risk-taking

Results of regression analysis
Personalrisk-taking

Socialrisk-taking

Sex
Age
Perceived intuitive benefit
Perceived analytic benefit.10 ***-.07 *.72 ***-.01-.02-.07 *.70 ***.03

Adj. R2.56 ***.50 ***

Mean (SD)Intention
Perceived intuitive
benefit
Perceived analytic
benefit

Personalrisk-taking

Socialrisk-taking

2.04 (1.14)
2.12 (1.08)

2.57 (1.20)
2.52 (1.13)

3.82 (1.12)

3.72 (1.08)

and “perceived analytic benefit” respectively.
Regression analysis
For each risk-taking behavior, perceived benefit
items were averaged for each factor. Additionally,risk-taking behaviors were divided into “ personalrisk-taking ” and “ social risk-taking ” according toOshio (2001). Table 4 shows the mean and standard
deviation scores of the intention and the perceived
benefit of each factor according to the two classifications. The alpha coefficient of the intention of personal risk-taking was . 84, while social risk-taking
was .82. The forced-entry multiple regression analysis was then performed with the intention toward
each behavior regarded as a dependent variable, andsex, age, each factor regarded as independent variables (Table 5). Sex was dummy-coded 0 for females
and 1 for males. As a result, in both personal risktaking (β = .72) and social risk-taking ( β = .70), perceived intuitive benefit significantly explains the intention (ps < .001). Perceived analytic benefit was insignificant for both behaviors (β = .01, n.s., β =応 用Note) ***p<.001, *p<.05.03, n.s. respectively). The VIF values of each independent variable indicating multicollinearity were all
1.13 or less.
Discussion
The components of perceived benefit in daily life
risk taking
The present study attempts to explore and identify
the components of perceived benefit common tobroad forms of risk-taking behavior. As a result, inthe present study, two factors were drawn as the primary components of perceived benefit. The first factor consisted of “intuitive goodness,” “importance,”
and “certainty,” whereas the second factor was comprised of “voluntariness,” “controllability,” and “continuousness.” From these results, F1 was interpreted
as perceived benefit of an experiential system (system
1) in the dual-process theory (e.g., Esptein, 1994 ;Slovic, 2007) and F2 was interpreted as perceived
benefit of an analytic system (system 2). This interpretation is also supported by the fact that our observation that F1 better explained the intention is in line（ 42 ）

Japanese Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 46

with the dominance in decision-making of the system
1 in the dual process theory (Nakayachi, 2012). However, the alpha coefficient of the F2 was not sufficient. So, the interpretation of the factor can’t be discussed anymore.
With respect to the association between risk-taking
behavior and derived factors, in both personal risktaking behavior and social risk-taking behavior, perceived intuitive benefit significantly affected the intention. As mentioned above, in view of dominanceof affect in decision-making, it is legitimate to thinkthat intuitive benefit is the sole influencer of the intention. However, it would not be possible to conclude from the present results that analytic aspects do
not affect risk-taking behavior at all. Oshio (2001)
defined personal risk-taking behavior as “ behavior
that can have adverse effects ( e. g. , disease, death,etc.) on the actor himself” and social risk-taking behavior as “behavior that can indirectly have adverse
effects (e.g., loss of social status, etc.) on the actor
himself through his relationships with others and withsociety” (p.259). As far as these definitions are concerned, it would be implausible to think that analytic
thinking does not intervene in the occurrence of thesebehaviors. Furthermore, the reduced reliability coefficient for perceived analytic benefit ( α = .38) may be
associated with the results of the present study.
Regarding “timing” (when benefit can be gained),
it was not included as a component of the present
analysis. Considering previous studies on delay discounting (e.g., Mazur, 1987), the question of “whenthe benefit can be gained (immediately?)” would be
an important element. This absence of timing may be
due to the fact that risk-taking behaviors presented inthis study do not include kinds of behavior whose
benefit can be gained later. To put it another way,
daily risk-taking behaviors provide benefit immediately after its execution, which makes it difficult for“timing” to be a component.
Limitations
The first limitation of the present study has to dowith the risk-taking behavior scale used for measurement. Although there was not much difference inoverall trends of the results of our multi-regression
analysis with previous studies on risk-taking, due tothe smaller number of risk-taking behaviors andbenefit items dealt with in the present study, it is hardto deny that the present study is nothing more than apreliminary study. Accordingly, re-evaluation on
risk-taking behavior based on a separate scale (e.g.,
Schwartz, Yamagishi, Hirahara, Onishi, Barnes, Rosman, Garcia, Lee, & Butler, 2013; Moriizumi & Usui,2011) would be necessary.
Second, the reliability of perceived analytic benefit
derived from the factor analysis was low (α = .38). If
perceived analytic benefit is an item related to thesystem 2, items would be diverse compared to thefirst factor “perceived intuitive benefit.” For example,
situation-specific and behavior-specific benefits may
be included as items. Reflecting on the aim of thisstudy, that is, to explore components common to various risk-taking behaviors, it may be difficult henceforth to improve reliability by increasing items thatwould constitute perceived analytic benefit. Reliability should be checked from a different index, such as
test-retest reliability in the future. Moreover, although
the item “ intuitive goodness ” was used in this research, the results of the factor analysis may be influenced by this word “ intuitive ” itself. Therefore,
whether the results of this study are valid should be
evaluated by other methodologies in future studies.
Finally, since the present study was conductedbased on a questionnaire survey, the association between components of perceived benefit and risktaking behavior was examined only in terms of its attitudinal aspect. To test the construct validity of thefactors obtained in this study, research on the relationship with actual risk-taking behavior will be required in the future.
References
Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. 1994 A psychological study ofthe inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.
Byrnes, P.J., Miller, C.D., & Schafer, D.W. 1999 Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383.
Dhami, M. K., & García-Retamero, R. 2012 Spanish young
adults’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of risky driving behaviors. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15,638-647.
Dhami, M. K., & Mandel, D. R. 2012 Crime as risk taking.
Psychology. Crime and Law, 18, 389-403.

S. MORIIZUMI and S. USUI: Preliminary study on the component of perceived benefit in risk-taking

Esptein, S. 1994 Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, M. S.
2000 The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.
Mata, R., Josef, A. K., Samanez-Larkin, G.R., & Hertwig, R.
2011 Age Differences in Risky Choice: A Meta-analysis.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235, 1829.
Mazur, J. E. 1987 An adjusting procedure for studying delayed
reinforcement. In CommonsMazurNevinRachlin, M. L.J.
E.J. A.H. (Ed.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Volume V: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates :Hilsdale, NJ, pp. 55-73.
McKenna, P. F., & Horswill, M.S. 2006 Risk taking from theparticipant’s perspective: The case of driving and accident
risk. Health Psychology, 25, 163-170.
Moriizumi, S., & Usui, S. 2011 Re-examining the reliability
and validity of the scale to measure the tendency of risktaking behaviour. The journal of science of labour, 87,
211-225 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Moriizumi, S., Usui, S., & Nakai, H. 2012 The relationship between the tendency of young commercial drivers to takerisks in daily life and accident involvement. In Dorn, L(Ed.), DRIVER BEHAVIOUR AND TRAINING Volume V. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 187-195.
Morrell, H. E. R., Song, A. V., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. 2010
Predicting adolescent perceptions of the risks and benefitsof cigarette smoking: A longitudinal investigation. Health
Psychology, 29, 610-617.
Nakayachi, K. 2012 Risuku to Kanjou [Risk and Affect]. In
Nakayachi, K. (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Risk: Toward a Better Understanding of Judgement and Trust.
Tokyo: Yuhikaku, pp. 49-66 (in Japanese).
National Research Council 1989 Improving risk communication. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Oshio, S. 2001 Development and validation of a risk-taking behavior scale for undergraduates (RIBS-U). Bulletin of the
Graduate School of Education and Human Development
Nagoya University ( Psychology and Human Develop-（ 43 ）

ment Sciences), 48, 257-265 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Parker, D., Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G.
1995 Driving Errors, Driving Violations and Accident Involvement. Ergonomics, 38, 1036-1048.
Parsons, J. T., Siegel, A. W., & Cousins, J. H. 1997 Late adolescent risk-taking: effects of perceived benefits and perceived risks on behavioral intentions and behavioral
change. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 381-392.
Schwartz, A., Yamagishi, K., Hirahara, N., Onishi, H., Barnes,
I. V. J., Rosman, A., Garcia, M., Lee, S., & Butler, S.
2013 Risk perception and risk attitudes in Tokyo: A reportof the first administration of DOSPERT + M in Japan.
Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 691-699.
Slovic, P. 1987 Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
Slovic, P. 2007 If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic
numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making,2, 79-95.
Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. 2007 Sym-pathy
and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statisti-cal victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143153.
Soane, E., Dewberry, C., & Narendran, S. 2010 The role of perceived costs and perceived benefits in the relationship between personality and risk-related choices. Journal of Risk
Research, 13, 303-318.
Sokolowska, J., & Sleboda, P. 2015 The inverse relation between risks and benefits: The role of affect and expertise.
Risk Analysis, 35, 1252-1267.
Weber, U.E., Blais, A., & Betz, E.N. 2002 A domain-specificrisk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263290.
Zinn, J. O. 2019 The meaning of risk-taking - key concepts anddimensions. Journal of Risk Research, 22, 1-15.
(Received: 2019.6.29; Accepted: 2020.4.6)