Andreas Wilke

Bio: Andreas Wilke is an academic researcher from Clarkson University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Foraging & Risk perception. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 42 publications receiving 1644 citations. Previous affiliations of Andreas Wilke include Max Planck Society & Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research.

Domain Specificity in Experimental Measures and Participant Recruitment An Application to Risk-Taking Behavior

Abstract: We challenge the prevailing notion that risk taking is a stable trait, such that individuals show consistent risk-taking/aversive behavior across domains. We subscribe to an alternative approach that appreciates the domain-specific nature of risk taking. More important, we recognize heterogeneity of risk profiles among experimental samples and introduce a new methodology that takes this heterogeneity into account. Rather than using a convenient subject pool (i.e., university students), as is typically done, we specifically targeted relevant subsamples to provide further validation of the domain-specific nature of risk taking. Our research shows that individuals who exhibit high levels of risk-taking behavior in one content area (e.g., bungee jumpers taking recreational risks) can exhibit moderate levels in other risky domains (e.g., financial). Furthermore, our results indicate that risk taking among targeted subsamples can be explained within a cost-benefit framework and is largely mediated by the perceived benefit of the activity, and to a lesser extent by the perceived risk.

Adaptive rationality: An evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias

Abstract: A casual look at the literature in social cognition reveals a vast collection of biases, errors, violations of rational choice, and failures to maximize utility. One is tempted to draw the conclusion that the human mind is woefully muddled. We present a three-category evolutionary taxonomy of evidence of biases: biases are (a) heuristics, (b) error management effects, or (c) experimental artifacts. We conclude that much of the research on cognitive biases can be profitably reframed and understood in evolutionary terms. An adaptationist perspective suggests that the mind is remarkably well designed for important problems of survival and reproduction, and not fundamentally irrational. Our analysis is not an apologia intended to place the rational mind on a pedestal for admiration. rather, it promises practical outcomes including a clearer view of the architecture of systems for judgment and decision making, and exposure of clashes between adaptations designed for the ancestral past and the demands of the present. By casually browsing journals in the social sciences one can discover a collection of human biases, errors, violations of rational choice, and failures to maximize utility. Papers published in Social Cognition are illustrative. In just 2007, the journal published a special issue dedicated to the hindsight bias, which is the tendency to believe that events that have occurred are more probable when assessing them after the fact than when estimating them prospectively (Blank, Musch, & Pohl, 2007). Other examples include misapprehensions of probability like the hot hand fallacy that leads people to erroneously believe that basketball players who have shot several successful baskets are more likely to succeed on the next try (Gilovich, Vallone, & Tversky, 1985). There are also many effects of emotion purported to cloud good judgment (e.g., Leith & Baumeister, 1996), overuses of stereotypes (Ross & Nisbett, 1991), misapprehensions of the motives of members of the opposite sex (Abbey, 1982), common violations of monetary utility in behavioral eco

Beyond a Trait View of Risk Taking: A Domain-Specific Scale Measuring Risk Perceptions, Expected Benefits, and Perceived-Risk Attitudes in German-Speaking Populations

Abstract: A German-language scale assessing tendencies to engage in risky behaviors, as well as perceptions of risks and expected benefits from such behaviors, is derived from an English version and validated on 532 German participants. The scale contains 40 items in six distinct domains of risk taking: ethical, recreational, health, social, investing, and gambling. Following a risk-return model of risk taking, perceived-risk attitude is inferred by regressing risk-taking on perceived risk and expected benefits. Risk-taking as well as perceptions of risks and benefits were domain-specific, while perceived-risk attitudes were more similar across domains, thus supporting the use of a risk-return framework for interpreting risk-taking propensity. Gender and cultural comparisons are drawn, and we discuss possibilities for future cross-cultural applications of the scale.

The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits

Abstract: This paper explores the interface between personality psychology and economics. We examine the predictive power of personality and the stability of personality traits over the life cycle. We develop simple analytical frameworks for interpreting the evidence in personality psychology and suggest promising avenues for future research.

The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits

Abstract: This paper explores the interface between personality psychology and economics. We examine the predictive power of personality and the stability of personality traits over the life cycle. We develop simple analytical frameworks for interpreting the evidence in personality psychology and suggest promising avenues for future research.

A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for Adult Populations

Abstract: This paper proposes a revised version of the original Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale developed by Weber, Blais, and Betz (2002) that is shorter and applicable to a broader range of ages, cultures, and educational levels. It also provides a French translation of the revised scale. Using multilevel modeling, we investigated the risk-return relationship between apparent risk taking and risk perception in 5 risk domains. The results replicate previously noted differences in reported degree of risk taking and risk perception at the mean level of analysis. The multilevel modeling shows, more interestingly, that within-participants variation in risk taking across the 5 content domains of the scale was about 7 times as large as between-participants variation. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of the person-situation debate related to risk attitude as a stable trait.

A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations

Abstract: This paper proposes a revised version of the original Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale developed by Weber, Blais, and Betz (2002) that is shorter and applicable to a broader range of ages, cultures, and educational levels. It also provides a French translation of the revised scale. Using multilevel modeling, we investigated the risk-return relationship between apparent risk taking and risk perception in 5 risk domains. The results replicate previously noted differences in reported degree of risk taking and risk perception at the mean level of analysis. The multilevel modeling shows, more interestingly, that within-participants variation in risk taking across the 5 content domains of the scale was about 7 times as large as between-participants variation. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of the person-situation debate related to risk attitude as a stable trait.