Risk-Taking as a Personality Trait of Self-Regulation: a Cross-Cultural Approach

Introduction. The high level of stress and uncertainty of the modern world requires the study of a person’s personal resources and the identification of conditions that increase the possibilities of self-regulation. The article is devoted to the study of risk readiness as a property of self-regulation among representatives of various ethnocultural groups. Risk appetite is a personal characteristic that acts as an adaptive resource in a situation of uncertainty and requires the actualization of the personal and intellectual potential of the subject.

Objective. Study of risk appetite as a personal property of self-regulation among representatives of various ethno-cultural groups.

Materials and Methods. Problem is studied with using such methods: “Personal factors of decision-making” (T. N. Kornilova); “Style of self-regulation of behavior – SSP-98” (V. I. Morosanov); “Meaning-life orientations” by D. A. Leontiev; “Personal Views Survey, PVS III-R” (Salvatore R. Maddi, D. M. Khoshaba) in the adaptation of D. A. Leontiev; Tomsk rigidity questionnaire (G. V. Zalevsky); The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire (MDMQ) (in the adaptation of T. V. Kornilova). Mathematical data processing was carried out using the statistical criteria of U-Mann-Whitney, N-Kraskual-Wales and the Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results. In the field of personal resources of self-regulation (meaning-life orientations, resilience), no differences were found, however, with respect to decision-making strategies, statistically significant differences were recorded on the Rationality and Risk Readiness scales. In the studied groups, respondents with high scores on the “Risk Readiness” scale recorded differences in self-regulation scales related to personal mechanisms of self-regulation (“Flexibility”, “Independence”). In relation to representatives of the Chechen ethnic group, significant differences were recorded on the following scales: “Planning”, “Programming”, “Flexibility”, “Independence”, “General level of self-regulation”. According to the results of the correlation analysis, all groups (Armenians, Chechens, Russians) recorded positive links between the “Risk Readiness” scale and the “Flexibility” and “Independence” scales.

Discussion. The results of the study significantly enrich the ideas about the resources of self-regulation, allowing us to consider the ethno-cultural potential in a new way. The study of psychological phenomena in conjunction with ethnic originality represents a promising area of modern research. Our study substantiates the thesis that risk readiness can act as an adaptive resource and ensure the effectiveness of self-regulation processes.

1. Asmolov, A. G. (2018). Mobilis in mobili: personality in an era of change. YASK Publishing House. (In Russ.)

2. Banshchikova, T. N., Sokolovsky, M. L., and Korosteleva, T. V. (2022). Self-regulation and tolerance to uncertainty as resources of subjective well-being of modern youth: cross-cultural aspect. The Bulletin of the Russian University of Friendship of Nations. Series: Psychology and Pedagogy, 19(4), 717–743. http://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2022-19-4-717-743 (In Russ.)

3. Berdyaev, N.A. (1997). Russian idea. Publ. Аzbuka (In Russ.)

4. Dohmen, T., Quercia, S., & Willrodt, J. (2019). Willingness to take risk: The role of risk conception and optimism. SOEPpapers.

5. Grenier, S., Barrette, A. M., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance of ambiguity: similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.014

6. Gumilev, L. N. (1990). Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere. Publ. Hydrometeoizdat (In Russ.)

7. Jumana, Y. (2021). Breaking Beyond the Borders of the Brain: Self-Control as a Situated Ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617434

8. Kahneman, D. (2014). Think slowly, decide quickly. ASAR

9. Klochko, V. E. (2005). Self-organization in psychological systems: problems of the formation of the mental space of the individual (introductionto prospective analysis). Tomsk State University. (In Russ.)

10. Klochko, V. E., and Klochko, Yu. V. (2015). Human: an open system in a closed environment. Siberian Psychological Journal, 57, 6–16. (In Russ.)

11. Kornilova, T. (2013). Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: Russian-language adaptation. Psychological research, 6(31). https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v6i31.671 (In Russ.)

12. Kornilova, T. V. (2003). Psychology of risk and decision-making. Publ. Aspekt-Press. (In Russ.)

13. Kornilova, T. V. (2014). Prospects for a dynamic paradigm in the psychology of choice. Psychological research, 7(36). https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v7i36.611 (In Russ.)

14. Kostromina, S. N. (2021). Classic “Paradox of Personality”: Is there a theoretical and methodological basis for a solution? New Psychological Research, 1(2), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.51217/npsyresearch_2021_01_02_01 (In Russ.)

15. Leontiev, D. A. (1992). Meaningful Lifetime Orientation Test (LCOT). Publ. Smysl. (In Russ.)

16. Leontiev, D. A. (2016). Self-regulation, resources andpersonal potential. Siberian Psychological Journal, 62, 18–37 https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/62/3 (In Russ.)

17. Leontiev, D. A., & Rasskazova, E. I. (2006). Personal Views Survey test. Publ. Smysl. (In Russ.)

18. Leontiev, D. A., Ovchinnikova, E. Yu., Rasskazova, E. I., and Fam, A. Kh. (2019). Psychology of choice. Publ. Smysl. (In Russ.)

19. Liljenström, H. (2021). Consciousness, decision making, and volition: freedom beyond chance and necessity. Theory in Biosciences, 141(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-021-00346-6

20. Maddi, S., & Kobasa, S. (1984). The Hardy Executive: Health under Stress. Dow Jones-Irwin.

21. Maslova, E. K. (2017). L.N. Gumilev's theory of ethnogenesis in the context of post-nonclassical rationality. Bulletin of Tomsk State University, 419, 160–164. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/419/2 (In Russ.)

22. Morosanova, V. I. (1998). Individual style of self-regulation: phenomenon, structure and functions in arbitrary human activity. Publ. Nauka (In Russ.)

23. Morosanova, V. I. (2021). Conscious self-regulation as a meta-resource for achieving goals and solving life problems. Moscow University Bulletin. Episode 14. Psychology, 1, 3–37. https://doi.org/10.11621/vsp.2021.01.01 (In Russ.)

24. Petrovsky, V. A. (2021). The person above the situation.Publ. Severnyy Palomnik (In Russ.)

25. Shlykova, E. V. (2021). Risk readiness as an adaptive resource: subjective assessments of the adult population of Russia. Sociological Science and Social Practice, 9(4), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2021.9.4.8606 (In Russ.)

26. Soldatova, G.U., Rasskazova, E.I., & Nestik, T.A. (2017).Russia's Digital Generation: Competence and Security. Publ. Smysl. (In Russ.)

27. Taleb, N. (2014). Antifragile. How to benefit from the chaos. Publ. Azbuka-Atticus, 2014.

28. Wang, J., & Sun, Y. (2023). Time flies, but you're in control: the mediating effect of self-control between time attitude and academic procrastination. BMC Psychology, 11(1), 393. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01438-2

29. Zalevsky, G. V. (1993). Mental rigidity is normal and pathological. Publ. ITU (In Russ.)

30. Zelazo, D., & Flores, H. (2022). Self-Regulation and Executive Function// Handbook of Special Education Research (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156857