SynthesisNature human behaviour2025
A systematic review and meta-analyses of the temporal stability and convergent validity of risk preference measures.
Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age and Gender Differences in the Association Between Risk Aversion and Risky Health Behaviors: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Associations between psychological capital, risk tolerance, and satisfaction: a study of Swedish solo self-employed workers.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding whether risk preference represents a stable, coherent trait is central to efforts aimed at explaining, predicting and preventing risk-related behaviours. We help characterize the nature of the construct by adopting a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analytic approach to summarize the temporal stability of 358 risk preference measures (33 panels, 57 samples, 579,114 respondents). Our findings reveal noteworthy heterogeneity across and within measure categories (propensity, frequency and behaviour), domains (for example, investment, occupational and alcohol consumption) and sample characteristics (for example, age). Specifically, while self-reported propensity and frequency measures of risk preference show a higher degree of stability than behavioural measures, these patterns are moderated by domain and age. Crucially, an analysis of convergent validity reveals a low agreement across measures, questioning the idea that they capture the same underlying phenomena. Our results raise concerns about the coherence and measurement of the risk preference construct.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.