0
Research Papers

On Measuring Engineering Risk Attitudes1

[+] Author and Article Information
Douglas L. Van Bossuyt

Complex Engineered Systems
Design Laboratory,
School of Mechanical, Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR 97331
e-mail: Douglas.VanBossuyt@gmail.com

Andy Dong

Faculty of Engineering and
Information Technologies,
University of Sydney,
Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
e-mail: Andy.Dong@sydney.edu.au

Irem Y. Tumer

Complex Engineered Systems
Design Laboratory,
School of Mechanical, Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR 97331
e-mail: Irem.Tumer@oregonstate.edu

Lucila Carvalho

Faculty of Education and Social Work,
University of Sydney,
Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
e-mail: Lucila.Carvalho@sydney.edu.au

1A version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers in Engineering Conference, 23rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology.

2Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received November 27, 2012; final manuscript received July 3, 2013; published online September 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: David Gorsich.

J. Mech. Des 135(12), 121001 (Sep 18, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: MD-12-1587; doi: 10.1115/1.4025118 History: Received November 27, 2012; Revised July 03, 2013

Risk management is a critical part of engineering practice in industry. Yet, the attitudes of engineers toward risk remain unknown and are not measured. This paper presents the development of a psychometric scale, the engineering-domain-specific risk-taking (E-DOSPERT) test, to measure engineers' risk aversion and risk seeking attitudes. Consistent with a similar psychometric scale to assess general risk attitudes, engineering risk attitude is not single domain and is not consistent across domains. Engineers have different risk attitudes toward five identified domains of engineering risk: processes, procedures and practices; engineering ethics; training; product functionality and design; and legal issues. Psychometric risk profiling with E-DOSPERT provides companies a standard to assess domain-specific engineering risk attitude within organizations and across organizations. It provides engineering educators a standard to assess the understanding of engineering students to the types of risks they would encounter in professional practice and their personal attitude toward responding to those risks. Appropriate interventions can then be implemented to shape risk attitudes as appropriate. Risk-based design decisions can also be shaped by a better understanding of engineer and customer risk attitude. Understanding engineers' risk attitudes is crucial in interpreting how individual engineers will respond to risk in their engineering activities and the numerous design decisions they make across the various domains of engineering risk found in professional practice.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Van Bossuyt, D. L., Wall, S. D., and Tumer, I., 2010, “Towards Risk as a Tradable Parameters in Complex Systems Design Trades,” ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE2010), 30th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Parts A and B, ASME, Montréal, Canada, Vol. 3, pp. 1271–1286.
Tumer, I. Y., and Stone, R. B., 2003, “Mapping Function to Failure Mode During Component Development,” Res. Eng. Des., 14(1), pp. 25–33 [CrossRef].
Standards Australia, and Standards New Zealand, 2009, Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines, AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009.
Oehmen, J., Ben-Daya, M., Seering, W., and Al-Salamah, M., 2010, “Risk Management in Product Design: Current State, Conceptual Model and Future Research,” ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE2010), 36th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B, ASME, Montréal, Canada, Vol. 1, pp. 1033–1041.
Mehr, A. F., and Tumer, I. Y., 2006, “Risk-Based Decision-Making for Managing Resources During the Design of Complex Space Exploration Systems,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128(4), pp. 1014–1022. [CrossRef]
Hillson, D., and Murray-Webster, R., 2007, Understanding and Managing Risk Attitude, Aldershot, Gower.
Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., and Betz, N. E., 2002, “A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors,” J. Behav. Decis. Making, 15(4), pp. 263–290. [CrossRef]
Blais, A.-R., and Weber, E. U., 2006, “A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for Adult Populations,” Judgment Decis. Making, 1(1), pp. 33–47. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1301089
Van Bossuyt, D. L., Carvalho, L., Dong, A., and Tumer, I. Y., 2011, “On Measuring Engineering Risk Attitudes,” ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE2011), 23rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; 16th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference, ASME, Vol. 9, pp. 425–434.
Pratt, J. W., 1964, “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large,” Econometrica, 32(1–2), pp. 122–136. [CrossRef]
Arrow, K., 1971, Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing, Markham, Chicago.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., 1993, Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bernoulli, D., 1954, “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk,” Econometrica, 22(1), pp. 23–36. [CrossRef]
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., 1979, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263–291. [CrossRef]
von Winterfeldt, D., and Edwards, W., 1986, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Slovic, P., 1964, “Assessment of Risk Taking Behavior,” Psychol. Bull., 61(3), pp. 330–333. [CrossRef]
Schoemaker, P. J. H., 1990, “Are Risk-Preferences Related Across Payoff Domains and Response Modes?,” Manage. Sci., 36(12), pp. 1451–1463. [CrossRef]
MacCrimmon, K., and Wehrung, D. A., 1990, “Characteristics of Risk Taking Executives,” Manage. Sci., 36(4), pp. 422–435. [CrossRef]
Dyer, J. S., and Sarin, R. K., 1982, “Relative Risk Aversion,” Manage. Sci., 28(8), pp. 875–886. [CrossRef]
Weber, E. U., 1997, The Utility of Measuring and Modeling Perceived Risk, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 45–57.
Bromiley, P., and Curley, S., 1992, Individual Differences in Risk Taking, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, pp. 87–132.
Sarin, R. K., and Weber, M., 1993, “Risk-Value Models,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 70, pp. 135–149. [CrossRef]
Weber, E. U., 1998, Who's Afraid of a Little Risk? New Evidence for General Risk Aversion, Kluwer Academic Press, Norwell, MA, pp. 53–64.
Yates, J. F., and Stone, E. R., 1992, The Risk Construct, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, pp. 1–25.
Coombs, C. H., 1975, Portfolio Theory and the Measurement of Risk, Academic Press, New York, pp. 63–68.
Cooper, A. C., Woo, C. Y., and Dunkelberg, W. C., 1988, “Entrepreneurs' Perceived Chances for Success,” J. Bus. Venturing, 3, pp. 97–108. [CrossRef]
Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P., and Weber, E. U., 1997, “Cross-Cultural Difference in Risk Perception: A Model-Based Approach,” Risk Anal., 17, pp. 479–488. [CrossRef]
Slovic, P., 1997, Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 277–313.
Schwartz, A., and Hasnain, M., 2001, “Risk Perception and Risk Attitude in Informed Concent,” Working Paper, Risk Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, New York, Vol. 7, pp. 121–130. Available at http://ulan.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/rdp.pdf
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., 1986, The Psychometric Study of Risk Perception, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 3–24.
March, J. G., and Shapira, Z., 1987, “Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking,” Manage. Sci., 33(11), pp. 1404–1418. [CrossRef]
Weber, E. U., 2001, Personality and Risk Taking, and Decision and Choice: Risk, Empirical Studies, Elsevier Science Limited, Oxford, pp. 11274–11276.
Bunder, S., 1962, “Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable,” J. Pers., 30, pp. 29–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zuckerman, M., 1994, Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Paulhus, D. L., 1984, “2-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 46, pp. 598–609. [CrossRef]
Johnson, J. G., Wilke, A., and Weber, E. U., 2004, “Beyond a Trait View of Risk-Taking: A Domain-Specific Scale Measuring Risk Perceptions, Expected Benefits, and Perceived-Risk Attitude in German-Speaking Populations,” Pol. Psychol. Bull., 35(3), pp. 153–163. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1301128
Blais, A.-R., and Weber, E. U., 2006, “Testing Invariance in Risk Taking: A Comparison Between Anglophone and Francophone Groups,” Sér. Sci., 2006s-25. Available at: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2006s-25.pdf
Martin, J. D., and Simpson, T. W., 2006, “A Methodology to Manage System-Level Uncertainty During Conceptual Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128, pp. 959–968. [CrossRef]
Thunnissen, D. P., 2003, “Uncertainty Classification for the Design and Development of Complex Systems,” 3rd Annual Predictive Methods Conference, June 2003, Newport Beach, CA.
DeVellis, R. F., 2003, Scale Development Theory and Applications, 2nd ed., SAGE Publications, Newbury Park.
Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H., 1994, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cronbach, L. J., 1951, “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika, 16(3), pp. 297–334. [CrossRef]
Likert, R., 1932, “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” Arch. Psychol., 140, pp. 1–55. Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1933-01885-001
Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., van Hoof, A., t’ Hart, H., Verbogt, T. F. M. A., and Vollebergh, W. A. M., 2000, “Adolescents' Midpoint Responses on Likert-Type Scale Items: Neutral or Missing Values?,” Int. J. Public Opin. Res., 12(2), pp. 208–216. [CrossRef]
Francis, J. D., and Busch, L., 1975, “What We Now Know About ‘I Don't Knows’,” Public Opin. Q., 39, pp. 207–218. [CrossRef]
Presser, S., and Schuman, H., 1980, “The Measurement of a Middle Position in Attitude Surveys,” Public Opin. Q., 44(1), pp. 70–85. [CrossRef]
Ayidiya, S. A., and McClendon, M. J., 1990, “Response Effects in Mail Surveys,” Public Opin. Q., 54(2), pp. 229–247. [CrossRef]
Field, A., 2009, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed., Sage, London.
Schmitt, N., 1996, “Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha,” Psychol. Assess., 8(4), pp. 350–353. [CrossRef]
Lough, K., Van Wie, M., Stone, R., and Tumer, I., 2009, “Promoting Risk Communication in Early Design Through Linguistic Analyses,” Res. Eng. Des., 20(1), pp. 29–40. [CrossRef]
Eckert, C., Earl, C., Stacey, M., Bucciarelli, L. L., and Clarkson, P. J., 2005, “Risk Across Design Domains,” 15th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED05), The Design Society, Melbourne, Australia.
Costello, A. B., and Osborne, J. W., 2005, “Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most From Your Analysis,” Pract. Assess., Res. Eval., 10(7), pp. 173–178.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., and Hammer, A. L., 1998, MBTI Manual, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto.
Van Bossuyt, D., Hoyle, C., Tumer, I. Y., and Dong, A., 2012, “Considering Risk Attitude Using Utility Theory in Risk-Based Design,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 26(4), pp. 393–406. [CrossRef]

Figures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In