In this study, we use a sample of 228 financial firms over the period of 2007-2012 to examine the impact of voluntary adoption of clawback provisions on these firms’ risk-taking behavior. We find that financial firms exhibit a significant reduction in risk after adopting clawback provisions. The financial firms also exhibit a significant decrease in the volatility of ROE, total return risk and idiosyncratic risk. The reduction in risk is mainly driven by the improvement in the volatility of return on assets and subsample of banks and brokers. In addition, we find that financial firms are less likely to adopt clawback provisions with higher management and director ownership, more insiders on the board, and whose CEO is not the chairman of the board. / February 2017

Abstract is available to download.

No description available.

Aggression has been demonstrated to pose a serious threat to the adaptive development of youth, with decades of research demonstrating the negative associations between aggression and other problem behaviors, both concurrently and predictively. However, despite this body of research, the current psychological literature continues to suffer from a lack of an overarching organizational framework from which to structure the construct(s) of aggression. Furthermore, existing discrepancies across the literature, particularly in the definitions of and outcomes associated with non-physical forms of aggression (e.g., relational aggression, social aggression), exacerbate the complexities facing prevention and intervention specialists. Insofar as research can isolate the unique subtypes of aggressive behaviors that best predict maladjustment outcomes, researchers can focus resources and efforts on those subtypes of aggression identified as being particularly relevant for prevention efforts. To this end, the purpose of the current study was to develop a measure that encompassed the structure of physical and relational aggression and to test competing structures of aggression based on the hypothesized relevant dimensions of mechanism of action (i.e., confrontational action vs. nonconfrontational action) and vehicle of harm (i.e., physical harm vs. relational/social harm) using confirmatory factor analyses. Additionally, this study examined relations between aggression subtypes and hypothesized correlates, including peer deviancy, delinquency, drug use, and social intelligence. Further, this study assessed both the factor structures and unique relations among aggression and its correlates separately for boys and girls, and identified unique structure and relations by gender. Participants included an urban, predominantly African American sample of 280 youth ages eleven through seventeen, who were sampled from an ongoing longitudinal study of violence, substance use, stress, and coping. As hypothesized, the mechanism of action and vehicle of harm dimensions did represent relevant conceptual distinctions in the structure of aggression. Although models did not reach objective standards for goodness of fit criteria, comparatively, the mechanism of action model best represented the structure of aggression for boys, whereas the vehicle of harm model best represented the structure of aggression for girls. Both boys and girls had significant positive correlations among their respective subtypes of aggression and other indicators of maladjustment, including peer deviancy, delinquency, and drug use. Overall, these findings confirm that structures of aggression tested were problematic for urban African-American youth, and suggest that further attention should be paid to disentangling those aspects of aggression that might be most relevant for addressing prevention and intervention efforts.

This study tested dual-process decision-making models as predictors of between-person and within-person variation in risk-taking behavior. Additionally, the study integrated trait perspectives on self-control and impulsivity with decision-making processes to explain risk-taking. Participants were 580 college students ages 18 and older (M age = 20.45, range = 18 to 52 years). This study involved three parts. First, participants completed a survey assessing decision-making processes, self-control, impulsivity and risk-taking behavior. Second, a sub-set of participants completed laboratory-based measures of self-control and impulsivity. Third, participants completed a longitudinal online assessment of their risk-taking behavior. Dual-process models explained concurrent risk-taking, but only the reasoned decision-making process explained longitudinal risk-taking. The dual decision-making processes appear to operate through similar pathways, with components from each pathway exhibiting indirect effects through the other pathway. Impulsivity was linked to higher levels of risk-taking because of higher levels of behavioral intentions and willingness, whereas self-control was linked to lower levels of risk-taking because of lower levels of behavioral intentions. Between-person effects were as common as within-person effects, so future researchers are urged to consider decision-making processes averaged across forms of risk-taking and within each form of risk-taking. Altering decision-making pathways may be an effective way to intervene with individuals at high risk for engaging in risk-taking behavior.

Optimal decision-making entails outcome evaluation, comparing received costs and benefits with predicted costs and benefits. The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a brain area with major connections to the appetitive and aversive motivation systems, may provide the neural substrate of this evaluation process. One way to measure the relative contribution of these systems on decision-making is to measure individual differences in risk-taking behaviors. For individuals who make risky choices, this evaluation step may be biased: some show a preference for immediate, short-term rewards (increased appetitive system), while devaluing the long-term consequences of their choices (decreased aversive system). However, most studies supporting this theory have utilized monetary loss as the punishment. Other punishments that represent the presence of an aversive outcome, such as delivery of a painful stimulus, may be processed in a separate brain area and thus, may have differing effects on decision-making. The current study aimed to answer two main questions. First, we asked: is the ACC engaged by both appetitive stimuli and aversive stimuli? To answer this question, we recorded the Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) response, a component thought to represent activity of the ACC, during a passive reward and punishment prediction task. Results indicated that the FRN responded to whether the outcome was A) unexpected and B) delivered or withheld, but not to the valence of the outcome. Second, we asked: do individual differences in these two systems have a differential impact on decision-making? To answer this question, participants completed a gambling task where they had to choose between large and small bets based on a probability of winning while we recorded their FRN response. They also completed self-report questionnaires indicating their sensitivity to reward/punishment and risk-taking behaviors. Results indicated that increased sensitivity of the appetitive system and decreased sensitivity of the aversive system (measured by both self-report and ERPs) predicted risky choice on the self-report measure and less so on the behavioral measure. Taken together, these results complement those that suggest the ACC is involved in evaluating both costs and benefits and may be influenced by both appetitive and aversive motivational systems.

The aim of the represent research was to investigate the relationship between illusion of control, optimism bias, locus of control, and drivers&rsquo / risk-taking behavior among Turkish drivers. A total of 307 drivers completed the Driver Behavior Questionnaire, the Driver Skills Inventory, the Optimism Bias Scale, the Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale, and Rotter&rsquo / s Internality Externality Scale. In chapter one, comparison between perceived risk as driver and perceived risk as passenger demonstrated existence of illusion f control among drivers. Drivers&rsquo / risk assignments were different when imagining themselves as drivers and passenger. Illusion of control was found to be related to the total number of accidents, especially involvement in active accidents. This indicates a positive relationship between illusion of control and risk-taking behavior. In the second chapter, optimism bias was found in drivers&rsquo / risk likelihood estimations for accident involvement in the future. Drivers estimated their risk of being involved in four types of accidents as less than an average driver. Optimism bias was related to self-reported violations and strong evaluation of driving and safety skills as strong. Young and novice drivers were more realistic in their risk estimations. In the third chapter, relationship between locus of control and risk-taking was investigated. Only fate scale correlated with violations. Drivers who attribute accident causes to fate were more likely to commit violations. The limitations of the current research and implications for further research were discussed.

The aims of the current study are to examine the relation of risk taking behaviors (RTBs) with perceived risk, perceived benefit, and impulsivity and also to investigate the moderator role of impulsivity on the relationships between engagement in RTBs and the predictors of the engagement in RTBs (i.e. perceived risk and benefit) after controlling the effects of age, gender, and self esteem. In order to measure engagement in RTBs, perceived risk, and perceived benefit, Modified Risk Involvement and Perception Scale (&Ouml / zmen, 2006) was adapted to Turkish culture in Study 1 by using Middle East Technical University (METU) students. The sample of Study 2 was composed of 234 METU students and a questionnaire set including demographic information sheet, Modified Risk Involvement and Perception Scale (M-RIPS) (&Ouml / zmen, 2006), Barratt Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11) (G&uuml / le&ccedil / et al., 2008), and Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg, 1965) was administered. Multiple hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with perceived risk, perceived benefit, and impulsivity as independent variables and engagement in RTBs as the dependent variable. The findings suggested that perceived risk was negatively whereas perceived benefit and impulsivity was positively related to risk taking behaviors. Moreover, as compared to perceived risk, perceived benefit was a more powerful predictor of RTB. However, it was not found any moderator role of impulsivity on the relationships between engagement in RTBs and its predictors. The strengths and limitations, as well as implications of the findings were discussed.

When making decisions, individuals evaluate several possible outcomes of their choice; however, some display heightened reward sensitivity, despite the potential for future negative consequences, which can lead one to make risky choices. Rewards are processed in the mesolimbic dopamine reward system, and this system is in part modulated by genetic polymorphisms that are associated with dopamine transmission. The current study tested if genetic polymorphisms that are associated with enhanced dopamine neurotransmission will be more neurally reward sensitive, score higher on self-reported impulsivity, and make riskier choices. In a sample of 85 participants, five genetic polymorphisms were genotyped and used to create a genetic risk score that represented dopamine transmission efficiency. Two groups (high and low efficiency) were created via median split and then compared on neural reward sensitivity (assessed by event-related potentials, specifically, the medial-frontal negativity [MFN] and the error-related negativity), impulsivity (assessed via self-report), and risky choice (measured using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task and self-report measures). Results indicated that individuals with higher levels of dopamine displayed a less negative MFN and more drinking behaviors than those with lower levels of dopamine. These results suggest that individuals with higher levels of dopamine are less sensitive to punishments, which could lead them to make riskier choices.

Studies indicate a high level of risk taking behavior among student-athletes in the college setting. There are questions as to whether risk-taking behaviors stem from the unique social and academic environment experienced by intercollegiate athletes, or due to other factors such as sensation seeking or other personality traits, perceived norms, peer influence or an amplification of the common college experience of experimentation. However, most research has focused on student-athletes from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). This study examined (1) health risk taking behaviors, (2) sensation seeking and (3) perceived norms among gender and sport-type (contact or non-contact) in a National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) population. Participants (N=63) completed a 78-item questionnaire and reported on risk-taking behaviors (alcohol, marijuana, gambling and sexual risks, for a 12 month period), sensation seeking and perceived norms. Findings from this research indicate that non-contact athletes are more likely than contact athletes to use alcohol during the season of competition. Male and female athletes showed not significant differences in alcohol use, marijuana use and sexual risk behaviors, they did however, have significant differences in gambling behavior. High sensation seekers show strong, positive correlations with alcohol frequency and quantity during the off-season. Perceptions of others (athletes/teammates and general college population) health risk-taking behaviors are higher than their own behaviors. Additional research is needed in many of these domains to further elucidate the relationships and significance of these findings. / text