The Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire (S & IRQ)

Abstract1

The article contains comprehensive data on the Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire. Risk taking may be inspired by two motives: 1. pleasure (stimula-ting risk), 2. achieving an important objective (instrumental risk). Stimulating risk is perceived as a way to get stimulation through increased physiological arousal. Gain, win or loss is of no importance as activity is intended to cause a pleasant sta-te of excitement that is an end in itself. Instrumental risk is perceived as a chance to obtain a positive result. It is a future gain that makes individuals search for in-struments to increase the likelihood of success. The stimulating and pleasurable aspect of risk taking is not important. The article presents analyses concerning the reliability and validity of the questionnaire done on four independent groups of individuals: Poles (questionnaire in Polish) (3,612 respondents) and three gro-ups of subjects who completed the questionnaire in English: Norwegians (752), Americans (93), and Southern Europeans: Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards (355). As indicated by the analyses, the level of stimulating risk is much lower in Nor-wegians than in Poles, Americans, Greeks, Spaniards, and Italians. Factor validity analysis employed the Confirmatory Factor Analysis method. The questionnaire may, in particular, be used for studying individuals, whose professional or sports activities are performed in the conditions of great emotional strain and whose efficacy depends on the degree of taken risk (stimulating or instrumental one). It is the first tool to study the two specified types of risk.

1 Corresponding author: [email protected].

Ryszard Makarowski1, University of Gdańsk

Mieczysław Plopa, University of Finances and Management in Warsaw

Marcin Marszałł, Medical University of Gdańsk in Gdańsk

The Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire (S & IRQ)

38 Ryszard Makarowski, Mieczysław Plopa, Marcin Marszałł

Keywords instrumental vs. stimulating risks; perception of risk, risk factors, motivation, confirmatory factor analysis.

Introduction

In this article, risk is understood as an outcome of a consciously made decision about potential loss, damage or gain while risky behaviour is consid-ered a voluntary action which, consequently, can make the subject experience distress or aggression, enjoy a benefit, have an accident or achieve an intend-ed goal (obtain a specific benefit).

There are two types of risk: subjective and objective. Subjective risk takes into account perception of a situation by the individual himself or herself. Risk assessment is greatly affected by emotions. Fear, for instance, may result in perceiving a risk as higher than it actually is, while euphoria reduces the per-ceived threat level – the riskiness of possible actions (Llewellyn & Sanchez, 2008; Martha, Sanchez, & Goma-i-Freixanet, 2009; Fletcher & Scott, 2010; Ma-karowski, 2010; Neil, Hanton, Mellalieu, & Fletcher, 2011).

P. Slovic (2004) proposed distinguishing between two types of risk: risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Terms suggested by P. Slovic are a mere sim-plification as risk itself is not an emotion, but may serve to bring about strong emotional arousal. The regulation of emotional processes is traditionally seen as hedonistically oriented. The human being usually takes specific actions to counteract negative emotions and maintain or even intensify positive ones (compare: Wegner & Petty, 1994; Wegener, Petty, & Smith 1995).

The individual seeking risky situations can function efficiently in the con-ditions of great stimulation, which usually is not a source of fear or anxiety for him or her (Paquett, Lacourse, & Bergeron, 2009). Studies by G. Breivik (1998) indicate that there is positive correlation between H.J. Eysenck’s psychoticism scale, M. Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale, and involvement in dangerous sports. Other traits that influence optimal coping in risky situations include low trait anxiety and toughness (Moen & Rundmo, 2005; Hanin, 2010; Nie-uwenhuys, Vos, Pijpstra, & Bakker, 2011; Ruiz & Hanin, 2011). Athletes doing high-risk sports regularly “put” themselves in situations, where their health and life depend on their own abilities. Success or failure often means life or death. In no other circumstances do one’s abilities play such a vital role. Those

39The Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire (S & IRQ)

individuals derive the most satisfaction from extreme sensations because the-ir risk assessment depends solely on their own competence (Kurtz, 1988). Rock or mountain climbers, hang-glider pilots, parachutists, etc. believe that everyday life situations at work or home are often more dangerous than those they face, e.g. in the mountains or air. That results from the fear of mistakes made by others, which cannot be made up for by one’s own abilities. On a clim-bing route or during a flight, one may feel safer than on a motorway, as there are no other people who may behave unprofessionally. Similar statements can be heard from stuntmen and professional divers, who claim that they would not want to have a risk-taker in their teams, as that would make them feel unsafe (Piet, 1988).

There may be two different motives behind risk taking:1. pleasure (stimulating risk),2. achieving an important goal (instrumental risk).Stimulating risk occurs when the aim of risky behaviour is to experien-

ce pleasant physiological arousal, pleasure (e.g. sex, drugs, extreme sports. That kind of risk is to give a thrill. Taking such a risk is mainly influenced by the need for stimulation and is not preceded by analysing possible losses.

The concept of this questionnaire draws directly on numerous theories concerning the so-called optimum stimulation (or activation) level, claiming that one’s achievement of such an optimum level determines a specific mo-tivational impulse to take an action or refrain from it, which depends, on one hand, on the sum of experienced sensations and, on the other hand, on the specific, individual need for stimulation (Zuckerman, 2000, 2005, 2007; Llewellyn & Sanchez, 2008; Strelau, 2008; Zawadzki & Strelau, 2010; Strelau & Zawadzki, 2011).

Stimulating risk taking is impulsive and characterised by low self-control. The individual does not focus on potential gains – it is of no importance that he or she will lose money or take the last place in a sports competition. What counts is the very participation in a risky situation. Stimulating risk taking en-tails domination of the emotional information processing system. It is a desire to experience positive emotions that makes the individual take a risk.

The other type of risk is one that is needed by the individual to attain an intended goal (Darwin, 1887; Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 2008; Conroy, Hyde, Doerksen, & Ribeiro, 2010; Brunet & Sabiston, 2011; Smith, Ntoumanis,


Duda, & Vansteenkiste 2011). In that case, positive emotions can be felt as a re-sult of actions taken and are not their aim. Risk is seen as a mere tool – an instrument used when striving for a goal – hence, its name: instrumental risk. That kind of risk is controlled because no spontaneous actions are taken and risky ones result from cool calculations focused on achieving an expected re-sult. Risk is rational and included in the costs of attaining a goal. It is most often accompanied by high self-control of the individual taking the risk. In an instrumental risk situation, the individual takes also possible losses into account; however, his or her main objective is to achieve positive results in the area of his or her interest. Instrumental risk taking is connected with assessing the size of possible losses and requires appropriate behaviour (stra-tegy, tactics) on the path to a set objective. It is assumed that taking a risky action results from a need being understood in various ways. It may be a need to adapt to existing conditions, survive, maintain positive self-image, a desi-re to reach a goal, whose pursuit requires the individual to take risky steps. Irrespective of how that need is construed, risky behaviours are displayed because the individual has to take a specific action. Instrumental risk may concern economic behaviours, e.g. investing in the stock market, or typical sports behaviours, e.g. an analytical chess game or tactical decisions made du-ring flying contests or a cross-country race. It can be assumed that the subject taking an instrumental risk is motivated to think in an analytical and rational way (Zaleśkiewicz, 2001a, 2001 b; Zaleśkiewicz & Piskorz, 2007; Zaleśkiewicz, Castanier, & Le Scanff, 2010).

It is worth emphasising that individuals may show various behaviours in risky situations in various areas of life. Someone may display instrumental risk behaviours in the financial sphere and take stimulating risks while pur-suing leisure activities. It is also possible to take instrumental and stimulating risks in the same sphere of life depending on the situation. Individuals holding senior managerial positions, facing instrumental risks in their everyday lives, often take stimulating risks while having leisure.

Based on M. Apter’s (1994) theory, we can distinguish between the telic dimension (tending toward an outcome) in the case of instrumental risk and the paratelic dimension (tending toward a state) in the context of stimula-ting risk.


Table 1. Comparison of characteristic features of stimulating and instrumental risks

Stimulating risk Instrumental riskMore focus on gains Focus on possible lossesMore prominent role of emotional processes

More prominent role of cognitive processes

Unconscious information processing Mainly conscious information processingMaking decisions impulsively Making decisions thoughtfullyOne cannot control that risk One can control that risk

Note. Own work based on Zaleśkiewicz, 1999, p. 76.

Method

S&IRQ Structure

Based on theoretical descriptions of the specific types of risk, two in-dependent versions of terms were prepared, describing specific features of stimulating and instrumental risks. Supported by similarity and difference analysis, one common version was designed consisting of 15 terms for each kind of risk. The list was handed over to eight competent judges (5th-year psychology students), whose task was to assign specific terms to two super-ordinate categories. Terms, for which agreement among the competent judges exceeded 70%, were included in the initial version of the questionnaire. That is how the seven-term list was created to be the object of further psychome-tric analyses.

Simultaneously, cultural adaptation of the questionnaire from Polish into English was performed according to the diagnostic tool cultural adaptation procedure (Bartram, 2001; Bullinger, Alonso, Apolonge, Leplège et al., 1998; Ruperto, Ravelli, Pistorio, Malattia et al., 2001). It should be stated that no-tions of optimum arousal and, thus, of stimulation as well as those concerning motivation for success, winning, and victory are understood in the same way in the entire Western culture. That allows to transfer the theoretical construct from Polish culture to the other Western ones.

The second step of the cultural adaptation was to translate the questionna-ire from Polish into English. Direct translation was made by two professional translators, for whom English is their native language (native speakers). The accuracy of translation was checked by four bilingual American 4th-year


students (one parent being a Pole and the other an American) at the Faculty of Medicine of the Medical University of Gdańsk.

Subjects

Detailed psychometric analyses were performed on four independent gro-ups of individuals: the group of Poles (the Polish language) and three groups of individuals using English on an everyday basis: Norwegians (mainly stu-dying in English), Americans, and Southern Europeans: Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards (mainly studying in English). Table 2 below presents mean ages of the subjects. Statistical analyses used Statistica 9 and Amos 18.

Tabele 2. Ages of studied individuals in particular groups

Group N N females

Nmales

M SD MinimumMaximum

Poles 3,612 2,272 1,340 23.89 8.93 14 77Norwegians 752 377 375 26.08 7.75 18 75Americans 93 48 45 26.90 7.98 15 64Greeks, Spaniards, and Italians

355 170 185 26.62 8.15 15 69

Table 3 below shows the mean levels of stimulating and instrumental risks in the studied groups. Due to inequilateral groups, variance analysis applied Scheffe’s test.

Table 3. Stimulating and instrumental risk levels in studied groups

Group Results Norwegians Poles Americans Greeks, Spaniards,

Italians

Differences

1 2 3 4Stimulating risk

M 11.95 13.64 13.84 13.17 1:2; 1:3; 1:4

SD 4.00 4.17 3.85 3.87Instrumental risk

M 10.93 10.94 10.38 11.01 No statisti-cally

significant differences

SD 2.65 2.97 2.71 2.65


Statistically significant differences occurred in stimulating risk levels be-tween Norwegians and the other groups (F = 35.85; p = 0.001). As indicated by Figure 1 below, the stimulating risk level is much lower in Norwegians than in Poles, Americans as well as Greeks, Spaniards, and Italians.

Figure 1. Resulting model of risk factor structure in S&IRQ (group of Norwegians).

Results

Reliability and S&IRQ Item Discrimination Powers

Table 4 presents reliability indices for two scales (dimensions) and item discrimination powers based on the study on 752 individuals from Norway. The results of analysis indicate that the reliability of the scales singled out is highly satisfactory for both sexes. It can be observed that the scales of male and female attitudes are characterised by similar reliability. Hence, it can be stated that the Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire is as reliable risk measurement tool for females as it is for males.


Table 4. S&IRQ item characteristics and scale reliabilities – group of Norwegians

Entire group Females Males

Variable (N = 752) (N = 377) (N = 375)

Number of items

Cronbach’s alpha

r mean Cronbach’s alpha

r mean Cronbach’s alpha

r mean

Stimulating risk

4 0.80 0.50 0.79 0.49 0.78 0.48

Instrumental risk

3 0.65 0.43 0.66 0.40 0.71 0.46

Tables 5 and 6 use the point biserial correlation coefficient (rpbi) as the me-asure of test item discrimination power.

Table 5. Internal coherence analysis overview for the stimulating risk scale – group of Norwegians

Item No. Discriminatory power rpbi Cronbach’s alpha after item removal

1. 0.63 0.74

2. 0.56 0.77

3. 0.62 0.74

4. 0.64 0.73

Alpha = 0.79; mean r = 0.50

Table 6. Internal coherence analysis overview for the instrumental risk scale – group of Norwegians

Item No. Discriminatory power rpbi Cronbach’s alpha after item removal

1 0.36 0.75

2 0.57 0.50

3 0.58 0.49

Alpha = 0.69; mean r = 0.43

Similar results were received for the other studied groups.


S&IRQ Validity

Validity assessment for the Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionna-ire was based on two types of construct validity: factor validity and criterion validity. Correlation matrix analysis, which is meant to assess the test criterion and construct validity, is the analysis of correlation coefficients between the re-sults of the created test and those of other tests, e.g. NEO-FFI. The aim of the analysis was to estimate correlation coefficients between the assessed test and results of tests measuring similar traits. In order for a test to be regarded as having construct validity, it is not enough to prove that its results correlate sufficiently with results of similar tests (the so-called convergent aspect of va-lidity), but it also has to be confirmed that they do not correlate with results of tests measuring other traits (the so-called discriminant aspect of validity).

Factor Validity

Factor validity allows to determine the structure (simplified model) of the studied construct and the degree, to which that structure reflects multidimensional, complex relationships within the studied phenomenon, described through answers given by respondents to specific questions in the questionnaire.

The questionnaire’ factor validity analysis applied the Confirmatory Factor Analysis technique, which allows to verify a hypothesis on good fit between the 2–factor risk type structure construct and the data obtained in empirical studies. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis, employing the maximum likelihood method, was used for the structural model shown in the diagram below. Each of the factors was identified as a cause of specific observed behavioural fac-tors. Simultaneously, each variance of the latent factor was determined as equal to the variance of a particular index observed according to the above diagram.

Structural Model Quality Examination

Structural model verification consists in checking the significance of path indices and determining how well endogenous latent variables are explained by the model. It was also checked whether the signs of indices are as expected. At that stage, it should also be verified whether some signifi-cant path was not omitted.


The assessment of the model began with the verification of measuring models. Rules are the same as for factor analysis: standardised loadings, path indices should exceed 0.70. Standardised path indices for the latent variable (stimulating risk and instrumental risk) are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Factor-loading values in the two-factor model in the group of Norwegians

Test item Factor loading valuesGroup of Norwegians (N = 752)

1 0.76Factor I: Stimulating risk 2 0.58

3 0.704 0.795 0.54

Factor II: Instrumental risk 6 0.897 0.79

Figure 2. Stimulating and instrumental risk levels in studied groups.


All parameters of the structural model are significant (p < 0.001). Thus, it can be stated that all the variables have satisfactory loadings. It ought to be mentioned that path indices computed for that model concern standardised variables. Correlations between stimulating and instrumental risks are nega-tive: r = –0.42.

Divergence Statistics

There is no consensus as to which measures are the most suitable for the model fit assessment, thus several tests of the model’s goodness of fit are used. Most standard model measures allow merely to compare models, inste-ad of objectively assessing their fit, except for the commonly recommended RMSEA, GFI, and AGFI.

Table 8 presents six model fit indices.

Table 8. Modelfitindicesintwoindependentgroups

Model fit indices RMSEA PCLOSE Chi-square df p GFI AGFI

Group of Poles (N = 3,612) 0.057 0.053 168.89 13 <0.001 0.989 0.976Group of Norwegians (N = 752)

0.056 0.219 30.18 13 0.002 0.973 0.943

Group of Americans (N = 93) <0.001 0.715 11.77 13 0.546 0.980 0.958Group of Southern Europeans (N = 355)

0.061 0.232 30.20 13 0.004 0.982 0.960

The result of the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) test by Steiger-Lind ranged from 0.009 to 0.061, being 0.056 for the group of Nor-wegians. It is assumed to be still acceptable if not exceeding 0.08. The value calculated in the PCLOSE test, called the test of closeness between the empi-rical matrix of results and the theoretical model, ranged from 0.219 to 0.715, being 0.219 in the group of Norwegians, which also indicates the goodness of fit between the model and data. In turn, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) describes to what extent covariances in the sample are explained by cova-riances arising from the model. For a saturated model, the value is 1. It is assumed that the GFI ought to exceed 0.90. In the group of Norwegians, that index was 0.973. Due to chi-square distribution properties (CMIN in the group


of Norwegians is 30.18), the test easily rejects the null hypothesis for large samples, hence discrediting the model, while it may be actually the most ac-ceptable. The model acceptance criterion is the chi-square value which should be statistically insignificant. In our case, it is 0.002 for the group of Norwe-gians, but it does not discredit the model as the other goodness of fit indices are acceptable. To sum up, we can state that the presented model’s goodness of fit tests affirmatively answered the question whether the hypothetically as-sumed model can be verified by distribution of results acquired from the data matrix for all the studied groups.

Criterion Validity

Criterion validity was examined only in the group of Poles in Polish. The empirical criterion validity of the questionnaire was determined, based on the analysis of coefficients of correlation with other measures of psycho-logical characteristics obtained for the same group of subjects (Christakou, Zervas, Stavrou, & Psychountaki, 2011; Castillo, Tomás, Balaguer, Fonseca et al., 2010; Lafollie, Le Scanff, & Fontayne, 2008). The detailed analysis of those relationships allows to define the convergent and discriminant aspects of validity.

While assessing the stimulating and instrumental risk measurements, the relationships that occurred were verified by means of the following tools:

1. The Multifactor Risky Behaviour Scale by R. StudenskiThe author of the Multifactor Risky Behaviour Scale (MRBS) is R. Studen-

ski (2004). The questionnaire is intended to measure the type of displayed risky behaviours. It includes four scales: physical risk, social risk, ethical risk, and financial risk. The sum of results for all the scales constitutes the overall index of the propensity to take risks.

2. The Risk Acceptance Scale by R. MakarowskiThe questionnaire was created by R. Makarowski (2008) to diagnose

the tendency to display risky behaviours relative to health. It was assumed that individuals having a high tendency to risk feel the need to show risky behaviours to a greater degree and display such behaviours more often than those characterised by a low tendency to risk. The behaviours concern the fol-lowing areas: 1. operating in the conditions of uncertainty, 2. care of one’s health, 3. steps taken to save one’s health, 4. risk weighing, 5. acting against instructions, 5. operating in unknown circumstances.


3. The Stimulating-Instrumental Risk Inventory – SIRI questionna-ire (T. Zaleśkiewicz, 2001a)

There are two categories of risky situations in the inventory:a. Stimulating risk situations being such, where individuals focus on an

opportunity to get physiological arousal that is assumed to result in a pleasant state of excitement.

b. Instrumental risk situations, i.e. such where subjects pay special at-tention to a possible loss or gain being the priority determining their behaviour.

The questionnaire is intended for studying individuals operating in the bu-siness field.

4. The Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) by M. ZuckermanM. Zuckerman (1990, 2000, 2005, 2007) is the author of the sensation-se-

eking concept, one of the contemporary theories of temperament. Sensation seeking is a trait reflecting the tendency to seek or avoid stimulation. That is connected with the fact that there are relatively constant individual dif-ferences in the need for stimulation, while the source of stimulation is not the actual, physical value of a stimulus, but its importance associated with a person’s individual experience. The Sensation-Seeking Scale diagnoses four factors:

• Thrill and adventure seeking (TAS scale),• Experience seeking (ES scale),• Disinhibition (DIS scale),• Boredom susceptibility (BS scale).

5. The Aggression Questionnaire by A. Buss and M. PerryThe Aggression Questionnaire by A. Buss and M. Perry measures

the levels of physical aggression, verbal aggression, hostility, and anger. The authors of the questionnaire point out that both physical and verbal ag-gression are behavioural components of human behaviour. In their opinion, anger is connected with physiological arousal and constitutes an emotional component of human behaviour, whereas hostility – a feeling of grievance, aversion, and injustice – represents the cognitive component of behaviour (Ruiz & Hanin, 2011).


6. NEO-FFIP.T. Costa and R.R. McCrae designed the Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)

questionnaire for measuring personality factors they considered to be vital: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness. Its Polish adaptation was prepared by B. Zawadzki, J. Strelau, P. Szczepaniak, and M. Śliwińska (1998).

7. The Sense of Stress Questionnaire (SSQ) – by M. Plopa and R. Makarowski

The Sense of Stress Questionnaire authored by Mieczysław Plopa and Ryszard Makarowski (2010) is meant for measuring the structure of stress sensations. It includes the following scales:

emotional strain,• external stress,• intrapsychic stress,• lie scale,• overall result.

8. GSES – the Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale (R. Schwarzer, M. Jeru-salem, & Z. Juczyński)

GSES – the Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale (Juczyński, 2001) draws on the concept of expectations and the self-efficacy notion formulated by Ban-dura (1977). It measures the strength of the individual’s general conviction about his or her efficacy in coping with difficult situations and obstacles. The higher the result is, the higher the sense of self-efficacy occurs.

Table 9 presents “multitrait-multimethod matrix” analysis, Pearson’s r correlation coefficients between S&IRQ’s dimensions and other dimensions in the above questionnaires.


Table 9. S&IRQ scales and measures of risk, temperament, aggression, and personality predispositions

Questionnaire Variable Stimulating risk

Instrumental risk

Physical risk 0.56 –0.31p < 0.001 p < 0.001

Multifactor Risky Social risk 0.30 –0.16Behaviour Scale p < 0.001 p = 0.060(N = 137; 70F; 67M; Age (M = 24.79; SD = 5.28)

Ethical risk 0.14 –0.13

p = 0.101 p = 0.140Financial risk 0.48 –0.25

p < 0.001 p = 0.003Overall result 0.46 –0.26

p < 0.001 p = 0.002Risk Acceptance Scale Unhealthy risk 0.44 0.00(N = 86; 42F; 44M) Age (M = 23.32; SD = 4.60)

p = 0.003 p = 0.989

Stimulating risk – SIRI’ 2001

0.24

SIRI’ 2001 Questionnaire 0.017(N = 100; 50F; 50M) Age (M = 19.92; SD = 0.77)

Instrumental risk – SIRI’ 2001

0.88

p < 0.001

Sensation-Seeking Scale (SSS) by M.Thrill and adventure seeking

0.60p < 0.001

–0.28p = 0.005

Zuckerman Experience seeking 0.41 –0.24(N = 99; 61F; 38M) Age (M = 21.86; p < 0.001 p = 0.015SD = 2.12) Hedonistic

disinhibition0.42 –0.33

p < 0.01 p = 0.001Boredom susceptibility

0.40 –0.25

p < 0.001 p = 0.014Intellectual stimulation

0.24 0.03

p = 0.016 p = 0.775


Overall result 0.50 –0.37

p < 0.001 p < 0.001

Physical aggression 0.31 –0.18

p = 0.002 p = 0.072

Verbal aggression 0.18 –0.16

p = 0.078 p = 0.117

Aggression Questionnaire by A. Buss and

Anger 0.21 –0.15

M. Perry p = 0.038 p = 0.136(N = 178; 101F; 78M) Age (M = 21.51;

Hostility 0.18 –0.02

SD = 1.78) p = 0.080 p = 0.807Aggression – overall result

0.32 –0.18

p = 0.001 p = 0.072Neuroticism 0.10 0.23

p = 0.451 p = 0.084Extraversion 0.42 0.16

p = 0.001 p = 0.241NEO-FFI Openness –0.07 –0.22(N = 56; 56M) Age (M = 44.76; SD = 9.42)

p = 0.624 p = 0.107

Conscientiousness 0.12 0.25p = 0.362 p = 0.061

Agreeableness –0.17 –0.20p = 0.204 p = 0.143

Emotional strain 0.29 0.23p = 0.028 p = 0.095

External stress 0.14 –0.22Sense of Stress Questionnaire p = 0.289 p = 0.107(N = 56; 56M) Age (M = 44.76; SD = 9.42)

Intrapsychic stress 0.12 0.28

p = 0.85 p = 0.035Lie scale –0.06 0.15

p = 0.683 p = 0.275


Overall result 0.22 0.27p = 0.105 p = 0.044

GSES – Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale

Sense of self- 0.45 0.42

(N = 50; 37F, 13M) Age (M = 26.72; SD = 3.44)

efficacy p = 0.001 p = 0.002

712 individuals participated in the study. Eight independent groups were examined, the same individuals being tested by means of the NEO-FFI Qu-estionnaire and the Sense of Stress Questionnaire. The performed analyses indicate that stimulating risk positively correlates with physical, social, and financial risks, the overall result for the Multifactor Risky Behaviour Scale, unhealthy risk, all dimensions of the Sensation Seeking Scale, physical aggres-sion, the overall result for aggression and extraversion, emotional strain, and the sense of self-efficacy (r = 0.24 through r = 0.60). As for instrumental risk, it negatively correlates with physical and financial risks, the overall result for the Multifactor Risky Behaviour Scale, and all dimensions of the Sensation Seeking Scale, except for intellectual stimulation (from r = –0.37 to r = –0.24). Those results indicate the high validity of the S&IRQ. Instrumental risk po-sitively correlates with intrapsychic stress, the overall result for the sense of stress, and the sense of self-efficacy (r = 0.27 through r = 0.42). Interesting results were received when analysing relationships obtained through the S&I-RQ and the SIRI’2001 Questionnaire by T. Zaleśkiewicz (designed in 2001 – an experimental version)2. The latter (15 questions) examines, as does the S&IRQ (7 questions), stimulating risk and instrumental risk. Correlations between stimulating risks were 0.24 and between instrumental risks were 0.88. It sho-uld be added that each of the questionnaires contained different questions. The SIRI’2001 questionnaire focused on business aspects of instrumental risk. That is consistent with the theoretical assumptions made.

The construct validity of the test was assessed by analysing coefficients of correlation between the results of the analysed test and the other tests. It was expected that correlations of tests measuring similar traits should be high (which was confirmed), while correlations with questionnaires measuring

2 Tomasz Zaleśkiewicz agreed to construct a new questionnaire (Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, 2010).


other traits ought to be low (among others, ethical risk, unhealthy risk vs. in-strumental risk, neuroticism, certain kinds of stress). The discriminant aspect of construct validity was confirmed.

Test-Retest Reliability Assessment

The subjects were 90 nurses supplementing their medical education (age: M = 42.53; SD = 7.10). Two tests were performed at the interval of four months (February-May) in 2011. The absolute stability coefficient for stimulating risk was 0.70 with p < 0.01, while for instrumental risk, it was 0.64 with p = 0.023. It can be stated that the measurement made by means of S&IRQ is moderately stable.

Description of S&IRQ Dimensions

The Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire is used to measure the style of perception and interpretation of risky behaviours. It distinguishes between two styles of risky behaviours: stimulating (S) and instrumental (I).

Stimulating risk – risk is perceived as a way to get stimulation through increased physiological arousal. Important elements are focusing on activi-ty and seeking sensations by searching for highly stimulating situations that bring pleasure, irrespective of the outcome. Gain, win or loss is of no impor-tance as activity is intended to cause a pleasant state of excitement that is an end in itself.

Instrumental risk – risk is perceived as an opportunity for a positive re-sult. Risk is taken only when there is a chance of win or gain. The stimulating aspect of risk taking is of no importance. That kind of risk requires rational thinking and orientation solely towards a goal as it is only winning that counts and a possible future win makes individuals look for tools to increase their likelihood of success.

Study Procedure

The questionnaire can be used in individual and collective studies.Answers are assigned a specific number of points as follows:True = 5; Rather true = 4; Hard to say = 3; Rather untrue = 2; Untrue = 1.


The (stimulating risk) dimension includes the following statements: 1, 3, 5, 7.The minimum score is 4, and the maximum score is 20.The (instrumental risk) dimension includes the following statements: 2, 4, 6.The minimum score is 3, and the maximum score is 15.

Summary

The Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire is a tool answe-ring the question about motivation behind risk taking. On one hand, it can be a solely pleasurable motivation when a risk-taking individual focuses only on possible benefits offered by positive emotions. In that state, decisions are made in an impulsive and unconscious manner. On the other hand, it can be instrumental motivation when a risk-taking individual looks at a risky situ-ation from a certain distance so that conscious, controlled cognitive processes can lead to winning, ensuring victory or achieving an intended goal. In that case, the focus is on the chance of a possible loss and the analysis of the loss is to help choose a successful strategy.

The results of analyses performed on the four groups show that the re-liability of the singled out scales is highly satisfactory. The analyses carried out indicate that the stimulating risk positively correlates with physical, so-cial, and financial risks, the overall result for the Multifactor Risky Behaviour Scale, unhealthy risk, all dimensions of the Sensation Seeking Scale, physical aggression, the overall result for aggression and extraversion, emotional stra-in, and the sense of self-efficacy (r = 0.24 through r = 0.60). That is consistent with the theoretical assumptions made. As for instrumental risk, it negatively correlates with physical and financial risks, the overall result for the Multifac-tor Risky Behaviour Scale and all dimensions of the Sensation Seeking Scale, except for intellectual stimulation (from r = –0.37 to r = –0.24). Those results indicate the high validity of the S&IRQ. Instrumental risk positively correlates with the level of intrapsychic stress, the overall result for the sense of stress, and the sense of self-efficacy (r = 0.27 through r = 0.42).

As shown by the analyses, the level of stimulating risk is much lower in Norwegians than in Poles, Americans as well as Greeks, Spaniards, and Italians.

It seems that an advantage of the presented questionnaire is the ease and time of its application (it consists of only seven questions). It can be widely


used in those areas of human activity that are associated with risk taking. It can be applied by coaches of various sports interested in the relationship between motives behind risks taken by athletes and their achievements. It can be used in studies concerning representatives of various professions (bu-siness people, police officers, soldiers, health service employees, firemen, politicians), in which specific motivation for risky behaviours may bear a si-gnificant relationship to the quality of the decisions made.

The Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire (S&IRQ)R. Makarowski, M. Plopa

Please remember that there are no “correct” or “incorrect” answers, only truthful ones count.

Please mark your answer with an X.

Tru

e

Rat

her t

rue

Har

d to

say

Rat

her u

ntru

e

Unt

rue

1. When I pursue my passions, I like the moments of balancing on the edge of risk.

O O O O O

2. I take the risk only when it is necessary to reach my goal. O O O O O

3. Sometimes, I unnecessarily tempt fate. O O O O O

4. When I have to risk, I carefully calculate the possibility of failure.

O O O O O

5. I am attracted to various hazardous actions (e.g. travelling across remote, unknown places) even if I do not know what can happen to me there.

O O O O O

6. Before taking a risky decision, I always thoroughly consider all pros and cons.

O O O O O

7. Sometimes I risk to feel the “adrenaline” because that makes me feel that I really live.

O O O O O


References

Apter, M.J. (1994). Im Rausch der Gefahr. München: Kösel.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bartram, D. (2001). The development of international guidelines on test use: The In-ternational Test Commission Project. International Journal of Testing, 1, 33–53.

Brawley, L., Carron, A., & Widmeyer, W. (2008). The influence of the group and its co-hesiveness on perception of group-related variables. In: D. Lavallee, J.M. Williams, & M.V. Jones (eds.), Key studies in sport and exercise psychology. England: Open University Press, 2008.

Bullinger, M., Alonso, J., Apolonge, G., Leplège, A. et al. (1998). Translating health sta-tus questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA project approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 11, 913–923.

Buss, A.H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.

Breivik, G. & Roth, W.T. (1998). Personality, psychological states and heart rate in nov-ice and expert parachutists. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 365–370.

Brunet, J. & Sabiston, C.M. (2011). Exploring motivation for physical activity across the adult lifespan. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 99–105.

Castillo, I., Tomás, I., Balaguer, I., Fonseca, A.M., Dias, C., & Duda, J.L. (2010). The task and ego orientation in sport questionnaire: Testing for measurement invariance and latent mean differences in Spanish and Portuguese adolescents. International Journal of Testing, 10, 21–32.

Castanier, C., Le Scanff, Ch., & Woodman, T. (2010). Beyond sensation seeking: Affect regulation as a framework for predicting risk-taking behaviors in high-risk sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32(5), 731–738.

Christakou, A., Zervas, Y., Stavrou, N.A., & Psychountaki, M. (2011). Development and validation of the Causes of Re-Injury Worry Questionnaire. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 16(1), 94–114.

Darwin, C. (1887). Journal of researches into the geology and natural history of the various countries visited by H.M.S. Beagle, 1832–1836. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Przeglądu Tygodniowego [Weekly Review Publishing House].

Fletcher, D. & Scott, M. (2010). Psychological stress in sports coaches: a review of con-cepts, theory and research. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 127–137.

Hanin, Y.L. (2010). Coping with anxiety in sport. In: A. Nicholls (ed.), Coping in sport: Concepts, issues, and related constructs. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Juczyński, Z. (2001). Narzędzia pomiaru w promocji i psychologii zdrowia [Measure-ment tools in health promotion and psychology]. Warsaw: Pracownia Testów


Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego [Laboratory of Psy-chological Tests of the Polish Psychological Society].

Kurtz, E. (1988). Unfähigkeit zur Umkehr: Wenn bei Piloten der Verstand aussetzt. Drachenfliegermagazin, 2, 64–67.

Lafollie, D., Le Scanff, Ch., & Fontayne, P. (2008). French adaptation of “the Risk and Excitement Inventory” (REI). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue ca-nadienne des sciences du comportement, 40, 113–119.

Llewellyn, D.J. & Sanchez, X. (2008). Individual differences and risk taking in rock climbing. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 413–426.

Makarowski, R. (2008). Granice ryzyka. Paradygmat psychologiczny [Risk limits. Psy-chological paradigm]. Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls [IMPULS Publishing House].

Makarowski, R. (2010). Ryzyko i stres w lotnictwie sportowym [Risk and stress in sports aviation]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Difin [Difin Publishing House].

Martha, C., Sanchez, X., & Goma-i-Freixanet, M. (2009). Risk perception as a function of risk exposure amongst rock climbers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 193–200.

Moen, B. & Rundmo, T. (2005). Predictors of unrealistic optimism: a study of Norwe-gian risk takers. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 363–382.

Neil, R., Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S.D., & Fletcher. (2011). Competition stress and emo-tions in sport performers: The role of further appraisals. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 460–470.

Nieuwenhuys, A., Vos, L., Pijpstra, S., & Bakker, F.C. (2011). Meta experiences and cop-ing effectiveness in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,12, 135–143.

Paquette, L., Lacourse, É., & Bergeron, J. (2009). Construction of a scale of taking risk and validation near teenagers practitioner an alpine ski sports. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(3), 133–142.

Piet, S. (1988). Zur Motivation von Stuntmen – Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie. Report Psychologie, 1/12, 14–30.

Plopa, M. & Makarowski, R. (2010). Kwestionariusz Poczucia Stresu [Sense of Stress Questionnaire]. Warsaw: VIZJA PRESS & IT.

Ruiz, M.C. & Hanin, Y.L. (2011). Perceived impact of anger on performance of skilled karate athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 242–249.

Ruperto, N., Ravelli, A., Pistorio, A., Malattia, C., Cavuto, S., Gado-West, L., Tortorell, A., Landgraf, J.M., Singh, G., & Martini, A. (2011). Cross-cultural adaption and psycho-metric evaluation of the Childhood Health Questionnaire (CHAQ) and the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) in 32 countries. Review of the general methodology. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 19, 1–9.


Smith, A.L., Ntoumanis, N., Duda, J.L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2011). Goal striving, cop-ing, and well-being: A prospective investigation of the self-concordance model in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33, 124–145.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 1–12.

Strelau, J. (2008). Temperament as a regulator of behavior: After fifty years of research. US: Eliot Werner Publications.

Strelau, J. & Zawadzki, B. (2011). Fearfulness and anxiety in research on tempera-ment: Temperamental traits are related to anxiety disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 907–915.

Studenski, R. (2004). Wieloczynnikowa Skala Zachowań Ryzykownych (WSZR). Podręcznik [Multifactor Risky Behaviour Scale. Manual]. Katowice: University of Silesia in Katowice.

Wegener, D.T. & Petty, R.E. (1994). Mood management across affective states: The he-donic contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1034–1048.

Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., & Smith, S.M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message process-ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 500–508.

Zaleśkiewicz, T. (1999). Psychologiczne wymiary i determinanty ryzyka [Psycholo-gical dimensions and determinants of risk]. Ergonomia [Ergonomics], 22, 69–80.

Zaleśkiewicz, T. (2001a). Kwestionariusz SIRI (Stimulating-Instrumental Risk In-ventory). Wersja eksperymentalna otrzymana od autora [SIRI Questionnaire (Stimulating-Instrumental Risk Inventory). Experimental Version Obtained from the Author]. Gdańsk: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Instytutu Psychologii UG [Laboratory of Psychological Tests of the Institute of Psychology of the Uni-versity of Gdańsk].

Zaleśkiewicz, T. (2001b). Beyond risk seeking and risk aversion: Personality and the dual nature of economic risk taking. European Journal of Personality, 15, 105–122.

Zaleśkiewicz, T. & Piskorz, Z. (2007). Risk as necessity and risk as pleasure: The per-ception of instrumental and stimulating risks. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 38, 206–216.

Zawadzki, B. & Strelau, J. (2010). Structure of personality: Search for a general factor viewed from a temperament perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 77–82.


Zuckerman, M. (1990). The psychophysiology of sensation seeking. Journal of Perso-nality, 58, 313–345.

Zuckerman, M. & Kuhlman, D.M. (2000). Personality and risk taking: Common bioso-cial factors. Journal of Personality, 68, 999–1029.

Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Documents

The Stimulating and Instrumental Risk Questionnaire (S & IRQ)