# E-Mail Network Patterns and Body Language Predict Risk-Taking Attitude
## 3 Results
### E-Mail Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dependent Variable** & **Significant Predictor (Coefficient)** & **Adj. R2** & **RMSE** & **Chi-2 (Prob. \textgreater{} Chi-2)** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{(a) Risk-taking} \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{1. general} & Lifestyle-Fitness (\(-1.27\) ***), & & & \\  & Contribution index oscillation (\(-0.003\) **), & & & \\  & ART (\(-0.01\) **), & 0.60 & 0.27 & (0.35) \\  & & Recreation-Sport (0.91 **) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{2. ethical} & Lifestyle-Yolo (\(-2.37\) **), & & & \\  & Personality-Journalist (\(3.85\) **), & & & \\  & Recreation-Sport (\(1.50\) **), & 0.53 & 0.53 & (0.26) \\  & Alternative Realities-Spiritualism (\(1.41\) **) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{3. financial} & Recreation-Arts (\(2.88\) ***) & 0.33 & 0.74 & 0.10 (0.76) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Recreation-Sport (\(2.91\) ***), & & & \\  & Lifestyle-Yolo (\(-2.32\) **), & 0.54 & 0.57 & (0.20) \\  & Lifestyle-Fitness (\(-1.78\) *) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{5. recreational} & ART (\(-0.04\) **), & & & \\  & Personality-Politician (\(-2.69\) ***), & & & \\  & Emotion-Happy (\(1.79\) **), & 0.65 & 0.67 & (0.40) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Contribution index oscillation (\(-0.006\) *) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{6. social} & Degree centrality (\(0.003\) **), & & & \\  & Alternative Realities-Spiritualism (\(-1.80\) ***) & 0.36 & 0.66 & (0.43) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{1. general} & Lifestyle-Yolo (\(-4.17\) ***), & & & \\  & Ideology-Complainer (\(13.55\) **), & 0.61 & 0.60 & (0.05 (0.82) \\  & Emotion-Sad (\(-1.65\) **), & & & \\  & Ideology-Liberalism (\(1.11\) **) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{2. ethical} & Lifestyle-Yolo (\(-4.83\) **), & & & \\  & Personality-Journalist (\(5.95\) **), & 0.51 & 1.00 & (0.18 (0.67) \\  & Ideology-Complainer (\(26.37\) ***) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{3. financial} & Lifestyle-Yolo (\(-6.10\) **), & & & \\  & Recreation-Arts (\(3.26\) **), & 0.45 & 1.10 & (0.39 (0.53) \\  & Reach-\(2\) (\(-0.01\) *) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{4. health} & Lifestyle-Sedentary (\(3.77\) ***), & & & \\  & Lifestyle-Yolo (\(-5.09\) **), & 0.50 & 1.06 & (0.26 (0.61) \\  & Lifestyle-Fitness (\(-3.36\) **) & & & \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{5. recreational} & ART (\(-0.05\) ***), & & & \\  & Personality-Politician (\(-6.77\) ***) & 0.60 & 1.16 & (0.43 (0.51)) \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multirow{2}{*}{6. social} & Alternative Realities-Spiritualism (\(-4.18\) ***), & & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Nudges (\(-1.53\) *) & 0.44 & 0.89 & (0.03 (0.87) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression on the risk-taking and risk-willingness of Study A (\(N=34\)). The stars within the bracket correspond to the predictor’s significance level: * \(p<0.1\), ** \(p<0.05\), *** \(p<0.01\). willing to put their money where their mouth is\". As for emotion, we find that participants who are happier (or less sad) in words are more risk-seeking in recreational activities and show a greater willingness to take risks in general. Overall, the high adjusted R2 and low RMSE reported in Table 3 demonstrate that the combinations of these variables indeed forecasts the individuals' risk-preference effectively. In addition, the Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test shows a small chi-2 and corresponding large probability, indicating that the variance is homogenous and thus OLS's validity is confirmed. Figure 2 shows the specific predicted result of each participant compared with the real value over the six domains.