The Relationship of Risk Propensity and Decision Making Among Student Leaders in Rizal Technological University

RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
College of Arts and Sciences
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK PROPENSITY AND DECISION-
MAKING STYLES AMONG THE STUDENT
LEADERS OF RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
An Undergraduate Thesis Proposal Presented to the
Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
Rizal Technological University, Mandaluyong City
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Psychology
by
Mariel A. Cajusay
Carollyne S. Cruz
Kim John L. Pacal
Yael Noemi A. Sy
February 2024
College of Arts and Sciences ii.
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK PROPENSITY

AND DECISION-MAKING STYLES AMONG THE STUDENT LEADERS OF
RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY'' prepared and submitted by Mariel A.
Cajusay, Carollyne S. Cruz, Kim John Pacal, and Yael Noemi A. Sy as part of
the fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Psychology has been reviewed and is hereby recommended for oral presentation.
JANUARY 15, 2024 LIZELLE ANNE MARIE O. MANABAT, MA, RGC, RPm
Date Adviser
PANEL OF EXAMINERS
Approved by the Board of Examiners with a grade of ____________
JOAN B. MARASIGAN, MA, RPsy, RPm

Chairperson
MARY BETH C. MIRANDA, MA, RPm IRIS CRISTELLE D. DESTURA, MA, RPm
Member Member
Accepted on partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Bachelor of Science in Psychology.
____________________ DR. RODRIGO DP. TOMAS, RGC

Date Dean, CAS
College of Arts and Sciences iii.
ABSTRACT
This research explores the complex relationship between risk propensity
and decision-making among student leaders at Rizal Technological University
(RTU). Employing a quantitative approach, the research aimed to shed light on
how risk propensity relates to decision-making styles. The significance of this study
lies in its potential benefits for student leaders, educational institutions, student
organizations, and the field of psychology.
A population of seven hundred forty-two (742) student leaders from Rizal
Technological University, both Boni and Pasig campuses, was targeted across
different colleges, with a sample size of two hundred fifty-four (254) student leaders
selected using convenience sampling. The study utilized a standardized risk
propensity scale and a general decision-making scale to collect data. Data was
collected ethically using standardized instruments such as the Risk Propensity
Scale and the General Decision-Making Scale, with participants' informed consent
obtained and stringent privacy measures implemented.
The analysis of the collected data revealed a predominance of a neutral risk
propensity among participants, as well as rational decision-making styles within
the student leader cohort. While sex differences were present in both risk
propensity and decision-making styles, no significant differences were found
across colleges.
College of Arts and Sciences iv.
The results show a significant positive relationship between decision-
making styles and risk propensity among student leaders, emphasizing the
complex interplay between these variables. This study not only advances scholarly
understanding of decision-making processes in leadership contexts, but it also has
practical implications for leadership development programs in educational
institutions.
Keywords: Risk propensity, decision-making, student leaders

College of Arts and Sciences v.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper’s accomplishment would not be possible without the help of the
institutions and the people that assisted the researchers throughout the journey of
its completion. The researchers would like to greatly acknowledge the following:
Foremost, the Almighty God, for giving them strength and wisdom to
surpass the challenges given to them.
The researchers were also grateful for the opportunity given to them by
Rizal Technological University and the institution’s generosity and support. They
would not be able to experience all the things that molded them into goal-oriented
and persevering researchers.
The College of Arts and Sciences, to the dean, Dr. Rodrigo DP. Tomas,
college staff, department heads, and professors, thank you for all the support
and trust.
Their family's unwavering support, both emotionally and financially,
helped them push through.
Instr. Lizelle Anne Marie O. Manabat, their thesis adviser, for her
guidance, assistance, comments, suggestions, patience, and expertise for the
success of this study.
Dr. Rodrigo Tomas and Asst. Prof. Kathleen Ryan B. Bobadilla, their
thesis professors and Dr. Amormia R. Caranto, their thesis grammarian, who
generously contributed their skills and assistance from the individuals listed above
College of Arts and Sciences 6
vi.
while creating their theses and gave them the data required to design a compelling
study,
Lastly, Inst. Iris Cristelle D. Destura, Asst. Prof. Mary Beth C. Miranda,
and the panel chair, Assoc. Prof. Joan B. Marasigan, their panel members, they
thank them for their expert knowledge and guidance in improving this study.
Specially, Aljhose A. Almario, their former leader, for her influence,
dedication, and hard work establishing this study on its early stage that help them
to the right direction and became their motivation completing this study.
M. A.C., C.S.C., K.J.L.P., Y.N.A.S.

College of Arts and Sciences vii.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE .......................................................................................................... i
APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT . ......................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURE ................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER
I. – THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND ................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................ 4
Hypothesis ....................................................................................... 5
Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 5
Conceptual Framework ................................................................... 8
Scope and Delimitation of the Study ............................................. 10
Significance of the Study ............................................................... 10
Definition of Terms ........................................................................ 12
II. – REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................ 14
Risk ................................................................................................ 14
Risk Propensity .............................................................................. 16
Decision-Making ............................................................................ 19
Decision-Making Style ................................................................... 22
Student Leaders ............................................................................ 25
Risk Propensity and Decision-Making ............................................. 3
Risk Propensity and Decision-Making of Leaders ......................... 33
Synthesis ....................................................................................... 35
III. – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 37
Research Method .......................................................................... 37
Population and Sampling Scheme ................................................ 38
College of Arts and Sciences viii.
Description of the Respondents .................................................... 39

Ethical Consideration ..................................................................... 40
Research Instrument ..................................................................... 42
Data Gathering Procedures ........................................................... 44
Statistical Treatment of Data ......................................................... 45
IV. – PRESENTATION, ANALYS, AND
INTERPRETATION OF DATA ..................................................... 47
Demographic Profile of the Respondents .................................... 47
Level of Respondents’ Risk Propensity ......................................... 48
Respondents’ Decision-Making Style ............................................ 49
Significant Difference Between
Risk Propensity and Decision-Making ........................................... 53
Significant Relationship Between Risk Propensity
and Decision-Making ..................................................................... 56
V. – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 59
Summary of Findings ..................................................................... 59
Conclusions ................................................................................... 60
Recommendations ......................................................................... 61
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 63
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 75
Appendix A: Letter to Respondents ............................................... 76
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ............................................ 78
Appendix C: Intent Letter ............................................................... 79
Appendix D: Standardized Scales .................................................. 80
Appendix E: Survey Questionnaire ............................................... 85
Appendix F: Inquiry for Borrowed Scale ........................................ 89
Appendix G: Certificates ................................................................ 91
Appendix H: Statistical Computation ............................................. 94
Appendix I: Curriculum Vitae ....................................................... 103
College of Arts and Sciences ix.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................... 8

College of Arts and Sciences x.
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents ............................................. 47

Table 2. Level of Respondents’ Risk Propensity ................................................ 48
Table 3. Respondents’ Decision-Making Style ................................................... 49
Table 4. Differences between the Respondents’ Risk Propensity and
Decision-Making According to Respondents’ Sex .............................. 53
Table 5. Significant Relationship between Risk-Propensity
and General Decision-Making Scale .................................................. 56
Table 6. General Decision-Making Scale ........................................................... 80
Table 7. Risk Propensity Scale ........................................................................... 83
Table 8. Respondent’s Profile Descriptives ........................................................ 94
Table 9. Demographic Profile of the Respondents According to Colleges ......... 95
Table 10. Level of Risk Propensity per College .................................................. 96
Table 11. Risk Propensity Scale and
Decision-Making Scale Sex Descriptives ........................................... 97
Table 12. Risk Propensity Scale and
Decision-Making Scale College Descriptives ..................................... 98
Table 13. Post Hoc Analysis between Scores in Risk Propensity Scale
of the Respondents according to their Colleges ............................... 100
Table 14. Post Hoc Analysis between Scores in General Decision-Making
Scale of the Respondents according to their Colleges ..................... 101
Table 15. Significant Differences between Scores in
Risk Propensity and General Decision-Making Scale
of the Respondents according to their Colleges. .............................. 102
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Chapter I is the problem and its background, which includes the following
parts: the introduction, research problems and research objectives, theoretical
framework, conceptual framework, scope and limitations of the study, significance
of the study, and definition of terms.
Introduction
In a contemporary and complex societal setting, individuals are consistently
confronted with the task of making decisions that encompass diverse levels of risk.
Gaining insight into the relationship between an individual's propensity towards
risk and their cognitive processes for decision-making is of utmost importance in
order to enhance the comprehension of how individuals effectively traverse
situations of uncertainty and make decisions that are in line with desired outcomes
and aims. An increasing amount of research has been dedicated to examining the
correlation between risk propensity and the process of decision-making. According
to Wang et al. (2015), there is a body of research indicating that individuals with a
propensity for high-risk behaviors are more likely to engage in behaviors that
include risk as a means to achieve the desired goals. These individuals exhibit a
propensity for risk-taking and hold the conviction that the possible benefits
outweigh the probable drawbacks or repercussions. For instance, individuals who
possess an increased awareness of risk pertaining to a certain decision will exhibit

a reduced inclination to undertake this risk, irrespective of their general propensity.
An alternative viewpoint is that risk-taking propensity pertains to an individual's
inclination toward engaging in risky behavior within a decision-making context (Ulfa
& Romadhani, 2016).
Risk propensity is a psychological construct that pertains to an individual's
proclivity or desire to partake in behaviors that carry a degree of risk or to make
decisions that involve unclear consequences (McLain et al., 2015). This inclination
has the potential to materialize in diverse domains of life, encompassing financial,
occupational, and health-related hazards. The concept under consideration
pertains to an individual's inclination towards risks and their level of readiness to
embrace the possible adverse outcomes linked with these risks. With the aid of
this research, we are able to delve deeper into an academic context. The presence
of risk within the context of academia is of utmost importance as it serves as a
catalyst for fostering innovation, expanding the frontiers of knowledge, and
influencing the trajectory of intellectual discourse. The act of strategically
assessing and undertaking risks in leadership roles within an academic setting is
imperative to facilitate constructive transformation, cultivate innovation and
analytical reasoning, and guarantee the ongoing advancement and maturation of
both organizations and individuals. According to Dumulescu and A (2021),
academic leaders who demonstrate willingness to take risks and perceive crises
as strategic opportunities for fostering innovation are individuals who achieved
optimal outcomes and established exemplary practices. These leaders exhibited

essential characteristics such as proficient risk assessment and decision-making,
bravery, adaptability, a focus on objectives and problem-solving, strategic
foresight, and a creative mindset that enabled them to attain a competitive edge
within the academic realm. The inclination to engage in risk-taking is a vital aspect
of the process of making strategic decisions within the academic context.
The psychological phenomenon known as decision-making can be defined
as the cognitive process through which individuals select an idea or course of
action from a range of available possibilities. According to the American
Psychological Association, decision-making refers to the cognitive process of
selecting from multiple possibilities, which might vary in terms of simplicity or
complexity. At the conclusion of each decision-making process, a determination
was reached. It could either encompass a cognitive process or a behavioral
manifestation. To be precise, regardless of awareness or lack thereof of the
potential decision outcome, a cognitive process referred to as "decision-making"
has taken place.
Risk is a fundamental component of the decision-making process and holds
significant importance in influencing the choices made by individuals or
organizations. A comprehensive comprehension of the notion of risk is necessary
for the purpose of evaluating prospective consequences and formulating well-
informed judgments. The process of risk assessment plays a vital role in the
decision-making process by facilitating the identification and prioritization of

prospective hazards and their corresponding potential impacts (Alimi et al., 2015).
In addition, organizations utilized risk management measures to limit these risks
and guarantee the attainment of their objectives. Risk management is a continuous
and iterative procedure that encompasses the identification, analysis, and
assessment of risks, along with the implementation of strategies to mitigate their
potential consequences. Therefore, this study held significant importance in
understanding the underlying process that links risk propensity and decision-
making.
Statement of the Problem
This research was conducted to further explore the relationship between
risk propensity and decision-making, with the goal of better understanding the
relationship of risk propensity to individuals' decision-making styles, particularly
those of student leaders.
Specifically, the study sought answers to the following questions and
hypotheses:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents according to their
sex?
2. What is the level of respondents’ risk propensity?
3. What is the respondents’ decision-making style?
3.1 Avoidant Decision-Making

3.2 Dependent Decision-Making
3.3 Intuitive Decision-Making
3.4 Rational Decision-Making
3.5 Spontaneous Decision-Making
4. Is there a significant difference between risk propensity and decision-
making when grouped according to sex?
5. Is there a significant relationship between risk propensity and decision-
making among the respondents?
Hypothesis
This study obtained a null hypothesis and aimed to prove if:
1. There is no significant difference between respondents’ risk propensity and
decision-making in terms of their demographic profile.
2. There is no significant relationship between risk propensity and decision-
making style among the respondents.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework supporting this study, anchored in understanding
risk propensity and decision-making among student leaders, can be explained
through the lens of several relevant psychological theories, including prospect
theory, dual process theory, and decision-making theory.
Prospect theory provides one description of risk-takers and risk-averse
individuals. The theory implies that individuals are rational decision-makers, and
an evaluation decision sequence takes place when weighing a decision.
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Empirical evidence suggests that the decisions are
based on potential gains or losses. The situation-specific approach to risk-taking
sounds plausible, but it is an oversimplified version of a more complex
psychological thought process that cannot be explained by rational decision-
making. The model implies that a person reacts to each situation differently,
treating it as a separate domain. Taking the “domain-specific” route means hitting
the “reset button” before every situation is encountered and making a rational
decision solely based on the expected gains and losses. This framework does not
account for individual personality differences, believing that when it comes to risk-
taking, it is only the way the choices are presented and the individual’s
unconscious loss/gain calculation that determines the choice. Prospect theory
proposes an asymmetrical effect, i.e., that individuals will be risk-takers in some
situations and risk-averse in others. The outcome will be based on how the choices
are presented, as “losses loom larger than gains.”
Dual-Process Theory, also known as Two-System Theory, is a fundamental
framework in psychology and cognitive science that aims to explain human
decision-making and cognitive processes. Proposed by Daniel Kahneman in
collaboration with Amos Tversky, this theory postulates the existence of two
distinct cognitive systems, System 1 and System 2, each with its own
characteristics, functions, and roles in shaping human behavior. System 1: System
1 is the intuitive and automatic cognitive system. It operates quickly, without

conscious effort, and relies on heuristics (mental shortcuts) for decision-making.
It's emotional, associative, and useful for quick judgments in familiar situations.
System 2: System 2 is the deliberate and analytical cognitive system. It operates
slowly, requiring conscious effort and logical reasoning. It was used for complex
tasks, critical thinking, and decision-making in unfamiliar or uncertain situations.
The decision-making theory emphasizes the importance of decision-making
in achieving one's goals and objectives (Simon, 1985). In the context of this theory,
problem recognition, information gathering, alternative evaluation, and action
decision-making are all cognitive processes that go into decision-making.
Decision-making in this context refers to a variety of cognitive processes, such as
problem recognition, information gathering, alternative evaluation, and action
decision-making. The theory also asserts that individual differences, such as
personality traits and emotions, have a big impact on judgment. By examining how
risk propensity influences decision-making, insight can be gained into how
people's tendency for risk-taking influences their decision-making processes.
Gaining knowledge of how risk propensity affects decision-making can help one
better understand how personality traits, emotions, and cognitive processes
interact when making decisions. It clarifies why some people might consistently
choose riskier options while others favor safer ones. Furthermore, by providing
opportunities for customized interventions and strategies to optimize decision
outcomes based on an individual's risk propensity, this knowledge can be put to

use in fields like risk management, entrepreneurship, leadership, and financial
decision-making.
Investigated whether there was a statistically significant correlation between
the level of risk propensity among student leaders and the quality of their decision-
making. It aimed to examine the different factors affecting a person's risk
propensity and how this, in turn, affects how they make decisions. This research
contributed to a deeper understanding of how risk-taking tendencies were related
to student leaders' decision-making within their leadership roles by looking at how
risk propensity related decision-making styles.
Conceptual Framework
DECISION-MAKING STYLES:
RISK PROPENSITY
Avoidant Decision-Making
Physical Dependent Decision-Making
Lifestyle Intuitive Decision-Making
Livelihood Rational Decision-Making
Spontaneous Decision-Making
Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the study.
This study focused on the two main variables, with the risk propensity
serving as the explanatory variable, which the IGI Global Dictionary defines as ‘the
extent to which a person is willing to take a chance with respect to a possible loss’.
And a tendency to take or avoid risks (Chen et al., 2011; O’Neill, 2001; Spulick,
2015). While decision-making acts as the study’s response variable, which refers
to the mental process of choosing and deciding between two or more possibilities
(APA, n.d.),. As for the moderating variables of this study, the demographic factors
such as the sex and college degree of the participants are the variables that might
mediate the significant differences between risk propensity and decision-making,
while the student leaders were the mediators between the two main variables as
they showed the relationship between the two main variables.
The study suggested a conceptual framework for analyzing how the student
leader's risk propensity and decision-making relate to one another. Decision-
making is the cognitive process of choosing choices based on individual goals and
preferences, whereas risk propensity is a psychological construct characterized by
unfavorable emotional reactions to positive and negative events. The conceptual
framework outlined four research questions: quantifying the relationship between
decision-making and risk propensity, identifying the levels of the respondent’s risk
propensity, their decision-making style, and examining the significant relationship
and significant difference between risk propensity and decision-making when
grouped according to the profile of the respondents, as this study aimed to
examine the knowledge gap concerning the relationship between the risk
propensity and decision-making of the student leaders and was the first research
study that focused on the student leaders of the university.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study
This study focused on determining the relationship between risk propensity
and decision-making among student leaders. Conducted at Rizal Technological
University, both Pasig and Boni Campus. The researchers considered the whole
population of the university’s student leaders for the academic year 2022-2023
who participated and limited the respondents of the study. Non-academic leaders
inside the university were not within the scope of this research. The researchers
allotted at least two (2) to four (4) weeks to gather all the data from the participants.
The study was done through the utilization of standardized questionnaires that
measured the risk propensity and decision-making Style of the respondents.
Significance of the Study
This study aimed to provide and shed light on the relationship between risk
propensity and decision-making among student leaders, with the goal of better
understanding the risk-propensity relationship in decision-making styles. The
researchers believed that the findings of this study were extremely beneficial,
particularly in the following areas:
Student Leaders may be the primary beneficiaries of this research.
Understanding how their propensity for taking risks affects their decision-making
can help people make better decisions both in their professional and personal
lives.
Educational Institutions may use the study's findings to enhance their
leadership development programs. Educational institutions can better prepare

students for leadership roles by incorporating insights about risk propensity and
decision-making, giving them useful skills for navigating complex decisions.
Student Organizations may frequently face important decisions. With the help of
this research, these groups can lessen the possibility of unfavorable outcomes
while pursuing their objectives.
Department of Psychology may benefit from incorporating the study's
findings into its curriculum and research. This study adds to the department's
understanding of decision-making processes and risk assessment by
demonstrating the practical application of psychological principles in the context of
leadership.
Future Research may serve as a solid foundation for future research on
leadership and decision-making. There is still room for a more in-depth
investigation of how the risk of a propensity shapes choices across various
scenarios and demographic groups. Explore deeper into these aspects to gain a
richer and more subtle understanding of the complex relationship between risk
propensity and decision-making.
Professional Development: As student leaders enter the workforce, may
the knowledge gained from this study be useful in their professional lives. Improved
decision-making and risk-management abilities can boost their effectiveness in
organizational leadership roles.

Definition of Terms
The following terms were conceptually and operationally defined for a better
understanding of those used in this study.
Avoidant Decision Making is known for its tendency to delay making
significant decisions until the last minute, which may be due to feelings of
discomfort associated with contemplating them (Othman, 2020).
Decision Making is a cognitive process that leads to the choice of an idea
or course of action from among various options.
Decision Making Style is a habitual pattern that people adopt while making
decisions and as an individual's distinctive way of observing and reacting to
decision-making tasks (Scott, S., & Bruce, R.).
Dependent Decision Making is the tendency to seek the input of others in
crucial decision-making scenarios and rely heavily on their advice. Such
individuals rarely make significant decisions without consulting other people
(Othman, 2020).
General Decision-Making style measures the degree to which individuals
rely on each of these dimensions when making decisions, providing a
comprehensive picture of their decision-making style (Scott, S., & Bruce, R.).
Intuitive Decision Making is a tendency to depend on inner instincts, gut
feelings, and reactions. It is distinguished by choosing courses of action based on
what feels correct rather than having a logical justification for them (Othman,
2020).
Rational Decision Making is characterized by a comprehensive search for
information and a logical evaluation of alternatives (Othman, 2020).
Risk Propensity is a measurable construct that refers to the degree to
which individuals are willing to take chances and make risky decisions.
Spontaneous Decision Making involves quick and impulsive choices
based on what feels natural at the moment (Othman, 2020).
Student Leaders are any individuals who take on the responsibility of
leading an academic organization (Othman, 2020).

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
This chapter contains all of the related studies and literature, both foreign
and local, that correlate with the study.
Risk
Making important judgments carries a considerable level of risk. According
to Chen, Wang, Herath, and Rao (2011), O'Neill (2001), Renn (1998), and Spulick
(2015), risk is characterized as a departure from the value or result of one or more
future events. Risk, according to O'Neill (2001), is the unpredictability of results.
Another risk likelihood that affects decision formulation and choice is the decision
maker's risk propensity. A tendency to take or avoid risks is referred to as having
a risk propensity (Chen et al., 2011; O'Neill, 2001; Spulick, 2015). When making a
choice, it affects the possibilities that person is willing to take a chance on. The
outcome of a number of choice formulas, including the decision maker's risk
propensity, is a critical decision.
Risk is a natural part of life, appearing in everything from the unnecessary
to the immeasurable. It refers to the potential for unwanted or adverse outcomes
associated with a decision, action, or situation. At the University of Virginia, risk is
defined as the potential for harm. It's a prediction based on evidence from previous
experience. The nature of risk can vary in daily life, leading to different dimensions
of risk influenced by various factors. According to Kayt Sukel, a science writer who
delves into the fascinating world of risk in her book “The Art of Risk: The New
Science of Courage, Caution, and Chance,” risk refers to the possibility of
experiencing an adverse outcome or consequence when making a decision or
taking an action. Sukel explores the neuroscience behind risk-taking behavior and
suggests that individuals' tolerance for risk is influenced by a complex interplay of
biological, psychological, and environmental factors. She argues that
understanding the mechanisms underlying risk perception and decision-making
can provide insights into human behavior and help individuals make more informed
choices in various aspects of life. Sukel concludes that “it's time we accept that
risk is part and parcel of every single decision we make, every single day—big or
small, life-altering or seemingly inconsequential.”
Risk is the foundation of decision-making processes in a variety of fields. It
is defined as the possibility of deviating from anticipated results or the
unpredictable nature of future events. In the domains of business, finance, health,
and interpersonal relationships, people are continuously juggling opportunity and
uncertainty. Risk can take many different forms, ranging from financial instability
and environmental dangers to social dynamics and technological breakthroughs.
Its pervasiveness necessitates alertness and flexibility, requiring people to
evaluate, reduce, and occasionally welcome uncertainty in order to accomplish
their goals. To put it simply, being able to recognize and manage risk is not only a
practical need but also a basic ability that is necessary for negotiating life's
challenges. So, whether you’re making life-altering decisions or seemingly
inconsequential ones, risk is always at play.
Risk Propensity
Risk is a natural and pervasive part of existence; it implies future uncertainty
about deviation from the expected possibility of loss and gain, injury, or an
expected and unexpected outcome, as defined by Merriam-Webster. Individuals
and business ventures, or financial investments, frequently struggle with the need
to make decisions that involve varied degrees of uncertainty, whether in the
context of personal choices, corporate endeavors, or financial investments. "Risk
propensity" is a crucial aspect of human behavior, defining the degree to which
people are willing to accept chance when faced with potential loss or gain, and it
lays at the core of these decisions. Also known as risk-taking tendency or
willingness to take risk, this term refers to a person's current propensity for either
taking or avoiding risks. Research pertaining to the association between risk-taking
behavior and personality suggests that the understanding of risk behavior might
be elucidated by considering dispositional motivations. Individuals sometimes
exhibit a propensity to either embrace or shun risks in order to pursue objectives
that align with their unique character traits or dispositions. There is a correlation
between extraversion and the desire for motivation. The aforementioned concept
is articulated as a fundamental requirement for experiences that evoke intense
sensations and excitement, encompassing attributes such as adeptness in social
interactions and the attainment of dominance. Sensation seeking refers to the

inclination towards seeking diverse, unusual, and intricate sensations and
experiences, along with a readiness to undertake physical and social risks in
pursuit of such experiences (Wang, C. et al. 2015).
Deciphering a person's or an entity's attitude toward taking risks is similar
to understanding risk propensity. It acts as a compass, directing decisions and
influencing results. Understanding risk propensity is crucial for making wise
decisions, tackling uncertainty, and achieving goals. A study conducted by Muller
et al. (2022) using both constructs showed no significant effect on each other;
rather, as a result, it goes beyond simply gaining insight into an individual’s
personality. Gaining a thorough grasp of risk propensity will enable people to make
more intelligent and successful decisions by enabling them to traverse the
complicated environment of risk and reward.
In the realm of decision-making, risk propensity plays a pivotal role in
shaping outcomes and influencing individual and organizational trajectories. In the
study conducted of Rieger, M. O. et al. (2014) present results from a large-scale
international survey on risk preferences conducted in 53 countries. Across all these
countries, they find, on average, an attitude of risk aversion toward gains and risk
seeking toward losses. Interestingly, the degree of risk aversion exhibits significant
cross-country differences. These findings shed light on how people perceive and
approach risk across diverse cultural and economic contexts. The data from this
study may serve as an intriguing starting point for further research on cultural
differences in behavioral economics. Understanding how risk attitudes vary across

nations can provide valuable insights for policymakers, businesses, and
individuals navigating complex decision-making scenarios.
Understanding risk propensity is crucial for individuals, businesses, and
policymakers alike, as it informs strategic choices, investment decisions, and risk
management practices. Numerous elements, including character traits, prior
experiences, financial circumstances, and cultural backgrounds, can have an
impact on an individual's predisposition for risk. In order to allocate resources and
establish the proper level of risk tolerance, it is essential for financial managers
and decision-makers to comprehend and evaluate risk propensity (Tamplin, T.
2023). At its core, risk propensity reflects an individual's tolerance for uncertainty
and their willingness to accept potential losses in exchange for potential gains.
One prominent framework for understanding risk propensity is risk aversion,
wherein they are the individuals who are cautious and prefer safe options with
predictable outcomes or favor safer solutions with known results, while high-risk
individuals or corporations are more likely to take part in riskier activities or make
riskier judgments (Tamplin, T. 2023).
Based on Zhijuan L. et al. (2022) Psychologists and behavioral economists
have long studied the cognitive and emotional factors that underpin risk propensity.
Factors such as personality traits, past experiences, cognitive biases, and cultural
influences all shape an individual's risk-taking behavior.

The research on risk propensity is still relatively new in academia. The study
by Saivasan and Lokhande emphasizes the necessity of an all-encompassing
framework that takes emotive and cognitive aspects into account. Regulators can
create risk-control strategies that support market evolution by taking demographics
into account when designing equity market policies. The study also emphasizes
how information searchers prefer to make logical decisions. The need to
incorporate behavioral elements into investment strategies increases as long as
there is significant market volatility. Understanding risk propensity ultimately
involves more than just statistical models; it takes into account the complex
interactions between demographics, human psychology, and financial decision-
making.
Decision-Making
Making a decision is important as it intends to have an outcome that can
affect a person’s life. As defined by the American Psychological Association (n.d.),
decision-making is the process of mentally choosing between two or more options
ranging from simple to complex. To be exact, a psychological process known as
"decision-making" has actually occurred whether or not we are aware of the
possible decision outcome. It is a system that emphasizes willingness to take
action. In other words, we presume that people have committed to impacting the
action based on observable actions (Psych, n.d.). According to the study by
Mazzocco et al. (2019), entitled “How to make big decisions: A cross-sectional
study on the decision-making process in life choices,” which conducted a cross-

sectional study on 188 participants on emotional decision-making, making
decisions should be viewed as the outcome of a motivating process that is more
instinctive.
Villanueva-Moya and Expósito (2021) explored gender differences in
decision-making by investigating the impact of gender stereotype threat, mediated
by penalty sensitivity and fear of negative evaluation. Their findings appeared in
the Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. The study sought to investigate how
the threat of gender stereotypes influences decision-making processes,
particularly in relation to individuals' sensitivity to punishment and fear of negative
judgment. The researchers used a sample population for their study and collected
data using various metrics and methodologies. The findings of the authors
demonstrated considerable gender disparities in decision-making under the threat
of stereotypes. They discovered that when faced with stereotype threats, women
performed worse than men. Individuals' sensitivity to punishment and fear of
unfavorable judgment, however, attenuated this effect on decision-making and
performance outcomes, particularly for women. By identifying the role of
stereotype threat and its interaction with individual characteristics, the study
provides insights that can inform interventions and strategies aimed at reducing
the negative impact of gender stereotypes on decision-making processes. The
paper adds to the corpus of studies on gender differences in decision-making by
emphasizing the importance of stereotype threat and its interplay with individual
characteristics such as penalty sensitivity and fear of unfavorable judgment. The

study sheds light on the complicated dynamics that influence decision-making
processes, particularly when gender preconceptions are present. Villanueva-Moya
and Expósito's (2021) study has significance for understanding the elements that
influence decision-making and performance outcomes, particularly for women.
The study provides insights that can influence interventions and initiatives targeted
at lowering the harmful impact of gender stereotypes on decision-making
processes by highlighting the role of stereotype threat and its interaction with
individual traits.
Decision-making is one of the most important aspects of human lives, so no
dimension is free from decision-making. In spite of the complexity of the mental
process of decision-making, individuals determine the problem and imagine their
desired results. According to the main goal of the present study, which is to find a
theoretical consensus, it appears that the best definition of decision-making is to
consider it as a problem-solving process that ends whenever a desirable solution
is reached. Accordingly, decision-making is the reasoning of an emotional process,
which could be rational or irrational and could be based on explicit or implicit
assumptions. It is a complex process, and many biological, physiological,
psychological, and environmental (social and cultural) factors influence it. In
addition, the level of authority and danger in any given situation of decision-
making, in combination with other factors, increases the complexity of decision-
making. The strategies of the analysis of decision-making processes and their

current trends depend on the level of interpretation and domain of decision-
making.
Decision- Making Style
According to Scott and Bruce (1995), decision-making styles can be thought
of as a habitual pattern that people adopt while making decisions and as an
individual's distinctive way of observing and reacting to decision-making tasks. In
addition, it is the acquired habitual reaction pattern demonstrated by an individual
when confronted with a decision scenario" is the definition of decision-making
style.
In their later work, the same author established five different decision-
making styles: (1) Rational – The rational decision-making style is characterized
by a comprehensive search for information and a logical evaluation of alternatives.
The rational model, put forth by Herbert Simon (1955), is one of the traditional
methods of decision-making. This model proposes that people make decisions by
methodically weighing their options, taking into account all of the information at
their disposal, and selecting the course of action that would maximize their
predicted utility. This viewpoint makes the assumption that all knowledge is perfect,
reasoning is logical, and preferences are consistent. In contrast to the rational
model, the bounded rationality perspective recognizes that people have finite
cognitive resources and capacity for information processing. This idea was put
forth by Herbert Simon (1972) to explain why people make "good enough"
judgments instead of aiming for optimal outcomes, or satisfaction. Several fields
have used rational decision-making, including engineering, public policy,
management, and economics. According to Hammond (2015), empirical research
has looked at decision-making in a variety of situations, including investment
choices, consumer choice, project management, and strategic planning. These
studies have shown how useful rational decision-making concepts are in practical
situations.
(2) Intuitive – The hallmark of the intuitive style is a tendency to depend on
inner instincts, gut feelings, and reactions. It is distinguished by choosing courses
of action based on what feels correct rather than having a logical justification for
them. Psychologists, neuroscientists, and managers have become more and more
interested in intuitive decision-making, which is frequently characterized by rapid,
unconscious information processing. Due to its emphasis on the influence of
implicit information, gut instinct, and intuition on decision-making, it contradicts
conventional reasons. The dual process theories (Evans, James S. B. T. 2008)
propose that people make decisions using both analytical (System 2) and intuitive
(System 1) processes. Intuition frequently makes snap decisions that are followed
by conscious thought. According to Dane's (2007) empirical research, intuitive
decision-making is effective in a variety of contexts, such as expert performance,
creativity, and interpersonal relationships. Using tacit knowledge and pattern
identification, intuition frequently results in adaptive decisions in complicated and
uncertain contexts. The cognitive and neurological mechanisms underlying

intuitive decision-making have been identified by research in cognitive psychology
and neuroscience (Gigerenzer, 2011). Intuitively processing information bypasses
conscious reasoning and is facilitated by heuristics, automaticity, emotional cues,
and expertise.
(3) Dependent – The characteristic feature of the dependent style is a
tendency to seek the input of others in crucial decision-making scenarios and rely
heavily on their advice. Such individuals rarely make significant decisions without
consulting other people. The dependent style is asking for other people's input and
instructions on what decision should be made. In this style, the individual could ask
friends, family, coworkers, etc., but the individual might not ask all of these people.
Also, it can be regarded as requiring support, advice, and guidance from others
when making decisions.
(4) Avoidant – It is known for its tendency to delay making significant
decisions until the last minute, which may be due to feelings of discomfort
associated with contemplating them. The avoidant style is characterized by its
tendency to procrastinate and postpone decisions if possible (Othman et al., 2020).
Avoidance allows people to forget or abandon effortful deliberation by postponing,
bypassing, or delegating a decision. Decision avoidance is thought to reduce
regret, primarily by allowing decision-makers to evade personal responsibility for
potential negative outcomes (Qing et al., 2023).

(5) Spontaneous – It involves quick and impulsive choices based on what
feels natural at the moment. This approach can be seen as a type of fast-paced
intuitive style, often utilized in decision-making situations with time constraints. It
is important to note that these styles are not personality traits but rather habit-
based dispositions to react in a certain way in a specific decision context (Othman,
2020). Spontaneous decision-making style means that decisions are likely to be
quick, rapid, impulsive, and prone to making snap judgments.
Student Leaders
Student leaders hold a pivotal role in educational institutions, contributing
significantly to the holistic development of their peers. Based on the study of
Caceres-Rache, M.P. et al. (2021), student leaders are aimed at facilitating
communication between the student body and the institution, serving as effective
mediators in dispute resolution situations, and standing up for the needs of the
student body when faced with challenges. Huddleston (2007) suggests that
student leadership offers an exclusive chance for students to develop and utilize
management skills in areas like welfare, boarding, accommodation, sports, health,
environment, and academics, contingent upon the setup of their school.
Consequently, it has been determined that student leaders must be capable of
assuming the role of leader as they distinguish themselves through their attributes
and education. By practicing vital abilities like cooperation and communication,
these people promote personal development in a variety of capacities, such as
club president and student council member. Beyond personal growth, by fostering
inclusivity and planning community-focused events, student leaders contribute
significantly to creating a pleasant campus climate. Particularly, student leaders
are predisposed to taking risks because of their leadership responsibilities.
Marchiondo et al. (2015) found that leadership significantly influences the decision-
making process, with claimants' suggestions often endorsed by those perceived
as possessing stronger leadership qualities. This is particularly relevant in
academic workplaces that promote teamwork and interconnectedness. They are
also tasked with making choices that may have a big effect on their peers' and their
organizations' welfare. Additionally, student leaders might experience external
pressure from a variety of people, such as teachers, parents, or students. These
outside factors may amplify the perceived urgency and importance of their choices,
further influencing their propensity for taking risks and decision-making styles.
According to Sharer, H. (2023) Student leaders are often able to motivate and
inspire their peers to strive for excellence. Through their example and guidance,
student leaders can provide support and guidance to their peers, helping them to
reach their full potential. Student leaders can also serve as mentors, providing
advice and guidance to their peers about studying and academic success. By
representing student opinions, they act as a link between the administration and
peers, influencing decisions and promoting a feeling of empowerment. The
designated duties of student leaders include organizing student activities,
contributing to decision-making processes, representing their peers, and
addressing conflicts between students and teachers (MOE, 2010). These leaders
also actively participate in civic duties, fostering a dedication to societal issues.
Most importantly, they create a strong pipeline for the future by inspiring a never-
ending cycle of leadership through their example-setting.
A dynamic and potent force in educational institutions all throughout the
world is student leadership. Student leaders are essential in forming campus
culture and promoting good change because they do everything from plan events
and speak up for change to represent their peers and build a sense of community.
Student leaders occupy a unique position within educational institutions, wielding
significant influence through their decisions. Their impact extends beyond personal
choices; it resonates throughout the student body and shapes institutional policies.
Fernandes, J. (2023) mentioned that data-driven decision-making
empowers educational leaders to identify areas for improvement accurately. By
analyzing student achievement data, leaders can pinpoint achievement gaps,
areas of instructional need, and specific student populations requiring targeted
interventions. Student leaders, armed with relevant data, become advocates for
evidence-based solutions. They collaborate with faculty, administrators, and fellow
students to drive positive change. For instance, they might propose adjustments
to academic support services or advocate for mental health resources based on
data trends.
Student leaders represent diverse perspectives. Their involvement ensures
that decisions consider the needs of all students, regardless of background or
identity. Inclusive decision-making fosters a sense of belonging and equity. When

student leaders actively participate in committees, task forces, or governance
bodies, they amplify marginalized voices and advocate for policies that promote
fairness and justice.
According to Komives, S.R., and Dugan, J.P. (2014), the process of
developing a leader's identity is closely tied to decision-making. Student leaders
grapple with questions like: What values guide my choices? How do I balance
individual and collective interests? Research suggests that leadership identity
evolves over time, influenced by experiences, mentorship, and self-reflection. As
student leaders engage in decision-making, they shape their leadership style and
impact, contributing to a more informed and inclusive educational environment.
A study entitled "Preferred Student Leadership Skills in a Public University"
conducted by Alih, S. L. et al. (2022) aimed to explore which specific skills students
value most in aspiring leaders. The study investigated several key leadership skills,
including communication skills, open-mindedness, commitment, time
management, and conceptual skills. By examining these preferences, the research
contributes to enhancing student leadership development and informs the
selection of effective student leaders within the university community. The findings
emphasize that possessing the right combination of these skills enables student
leaders to effectively represent their peers and contribute to the overall
improvement of the school community.
Student leaders play a pivotal role in educational institutions, but their
responsibilities come with inherent risks. Student leaders often face burnout due
to the demands of their roles. Balancing academics, extracurricular activities, and
leadership responsibilities can be overwhelming. Yang, Y. et al. (2021)
recommend that institutions should prioritize mental health support and resilience-
building for student leaders.
Particularly, student leaders are predisposed to taking risks because of their
leadership responsibilities. Marchiondo et al. (2015) found that leadership
significantly influences the decision-making process, with claimants' suggestions
often endorsed by those perceived as possessing stronger leadership qualities.
This is particularly relevant in academic workplaces that promote teamwork and
interconnectedness. They are also tasked with making choices that may have a
big effect on their peers' and their organizations' welfare. Additionally, student
leaders might experience external pressure from a variety of people, such as
societal expectations, institutional norms, teachers, parents, or students, that may
influence student leaders' decisions. Leaders must openly acknowledge and
address these external factors to make informed choices. (Hollands, D. 2020).
Based on the article "Leaders Must Take and Support Risk" (2019),
effective leadership involves risk-taking. Student leaders must be willing to take
calculated risks to drive positive change. Supporting mistakes and learning from
them contributes to growth, especially for marginalized student populations.
The complexity of decision-making varies across different domains. For
instance, individual decisions often involve weighing immediate gratification
against long-term consequences, considering personal values, preferences, and

constraints. On the other hand, corporate decision-making entails analyzing
market trends, competitor strategies, financial implications, and stakeholder
interests. The context in which decisions are made significantly influences the
decision-making process. In healthcare, as highlighted by Comia, R. L. et al.
(2023), decisions made by triage nurses involve assessing patient acuity, available
resources, and urgency. These decisions can have life-or-death implications,
requiring a blend of clinical expertise, critical thinking, and compassion.
In an article reviewed by Psychology Today Staff (2024), decision-making
is a cognitive process that results in the selection of a course of action among
several alternative scenarios. It can be either rational or irrational and is based on
the values, preferences, and beliefs of the decision-maker. Decisions can be fast
and automatic, based on longtime experience, or they can be slow and deliberate,
especially when encountering a new situation. Informed decision-making involves
not just going with your gut but also figuring out what knowledge you lack and
obtaining it. When you look at all possible sources of information with an open
mind, you can make an informed decision based on facts rather than intuition.
People who make good decisions know when it’s important to act immediately and
when there’s time to wait and gather more facts before making their choice.
In essence, decision-making is a critical skill in various fields, including
business, healthcare, and everyday life. It involves a mixture of intuition and
rational thinking, and understanding strategies such as maximizing vs. satisficing,

fast versus slow thinking, and factors such as risk tolerance and choice overload
can lead to better outcomes.
To sum up, decision-making is a universal human trait that cuts across
societal, organizational, and individual limits. It's a process that calls for carefully
taking into account a number of variables, from knowledge and resources to
preferences and values. Through comprehension of the intricacies involved in
decision-making and awareness of the elements that impact it, people and
institutions can improve their capacity to make well-informed and impactful
judgments in diverse circumstances.
Risk Propensity and Decision-Making
Risk propensity refers to an individual's inclination to take risks when faced
with uncertain outcomes. Decision-making, on the other hand, involves evaluating
options and choosing a course of action. These two concepts are closely
intertwined, as the risk preferences significantly influence the decisions to make.
People exhibit varying risk attitudes, ranging from risk-averse to risk-
seeking. Risk-averse individuals tend to avoid uncertainty and prefer safe choices,
while risk-seekers embrace uncertainty and seek higher rewards. Risk propensity
is context-dependent. It fluctuates based on the situation, perceived stakes, and
available information. A person may take more risks in a competitive environment
or when potential gains are substantial.
Risk propensity shapes the decision-making landscape. Recognizing risk
preferences allows everyone to make informed choices, whether in finance,

career, health, or leadership. As everyone navigates life's uncertainties,
understanding the delicate balance between risk and decision-making becomes
paramount.
According to Sitkin and Pablo's mediated model of the factors influencing
risk decision-making (Wong, K., 2005), risk propensity and risk perception of the
decision-maker are the primary factors driving risk decision-making behavior. The
theory of behavioral decision, which is typically from the field of psychology,
provides the foundation for the majority of research on risk propensity, risk
perception, or risk behavior. As a result, the goal of this research was to identify
the crucial variables influencing project managers' risk decision-making practices.
As per Vegue-Martin, T. In 2021, an effective and mature risk governance
program drives better decision-making in all directions of an organization: up to
leadership and the board, down to individual contributors, and laterally to all lines
of business. Risk-aware decision-making, regardless of the domain (e.g., finance,
technology, enterprise, cyber), is the cornerstone of effective resource
management at any organization.
A study conducted by Saivasan R. and Lokhande, M. (2022) found that
return expectation, time horizon, and loss aversion, which define the risk
propensity construct, vary significantly based on demographic traits. These factors
influence the risk perception of an individual with respect to equity investments.
This paper establishes that information seekers make rational decisions. The
paper iterated on the need for portfolio managers to develop and align investment
strategies after an evaluation of investors' risk by including these behavioral
factors. This was particularly advantageous during extreme volatility in markets,
which conceded the possibility of irrational decision-making.
Risk propensity was found to be positively related to risk-taking behavior,
whereas risk perception was negatively related to risk-taking behavior. It was
further found that risk perception partially mediates the effect of the propensity to
take risks. This suggests that the perceptual framing of a situational context in the
investor's thought processes reduces, but it does not totally overwhelm the innate
personality traits with respect to either the investor's risk-seeking or risk-
averseness. The tendency to engage in risky behavior is more psychological in
nature (Hamid, F.S., et al., 2013).
In summary, risk propensity, which is an individual's tendency to take or
avoid risks, plays a significant role in decision-making processes. It can influence
the time spent on decision-making, the emphasis on information gathering, and
the approach to teamwork. It also affects investment decisions and risk-taking
behavior. However, the impact of risk propensity can vary based on factors such
as the context of the decision and individual demographic traits.
Risk Propensity and Decision-Making of Leaders
Leaders’ risk propensity plays a crucial role in shaping their decision-making
processes and the delegation of critical authority within organizations. Leaders’
risk propensity refers to their inclination or willingness to take risks. Some leaders
are more risk-averse, while others embrace risk. Delegating critical decision-
making authority is a key aspect of effective leadership. When leaders entrust their
subordinates with important decisions, it impacts organizational performance.
The readiness of a leader to distribute crucial decision-making authority
significantly correlated negatively with their risk propensity, according to the survey
results of Reginald Doctor (2015) study, “Leaders' Risk Propensity and Delegation
of Critical Decision-Making Authority." These results suggested that while leaders
who delegate decisions have lower risk propensities than those who retain primary
authority for important decision-making, the former have greater risk propensities.
In accordance with the studies conducted by Kuzniak et al. (2015), and
O’Neil (2011) the researchers reached the conclusion that an individual's level of
risk propensity serves as the foundation for their decision-making regarding risk
management, eventually influencing their inclination to either accept or reject a
given risk situation as a leader. The author claimed that an individual's risk
inclination has an impact on their perception of risk-taking comfort and the
perceived worth of the resulting profits, in both commercial and personal contexts.
Individuals have a greater propensity to engage in risk-taking behavior when they
expect specific losses, but they demonstrated a higher inclination to opt for a
guaranteed gain when they anticipated absolute benefits. The findings pertaining
to the delegation of key choices were consistent with the studies conducted by
Håkonsson et al. (2012) and Hitt et al. (2012). Effective decision-making plays a
crucial role in enhancing organizational effectiveness. This study demonstrated
that key decisions were often accompanied by heightened levels of complexity and
pressure. Håkonsson et al. (2012) and Hitt et al. (2012) reached the consensus
that key decisions, by their inherent nature, are characterized by a high level of
risk. These decisions were regularly undertaken by organizations as they strived
to accomplish their diverse missions while continuously striving toward their
overarching vision.
Synthesis
Risk is an inherent and omnipresent aspect of decision-making, referring to
the potential deviation from expected outcomes or the inherent unpredictability of
future events. According to notable scholars, risk propensity, which reflects one's
inclination to embrace or avoid risks, has a significant impact on decision-making.
Risk pervades everyday life, encompassing the possibility of negative outcomes in
decisions, actions, and situations. Exploration into risk, such as in "The Art of Risk,"
delves deeply into the complex interplay of biological, psychological, and
environmental factors that influence an individual's risk tolerance. Individuals face
the multifaceted dimensions of risk on a daily basis, whether in business, finance,
health, or interpersonal relationships. The ability to recognize and manage risk is
not only a practical necessity but also an essential skill for navigating life's
challenges.
Understanding an individual's or entity's risk propensity is critical because it
directly influences decisions and outcomes. Studies demonstrate the complex
relationship between risk propensity and decision-making. While risk propensity
serves as a guiding force, the decision-making process is a complex interplay of

personality traits, past experiences, cognitive biases, and cultural factors.
Furthermore, decision-making styles, which range from rational and intuitive to
dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous, add layers of complexity to navigating
options. The dynamic context of decision-making can be seen in a variety of
domains, each with its own set of challenges. In healthcare, for example, triage
nurses must strike a delicate balance between patient acuity, available resources,
and urgency, with potentially fatal consequences.
Student leaders play critical roles in educational institutions, significantly
influencing campus culture and promoting positive change. However, their
responsibilities carry inherent risks, and the ability to make decisions becomes
critical. The importance of data-driven decision-making is especially evident in
educational settings. It enables leaders, including student leaders, to accurately
identify areas for improvement by analyzing student performance data and
advocating for evidence-based solutions.
In essence, decision-making is a universal human trait that necessitates a
nuanced understanding of risk, risk propensity, and decision-making.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research method used, sampling, participants,
research setting, instrument, and data collection.
Research Method
The study was conducted using a quantitative method. In the study
conducted by Bhandari in 2020, it was stated there that quantitative research is a
systematic investigation that qualifies problems by generating numerical data and
statistics. It is generally used to find patterns, predictions, averages, and test
causal relationships. Using quantitative research methods was appropriate for
studying risk propensity and decision-making among student leaders for several
reasons.
As this study aimed to evaluate the association and differences between
student leaders' risk propensity and decision-making, the researchers employed a
correlational research methodology. A correlation, according to Cresswell (2012),
is a statistical test used to identify the propensity for two (or more) variables or two
sets of data to vary over time. Finding the association between two or more
variables is the goal of correlational research. Because correlational research
methodology enabled the researchers to analyze the link between two or more
variables without changing them, it was more appropriate to utilize it in the study
of risk propensity and decision-making among student leaders. Future research

examining the mechanisms underlying this association may be aided if a high
correlation is established between risk propensity and decision-making, for
instance.
Population and Sampling Scheme
The population for this study were the student leaders, from both Boni and
Pasig campus. The total population of RTU- Boni and Pasig Campus students
leaders in Colleges/Institutions Student Council and Academic Organizations was
742, based on the posted result given by the Commission on Student Election -
RTU. Using the Sample Size, the total number of participants that can contribute
to the study or the sample is 254. Considering the capacity of student leaders to
exert influence and mold the conduct and demeanor of their fellow students. The
decisions and propensity for risk-taking showcased by individuals can exert a
direct influence on the overall culture and environment within the student body.
Moreover, gaining an understanding of the risk propensity and decision-making
tendencies exhibited by student leaders might yield useful insights regarding their
aptitude for leadership. This data can be utilized for identifying possible strengths
and areas for enhancement in their leadership capabilities.
The sampling technique that was used in the study was convenience
sampling. According to Edgar and Manz (2017), convenience sampling entails
selecting respondents based on their availability for the researchers. There is no
recognizable pattern in the way these respondents were found; they were found
by simply approaching people at school, by their availability on social media, or in
public spaces, for example. Since the population of interest may be difficult to
reach or identify, convenience sampling is a practical option. Also, the research
focused on a specific subgroup within a population, and members of that subgroup
were readily available, so convenience sampling may be appropriate. This was
particularly true when the goal was not to make generalizations about the entire
population but to understand a particular group's experiences or perspectives.
Description of the Respondents
The respondents to this study explored risk propensity and decision-making
in student leaders across five colleges at Rizal Technological University.
Specifically, the study sample consisted of 254 out of 742 leaders, of which 84
were male and 170 were female. The College of Business, Entrepreneurship, and
Accountancy has 76 total respondents; the College of Education has 71
respondents; the College of Engineering and Architecture has 60 respondents; and
the College of Arts and Sciences has 42 respondents. The Institute of Human
Kinetics had a total of 5 respondents. In accordance with Karen Villaverde and
Olga Kosheleva's research (2021), younger people, including student leaders,
tend to be more inclined to take risks than older people. According to the
researchers, this group frequently exhibited a higher risk tolerance and a greater
concern for average outcomes, favoring these over potential delayed or
unfavorable outcomes.
Ethical Considerations
Consent Letter and Population Data. To conduct the study and obtain the
population data of the respondents, the researchers composed a consent letter
addressed to the respective research adviser, requesting permission to conduct
the study. The letter described the study's purpose, methods, and potential risks
and benefits. The researchers also requested permission to access the
respondents' population data, which was used for sampling purposes. The consent
letter also informs the adviser that the personal data of the participants was treated
confidentially and securely stored.
Informed Consent. Before collecting, using, or sharing any personal
information, the researchers obtained informed consent from participants. This
involved providing them with full information about the nature of the research, what
their personal information was used for, and any potential risks or benefits. The
participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could
withdraw from the study at any time without consequences.
Privacy and Confidentiality. The privacy and confidentiality of the
participants' personal information were upheld by the researchers. Only authorized
personnel involved in the research had access to the data that was collected,
which was kept securely. Any identifying information from the data was removed
before analysis in order to protect participant anonymity. The researchers made
sure that the personal information was not used for anything other than what it was
originally collected for.

Potential Risk. The researchers acknowledged that there were risks
associated with taking part in the study, such as emotional distress, stress, or
invasion of privacy. To reduce these risks, participants were given information
about the study and the opportunity to ask questions before agreeing to take part.
Data Storage. The researchers acknowledged the importance of secure
storage and protection of personal information collected during the research. They
complied with relevant laws and regulations, such as data protection laws, when
storing the data. The researchers only used the data for its intended purpose and
would not share it with unauthorized third parties. After conducting the study, the
researchers gave careful thought to what should be done with the data. This
involved storing it securely for a specified amount of time, in accordance with legal
requirements, or securely destroying it if it is no longer needed. The researchers
also took into account their obligations to share the data with other researchers or
make it publicly accessible, based on any agreements made with participants and
relevant laws and regulations.
Overall, the researchers were dedicated to carrying out the study morally and
in accordance with all applicable rules and laws, including the Data Privacy Act.
The Data Privacy Act (DPA) is a law in the Philippines (Republic Act No. 10173)
that governs the collection, use, storage, and sharing of personal data.
Researchers conducting studies on risk propensity and decision-making must
obtain informed consent from participants, protect their personal data, and
securely store it. The DPA also gave individuals the right to access, correct, or
delete their personal data and required that transfers of personal data outside of
the Philippines be done in accordance with the law and with appropriate
safeguards.
Research Instrument
The researchers used a standardized test for measuring both the risk
propensity and the decision-making process. Sabtal, D. et al. (2022) created the
Risk Propensity Scale to assess individuals who exhibit a higher inclination
towards engaging in risky behaviors in academic organizations. A survey
questionnaire with a rating scale of 23 items was used to collect the data needed
for the research. A 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing "never" and 5
representing "always," was used to measure the 23 items in this questionnaire.
The scores for each item are added up to determine the overall score. Items #10,
#13, #18, and #20 are negatively scored, while the rest are positively scored.
Individuals who were "risk takers" are inclined to take more risks; those individuals
who scored 98 to 115; “moderately risk takers” are those who scored 80 to 97; and
those who scored 62 to 79 are considered “neutral.”. While those who are
"moderately risk averse," who scored 43 to 61, and lastly, “risk averse,” are more
likely to take fewer risks, those who scored 23 to 42. Providing a thorough grasp
of their inclination towards risk-taking and pinpointing particular areas where
individuals were more likely to take chances were the goals of this study.
In the study conducted by Sabtal, D. et al. (2022), the Risk Propensity Scale
demonstrated internal consistency, as evidenced by a Cronbach's alpha coefficient

of 0.749. The significant interrelation among the risk propensity items was
reinforced by the strong coefficient, which effectively measured individuals'
inclination towards risk-taking. By meeting this criterion, the Risk Propensity Scale
exhibited a high degree of reliability, which enhanced its validity as a reliable
measurement tool.
The study also used a scaled general decision-making style that was
created by Susanne G. Scott and Reginald A. Bruce (1995) and that serves as
valuable instruments for assessing and understanding the complexities of
decision-making processes. Also, to facilitate research on decision-making styles
and enable the identification of individual differences and factors influencing
decision outcomes.
The General Decision-Making Scale (GDMS), created by Scott and Bruce
(1995), on the other hand, aimed to measure how people approach making
decisions. It makes a distinction between five different decision-making styles:
rational, avoidant, dependent, intuitive, and spontaneous. It consists of 25 items,
and each of them is scored on a five-point Likert scale. Items 1 to 5 are for rational,
items 6 to 10 are for intuitive, items 11 to 15 are for dependent, items 16 to 20 are
for avoidant, and items 21 to 25 are for spontaneous. All items are positively
scored, and each style will be determined based on the average score per
decision-making style. It is the appropriate, valid, and reliable scale for evaluating
decision-making and decision-making quality (Buch, 2021).

The General Decision-Making Scale has been found to have strong internal
consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the various decision-making
styles ranging from 0.70 to 0.80. As it correlates favorably with measures of
decision-making skill and adversely with measures of indecisiveness, the scale
has also shown strong construct validity (Scott & Bruce, 1995).
The primary study objectives were completed using the standardized
questionnaire tools. The researchers asked permission from the original test
developer. The questionnaires were distributed to the respondent’s family with
consent.
Data Gathering Procedures
The researchers conducted a variety of processes to collect valuable data
and relevant information when performing the study on risk propensity and
decision-making among student leaders of Rizal Technological University. To
begin, a consent letter was written and delivered to the respective research
adviser, requesting permission to conduct the study and collect the respondents'
population data. This was critical to ensuring that the study was conducted ethically
and with proper approval.
Second, the responses of the participants were the primary source of data
for the study. The researchers also consulted a variety of sources, both online and
offline, such as public libraries, to obtain relevant literature. This provided a more
comprehensive understanding of the subject and guaranteed that the research
was well-informed. Then, before collecting, using, or sharing any personal

information, the researchers asked for participants' informed consent. This
approach entailed informing them fully about the nature of the research, how their
personal information would be handled, and any potential risks or advantages. It
was critical to ensure that participants understood their rights and that their
involvement was voluntary.
Finally, once informed consent has been obtained, the researchers
distribute survey questionnaires to the participants via online Google Forms and
printed survey questionnaires. The factors of interest were measured using the
Risk Propensity Scale and General Decision-Making Style. The researchers were
available to address any queries that participants may have while they completed
the questionnaires.
Overall, adhering to these guidelines helped to ensure that the research on
the risk propensity and decision-making of student leaders was conducted ethically
and with proper consent. The utilization of dependable data sources and proper
data collection methods also helped to ensure the validity and reliability of the
study's findings.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To answer the inquiries of the study, appropriate statistical methods were
used to analyze the data, and they are as follows:
Percentage is used to determine the frequency counts and percentage
distribution of respondents in relation to their demographic profile, such as sex.

Weighted Mean was used to total and quantify the respondents' answers
to each question. This term denotes the distribution's overall average score on the
Risk Propensity Scale and Decision Making Style to determine the level of
respondents’ ‘Risk Propensity’ and respondents’ ‘Decision Making Style’.
Independent Sample T-Test was used to determine the significant
difference between risk propensity and decision-making among the respondents
in terms of sex.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significant
difference between risk propensity and decision-making among the respondents
in terms of college.
Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient (Spearman Rho) was used to
determine the significant relationship between risk propensity and decision-making
among student leaders.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter analyzes and interprets the data gathered from the selected
academic student leaders of Rizal Technological University, both on the Boni and
Pasig campuses, with regards to their risk propensity and decision-making style.
To determine the relationship between risk propensity and decision-making
among selected student leaders of Rizal Technological University, the researchers
identified the answers to the statement of the problem.
Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Table 1 shows the computed frequency and percentage of the demographic
profile of the respondents. In terms of sex, there were 84 individuals who identified
themselves as male, which covered 33% of the total number of respondents. On
the other hand, there were 170 female participants, which covered the remaining
67%. Therefore, most of the respondents were female.
According to research, both male and female students are equally likely to
be student leaders (i.e., there were not significantly more female student leaders
than male student leaders and vice versa), but there were sex differences in their
involvement on campus and reasons for remaining uninvolved. However, male

student leaders were 2.3 times more likely to be bored or uninterested, while
female leaders were 1.7 times more likely to take part in on-campus events. Men
were 2.1 times more likely to remain uninvolved because of their academic
emphasis, women were 2.2 times more likely to do so because of work obligations,
and women were 2.5 times more likely to do so because of commuting (Campus
Involvement and Leadership: A Focus on Gender Differences, 2017). It is always
based on the underlying factors that benefit them or not.
Table 2. Level of Respondent’s Risk Propensity
Table 2 shows the computed mean and corresponding interpretation of the
scores of female and male respondents on the Risk Propensity Scale (RPS). Male
respondents’ scores in the mentioned inventory obtained a mean of 68.36 with a
verbal interpretation of neutral risk tendency. Female respondents’ scores in the
inventory obtained a mean of 65.92 with a verbal interpretation of neutral risk
tendency. Therefore, scores in the RPS have an overall mean of 66.74, signifying
that most of the respondents have a neutral level of willingness to take risks.
In relation to the results, Mrig and Sanaghan's emphasis on leadership
qualities and the importance of willingness to take intelligent risks aligns with the
context of the study. The neutral risk tendency observed among respondents
implies that there is an opportunity for leadership development in fostering a
culture of intelligent risk-taking within the institution or organization under study.
The role of leaders becomes pivotal in guiding their teams to discern calculated
risks that contribute positively to the institution's growth trajectory.
The call for leaders to know which risks are worth taking and how to
navigate them aligns with the need for strategic decision-making. The mention of
piloting, iterating, and continuous learning underscores the iterative nature of risk
management, emphasizing that leaders should not only take risks but also be
adept at adapting strategies based on outcomes and feedback.
Furthermore, the suggestion to empower smart risk-taking through
encouragement, support, and incentives is crucial. The study's neutral risk
tendency may indicate a potential hesitancy among respondents to step out of their
comfort zones. Leaders, in response, should create an environment that motivates
individuals less comfortable with risk and provides a disciplined process for those
more inclined towards risk-taking.
Table 3. Respondents’ Decision-Making Style

This table shows the accumulated scores of the respondents in each sub-
variable under decision-making. Rational Decision-Making Style subscale
obtained 22.97, followed by Dependent Decision-Making Style scale obtained
19.45, then Intuitive Decision-Making Style scale obtained 17.76, then
Spontaneous Decision-Making Style scale obtained 16.03, and lastly Avoidant
Decision-Making Style scale obtained 14.23. Therefore, among the subscales
under decision-making, the respondents scores under the Rational Decision-
Making Style scale obtained the highest accumulated score, while the Avoidant
Decision-Making Style is the lowest.
The findings from the accumulated scores in the decision-making sub-
variables reveal interesting insights into the decision-making styles of Rizal
Technological University student leaders. The rational decision-making style
stands out as the predominant approach, followed by the dependent, intuitive,
spontaneous, and avoidant styles in descending order of scores. This distribution
of decision-making styles among student leaders reflects a complex interplay of
cognitive processes and behavioral tendencies.
In line with these findings, an organization's operational framework is
affected by turbulence and changes, which a leader must guide the organization
to make evident. To provide transparency, this visibility needs to be derived from
the data that is currently available and updated often (Verma et al., 2015).
Dependent approach as the second highest decision-making style suggests an
analytical rationality backup plan. It shows that leaders should prioritize

participation over direction and be task- and people-oriented. After negotiating,
they make decisions about how best to use the available resources. Decision-
making inside an organization frequently needs high-quality input from
stakeholders. Therefore, to make and improve crucial decisions in their
businesses, leaders consult with their peers and followers (either individually or in
groups) (Vroom, 2003). Then the intuitive approach includes feelings, intuition,
insights, and gut impulses. Research suggests that organizational leaders often
combine their intuition with reliable information, take personal responsibility for the
actions of the group, and demonstrate a certain amount of understanding (Rozuel
and Ketola, 2012). Their spontaneous approach may be explained by their natural
functioning, which demands alertness and prompt decision-making from the
leaders to handle situations. The spontaneous decision-making technique shows
the decision-maker's ability to act quickly, but it also offers fewer options for job
planning. Thus, spontaneity is required to complement leaders' well-reasoned
plans (Salo and Allwood, 2011). Finally, an avoidant approach is observed. If there
is a valid reason not to make the decision, it is preferable to do so. Avoidance is a
symbol of indecision and can stem from a variety of factors, including option
quality, acceptability, ambiguity, and option dissimilarity (Brooks, 2011).
The emphasis on rational decision-making style suggests that these leaders
tend to approach decisions systematically, analyzing various options before
arriving at a conclusion. This aligns with the idea that effective leadership is
demonstrated through specific behaviors, such as analytical thinking and a

thorough consideration of alternatives. The rational approach is often associated
with a logical and objective assessment of situations, contributing to well-thought-
out and informed decisions.
The prominence of the dependent decision-making style as the second-
highest score implies that these leaders value collaboration, participation, and
input from others in the decision-making process. This aligns with the literature that
highlights the importance of seeking high-quality input from stakeholders within an
organization. The analytical rationality backup plan associated with the dependent
approach suggests a balanced consideration of both task- and people-oriented
aspects of leadership.
The intuitive decision-making style, although obtaining a lower score than
the rational and dependent styles, still holds significance. The integration of
feelings, intuition, and insights into decision-making reflects a more holistic and
emotionally intelligent leadership style. This resonates with existing research that
suggests leaders often combine intuition with reliable information, demonstrating
a nuanced understanding of their role.
The spontaneous decision-making style, with a relatively lower score,
indicates that these leaders possess the ability to act quickly and decisively,
complementing well-reasoned plans. This aligns with the literature, which
highlights the need for leaders to adapt swiftly to dynamic situations. The balance
between spontaneity and thoughtful planning is crucial for effective leadership in
the face of changing operational frameworks.

The avoidant decision-making style, with the lowest accumulated score,
suggests that these student leaders generally prefer not to delay decisions unless
there is a valid reason. This avoidance is seen as a symbol of indecision and can
be influenced by factors such as option quality, acceptability, ambiguity, and
dissimilarity. This finding aligns with the literature, emphasizing the importance of
making timely decisions while also considering the potential impact of avoidance
on organizational effectiveness.
In conclusion, this suggests a prevalent and systematic approach,
emphasizing collaboration, intuition, adaptability, and decisiveness in leadership
decision-making. The findings highlight a balanced and inclusive decision-making
process that considers data, stakeholder input, and quick responses when needed.
Overall, these results depict a comprehensive and dynamic approach to leadership
decision-making among student leaders.
Table 4. Significant Difference between Risk Propensity and Decision-

Making When Grouped According to Sex
Using Independent Samples T-test, the researchers were able to evaluate
the significance of the difference between the scores of the female and male
respondents in Risk Propensity Scale (RPS) and General Decision-Making Style

Scale (GDMS). In RPS, male and female scores obtained t-statistic obtained 1.76,
a p-value of 0.0788, and 0.2340 cohen’s d, signifying that there is a significant
difference between male and female scores in RPS. On the other hand, in GDMS,
male and female scores t-statistic obtained 2.58, a p-value of 0.0147, and 0.3099
cohen’s d, signifying that there is also a significant difference between male and
female scores in GDMS. Therefore, the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected.
In the context of risk propensity (RPS), the result aligns with Harris et al.'s
(2023) study, indicating that women are less likely to engage in risky activities. The
higher sensitivity to potential losses among women may contribute to their aversion
to risk-taking. The mediated influence of perceptions of negative outcomes and
diminished enjoyment further elucidates the complex interplay of psychological
factors in shaping risk-related behaviors. This supports the notion that risk-taking
tendencies are not solely determined by sex but are influenced by various cognitive
and emotional factors.
Regarding general decision-making styles (GDMS), the identified
differences correspond with existing literature. Women's prioritization of
uncertainty, doubts, and dynamism in decision-making, along with their
consideration of time, money, and consequences, aligns with the findings of De
Acedo Baquedano et al. (2007). On the other hand, men's focus on information
analysis, goal definition, and motivation suggests a distinct approach to decision-
making. The shared cognitive processes between sex, such as information
processing, data retrieval, logical thinking, and problem-solving, indicate that sex
differences are more nuanced and tied to behavioral styles rather than
fundamental cognitive disparities.
The sex differences identified in risk perception across various domains
(financial, health/safety, recreational, ethical, and social decisions) underscore the
multifaceted nature of decision-making. These differences may be influenced by
societal norms, evolving expectations, and contextual factors, as noted by Stewart-
Williams & Halsey (2021). The cautionary approach towards generalizations about
sex-related decision-making implies that individual variations within sex play a
crucial role. It highlights the need to recognize the diversity of decision-making
approaches and consider the impact of evolving social dynamics on decision
processes.
In conclusion, this analysis emphasizes the importance of acknowledging
the complexity and variability in sex-related differences in risk propensity and
decision-making styles. While statistical differences exist, it is essential to view
these findings through a nuanced lens, recognizing the influence of individual
differences and evolving societal norms on decision-making behaviors. This study
contributes valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on sex and decision-making,
encouraging a more nuanced and context-dependent understanding of these
dynamics.
Table 5. Significant Relationship between Risk Propensity and General

Decision-Making Scale.
The table above shows the results of the correlation analysis using
Spearman Rho to determine the significance of the relationship between the
scores of RTU student leaders in the General Decision-Making Style Scale
(GDMS) and Risk Propensity Scale (RPS). The analysis obtained an r-value of
0.5268, suggesting a large positive relationship between the compared scores,
and a p-value of less than 0.001, which allowed the rejection of the null hypothesis.
Which concludes that there is a significant relationship between the scores in risk
propensity and the decision-making of the respondents.
Making critical decisions comes with a significant amount of risk. The
unpredictable nature of results is what O'Neill (2001) defines as a risk. Another
possibility of risk that affects decision-making is the decision-maker's tendency to
take on risk. It impacts the choices that a decision-maker is prepared to take a
chance on. Several formulas for making judgments lead to critical decisions, one
of which is the decision maker's risk propensity. The findings suggest that leaders
with a higher risk propensity may be more inclined to delegate decision-making,
while those with a lower risk propensity may prefer maintaining sole authority over
crucial decisions. This aligns with the doctor's assertion that leaders who delegate
decision-making typically exhibit a lower risk propensity. The decision to delegate
or retain decision-making authority seems to hinge on the leader's confidence in
assessing the best decision alternative and implementation strategy while
considering associated risks. Also, as an inherent part of the decision-making
process, risk perception can be understood as an individual’s assessment of risk
(Williams and Noyes, 2007). Therefore, it is logical and reasonable to assume that
an individual’s perception of risk is likely to be related to the decision-making
process.
The observed intricate relationship between risk propensity and decision-
making among RTU student leaders The results suggest that leaders' willingness
to take on risks significantly relates to their decision-making styles, impacting
organizational dynamics. The study provides valuable insights for understanding
how risk-related factors play a crucial role in the decision-making processes of
leaders, ultimately contributing to our comprehension of leadership behaviors and
organizational outcomes.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the data and has been conducted by the
researchers. Conclusions are analyzed and presented in the study.
Recommendations are made based on the findings of the study.
Summary of Findings
The following findings were drawn from the analysis of the data: This study
provides insights into the demographic profile, risk propensity, and decision-
making of the respondents.
1. Demographic Profile: Sex Differences
1.1. The study examined the respondent’s sex-based demographic profile.
Of the total respondents, 33% classified themselves as men and 67% as women.
Therefore, women made up the majority of the participants. The basis for
investigating potential sex-based variations in risk propensity and decision-making
is provided by this demographic breakdown.
1.2. The General Decision-Making Style Scale (GDMS) and Risk Propensity
Scale (RPS) revealed a significant difference between male and female
respondents, according to the results of the independent sample t-test. In terms of
RPS, male respondents perform better than female respondents, with a mean
score of 68.36 to 65.92. Likewise, in the GDMS, men also outscored women with
a mean score of 3.68 to 3.54. These variations point to differences in risk
propensity and decision-making strategies based on sex.
2. Risk Propensity:
Both male and female respondents showed a neutral level of risk
propensity, according to the computed mean scores on the Risk Propensity Scale
(RPS). With a mean score of 68.36, male respondents were deemed to have
“neutral risk propensity,” while female respondents only marginally scored lower at
65.92, which was still within the "neutral risk propensity” level. A moderate
willingness to take risks was indicated by the 66.74 average score for all of the
respondents.
3.Decision-Making Style:
Findings from the analysis of the total scores in each sub-variable under
decision-making showed that respondents performed best on the Rational
Decision-Making subscale (22.97) and lowest on the Avoidant Decision-Making
Style subscale (14.23). It appears that the participants favor making decisions
based on reason.
4.Relationship Between Risk Propensity and Decision-Making:
A positive connection (r-value = 0.5268) was found between the male and
female respondents’ scores on the General Decision-Making (GDMS) and Risk
Propensity Scale (RPS) in the Spearman-Rho correlation analysis. There was
statistical significance since the p-value was less than 0.001. Therefore, the
respondents’ overall decision-making styles and their tendency to take risks have
a positive correlation.
The findings suggest sex-based differences in both risk propensity and
decision-making styles. Additionally, the positive relationship between risk
propensity and decision-making style emphasizes the interconnected nature of
these constructs among the study participants. These results contribute to the
understanding of individual differences in risk-taking behavior and decision-making
processes.
Conclusions
Based from the summary of findings the following conclusions are
drawn:
1. Men covered 33% of the total number of respondents, and 67% were
female. Therefore, most of the participants were female.
2. Most of the participants have a neutral level of willingness to take risks.
3. In the context of decision-making styles, the respondents got 22.27 in
rational decision-making style, 19.45 in dependent decision-making style,
17.76 in intuitive decision-making style, 16.03 in spontaneous decision-
making style, and 14.23 in avoidant decision-making style. So, the student
leader’s decision-making style is more inclined toward rationality.
4. In terms of sex, there are sex-based variations in both the Risk Propensity
Scale and general decision-making styles among student leaders.

However, there is no significant difference in the scores on the General
Decision-Making Scale and the Risk Propensity Scale of the respondents
when they are grouped according to their colleges.
5. There is a meaningful and positive association between the decision-
making styles captured by the General Decision Making Scale and the risk
propensity measured by the Risk Propensity Scale among the respondents.
Recommendations
Based on the summary of the findings and conclusions, the following
conditions are drawn:
1. For future researchers, consider broadening the demographic analysis to
encompass a more diverse population. Include age, cultural background, and
academic discipline to gain a better understanding of how these variables influence
risk propensity and decision-making style.
2. Broaden the study to include multiple institutions beyond Rizal
Technological University. This broader scope will provide a more comprehensive
understanding of leadership dynamics among student leaders, offering insights
applicable across diverse educational settings and enriching the study's credibility
and relevance.
3. While our study focused on quantitative data, integrating qualitative
methods in subsequent research endeavors can provide nuanced narratives and
contextual understanding behind the observed sex-based variations in the Risk

Propensity Scale and general decision-making styles. This approach will enrich
the findings, offering a deeper comprehension of the underlying reasons and
intricacies contributing to these variations, thereby strengthening the overall
conclusions and implications drawn from the research.
4. Given the observed sex-based variations in both risk propensity and
decision-making styles, it is recommended that organizations, particularly those
with student leaders, incorporate diversity and inclusion training. This can help
raise awareness of individual differences and foster an inclusive environment that
values various approaches to risk and decision-making.
5. Study the causal relationship between risk propensity and decision-
making and test whether increasing one variable leads to improving the other. This
can help us understand the mechanisms and outcomes of risk-taking and decision-
making.
6. Encouraging collaborative research initiatives involving students, faculty,
and industry professionals can further enrich the understanding of decision-making
styles in leadership. Such collaborations foster a multidisciplinary approach,
bringing together diverse perspectives and expertise to address complex
challenges faced by student leaders.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barry O’Neill. (n.d.). Risk Aversion in International Relations Theory.
Academic.oup.com.
https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/45/4/617/1792581
Bhandari, P. (2020). What is quantitative research? | definition, uses and
methods. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-
research/
Bostjan Antoncic,. et al. (2017, November 30). Risk-taking propensity and
entrepreneurship: The role of Power Distance in Six Countries. Academy of
Management. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/ambpp.2016.59
Brooks, M.E. (2011), “Management indecision”, Management Decision, Vol. 49
No. Buch, R. S., Moitra, M., Damor, R., & Chauhan, N. (2021). Decision-
Making Skills: An Assessment among Adolescents in Surat City. Indian
Journal of Community Medicine : Official Publication of Indian Association
of Preventive & Social Medicine, 46(2), 195–200.
https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_512_19
Camilleri, A. (2021, February 7). When Do Life’s Biggest Decisions Happen?
Psychology Today. Www.psychologytoday.com.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/life-s-biggest-
decisions/202102/when-do-lifes-biggest-decisions-
happen#:~:text=You%20are%20most%20likely%20to
Campus Involvement and Leadership: A Focus on Gender Differences. (2017,
October).https://cssl.osu.edu/posts/632320bc-704d-4eef-8bcb-
87c83019f2e9/documents/sls-campus-involvement-and-leadership-a-
focus-on-gender-differences.pdf
CEPF®, T. T., BSc. (2023, July 12). Risk Propensity | Definition, Methods of
Assessment, & Tools. Finance Strategists.
https://www.financestrategists.com/wealth-management/risk-profile/risk-
propensity/
Creswell, J.W. (2013) Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., London. -
References - Scientific Research Publishing. (n.d.).
https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55.))/reference/reference
spapers.aspx?referenceid=1485543
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial
decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54.
De Acedo Baquedano, M. T. S., Elawar, M. C., & De Acedo Lizárraga, M. L. S.
(2007, January 1). Factors that affect decision making: Gender and age
differences.ResearchGate.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23703
6379_Factors_that_affect_decision_making_Gender_and_age_difference
s
Decision making. (n.d.). Psychology Wiki. Retrieved February 16, 2023,
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Decision_making#cite_note-
Concept_of_Indeterminism-1
Defining Risk | Research. (n.d.). https://research.virginia.edu/irb-sbs/defining-risk
https://research.virginia.edu/irb-sbs/defining-risk.
Driver, M. J. (1979). Individual decision making and creativity. In S. Kerr (Ed.),
Organizational behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid Publishing.
Driver, M. J., Brousseau, K. E., & Hunsaker, P. L. (1990). The dynamic decision
maker. New York: Harper & Row.
Doctor, R. (2015). Leaders' Risk Propensity and Delegating Critical
Decision-Making Authority (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2531&conte
xt=dissertations
Edgar, T. W., & Manz, D. O. (2017, January 1). Exploratory Study. Elsevier
eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-805349-2.00004-2
El Othman, R., El Othman, R., Hallit, R., Obeid, S., & Hallit, S. (2020).
Personality traits, emotional intelligence and decision-making styles in
Lebanese universities medical students. BMC Psychology, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00406-4
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and
social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual
Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.
Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2011). Research Methods for the Behavioral
Science. In Google Books. Cengage Learning.
https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Research_Methods_for_the_Be
havioral_Scie.html?id=plo4dzBpHy0C&redir_esc=y
Håkonsson, D. D., Burton, R. M., Obel, B., & Lauridsen, J. T. (2012). Strategy
implementation requires the right executive style: Evidence from Danish
SMEs long range planning, 45(2), 182-208. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2012.02.004
MANY
Halpern-Felsher, B., Baker, M., & Stitzel, S. (2016). Decision-Making in
Adolescents and Young Adults. Handbook of Health Decision Science,
157–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3486-7_12
Hammond, K. R., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (2015). Smart choices: A practical
guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business Review Press.
Harris, C. R., Jenkins, M. A., & Glaser, D. (2006, July 1). Gender Differences in
Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Judgment
and Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500000346
Hitt, M., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. (2012). Strategic management cases:
BOAL competitiveness and globalization (10th ed). Mason, OH:Cengage
Learning.
Hollands, D. (2020, June 25). Ethical decision-making for school leaders. School
Management Plus: School & Education News Worldwide.
https://www.schoolmanagementplus.com/heads-governors-school-
leadership-governance/ethical-decision-making-for-school-leaders
Huddleston, T. (2007).From Student Voice to Shared Responsibility: Effective
Practice in Democratic School Governance in European Schools. London:
Citizenship Foundation IGI Global. (n.d.). What is risk propensity?
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/information-disclosure-on-social-
networking-sites/44441
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Data Privacy Act of 2012. (2017,
March 29). National Privacy Commission.
https://www.privacy.gov.ph/implementing-rules-regulations-data-privacy-
act-2012/
Inderscience Publishers - linking academia, business and industry through
research.(n.d.). https://www.inderscience.com/offers.php?id=22312
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (n.d.). Decision making: A psychological analysis of
conflict, choice, and commitment. Psycnet.apa.org.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-00284-000
Keen, P.G.W. (1973). The implications of cognitive style for individual decision
making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University Graduate
School of Business.
Knight, M. (2024, February 20). Review: The Art of Risk. Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/review-the-art-of-risk/
Komives, S., & Dugan, J. (2024). 36 Student Leadership Development: Theory,
Research, and Practice. Oup.com. https://academic.oup.com/edited-
volume/34490/chapter/292635187.
Kuzniak, S., Rabbani, A., Heo, W., Ruiz-Menjivar, J., & Grable, J. E. (2015). The
Grable and Lytton risk-tolerance scale: A 15-year retrospective. Financial
Services Review, 24(2), 177-192. Retrieved from
http://academyfinancial.org/
Leaders Must Take and Support Risks. (2019, February 12). Www.cui.edu.
https://www.cui.edu/academicprograms/education/servant-leadership-
institute/perfecting-the-practice/blog/post/leaders-must-take-and-support-
risks
Liang, Z., Liao, X., & Cai, H. (2022). The Impact of Specific Psychological
Characteristics on Decision-Making Under the Different Conditions of Risk
Self-Assessment. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 779246.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.779246
Maheshwari, S., & Rai, K. (2021). Life Decisions and Youth: A Focus Group
Study of Making and Reflecting on Major Decisions of Life. Psychological
Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-021-00621-y
Marc Oliver Rieger, Mei Wang, Thorsten Hens (2014) Risk Preferences Around
the World. Management Science 61(3):637-648.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1869
Marchiondo, L. A., Myers, C. G., & Kopelman, S. (2015). The relational nature of
leadership identity construction: How and when it influences perceived
leadership and decision-making. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 892-908.
Markič, O. (2009). RATIONALITY AND EMOTIONS IN DECISION MAKING.
Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 7(2), 54–64.
http://indecs.eu/2009/indecs2009-pp54-64.pdf
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Risk definition & meaning. Merriam-Webster.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/risk
Mitroff, I. I. (1983). Stakeholders of the organizational mind. San Francisco:
Jossey-Basss, MOE.(2010). Kenya Guidelines for Formation and
Implementation of Secondary Schools Student Councils. Nairobi: Elimu
Publisher.
Mrig, & Sanaghan. (2017). The Skills Future Higher-Ed Leaders Need to
Succeed. https://www.academicimpressions.com/PDF/future-skillset.pdf
Müller, S. M., Wegmann, E., Garcia Arías, M., Bernabéu Brotóns, E., Marchena
Giráldez, C., & Brand, M. (2022, January 31). Decision making and
risk propensity in individuals with tendencies towards specific internet-use
disorders. Brain sciences.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8870372/
Guinipero, L., Denslow, D., & Melton, H. (2008). Inderscience Publishers - linking
academia, business and industry through research.
https://www.inderscience.com/offers.php?id=22312
Nicholson et al. (2005). Apa PsycNet. American Psychological Association.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ft07688-000
O’Neill, B. (2001). Risk aversion in international relations theory. International
Studies Quarterly, 45(2): 617-640. doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00217
Othman, R. E., Othman, R. E., Hallit, R., Obeïd, S., & Hallit, S. (2020, May
5).Personality traits, emotional intelligence and decision-making styles in
Lebanese universities medical students. BMC Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00406-4
Parham, A., Adair, A., & Reames, E. (2019). Data Driven Decision-Making Tools
for School Leaders: Developing Tools that Enculturate Distributive
Leadership and Shared Decision-Making.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1327513.pdf
Patrick, J. (2022). Student Leadership and Student Government.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1344509.pdf
Psychology Today. (2019). Decision-Making. Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/decision-making
Qing, H., Quadflieg, S., & Ludwig, C. J. H. (2023, October 13). Decision
avoidance and post-decision regret: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292857

Rejie Lunar Comia, Lualhati Maxima M. Floranda, & Cherry Ann Garcia
Durante. (2023). Decision-Making Competence and Critical Thinking Ability
among Triage Nurses in a Selected Hospital in Batangas, Philippines.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education
Research, 4(8), 1–1. https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=20138
Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2015). Risk Preferences Around the World.
Management Science, 61(3), 637–648.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1869
Rozuel, C. and Ketola, T. (2012), “A view from within: exploring the psychology of
responsible leadership”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31 No.
5, pp. 444-448.
Rui Chen, Jingguo Wang, Tejaswini Herath, & H. Raghav Rao. (2011, May
19). An investigation of email processing from a risky decision making
perspective. Decision Support Systems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016792361100113
Saidi, S. S., & Siew, N. M. (2019). Investigating the Validity and Reliability of
Survey Attitude towards Statistics Instrument among Rural Secondary
School Students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(4).
https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.4.651
Saivasan, R., & Lokhande, M. (2022). Influence of risk propensity,
behavioral biases, and demographic factors on equity investors’ risk
perception. Asian Journal of Economics and Banking, 6(3), 1–19.
Salo, I. and Allwood, C.M. (2011), “Decision-making styles, stress and gender
among investigators”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
and Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 97-119.
Savioni, L., Triberti, S., Durosini, I., & Pravettoni, G. (2022). How to make big
decisions: A cross-sectional study on the decision making process in life
choices. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02792-x
Scott, S. & Bruce, R. (1995, October). (PDF) Decision-Making Style: The
Development and Assessment of a New Measure. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247728315_Decision-
Making_Style_The_Development_and_Assessment_of_a_New_Measure
Shahsavarani, A. M., & Azad Marz Abadi, E. (2015). The Bases, Principles, and
Methods of Decision-Making: a review of literature. International Journal of
Medical Reviews, 2(1), 214-225. https://shorturl.at/sFVX0
Sharalyn Alih, Mona Allea Matolo, & Jeanette Punzalan. (2022). Preferred
Student Leadership Skills in a Public University. Psychology and Education:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(3), 1–1.
https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=20561
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 69(1), 99-118. Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded
rationality. In Decision and Organization (pp. 161-176). Elsevier.
Sitkin, S B, and Pablo, A L (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk
behavior. “Academy of Management Review”.
Sitkin, S B, and Weingart, L R (1995) Determinants of risky decision-making
behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity.
“Academy of Management Journal”.
Stephen R. Spulick. (2015). The Effect of Executive Style on Risk Management:
A Healthcare Supply Chain Context
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229065094.pdf Stewart‐ Williams, S., &
Halsey, L. G. (2021, January 1). Men, women and STEM: Why the
differences and what should be done? European Journal of Personality.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962326
SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING 3. (n.d.).
https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-
assets/98909bookitem98909.pdf
Tamplin, T. (2023, July 13). Risk Propensity | Definition, Methods of Assessment,
& Tools. Finance Strategists.
https://www.financestrategists.com/wealth-management/risk-profile/risk-
propensity/
Turney, S. (2022, May 13). Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) | Guide &
Examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/pearson-correlation-
coefficient/
Verma, N., Bhat, A. B., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Association
between leadership style and decision making style in Indian organisations.
Journal of Management Development, 34(3), 246-269.
Villanueva‐ Moya, L., & Expósito, F. (2021). Gender differences in
decision‐ making: The effects of gender stereotype threat moderated by
sensitivity to punishment and fear of negative evaluation. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2239
Vroom, V.H. (2003), “Educating managers for decision making and leadership”,
Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 968-978
Wang, C. M., Xu, B. B., Zhang, S. J., & Chen, Y. Q. (2016). Influence of
personality and risk propensity on risk perception of Chinese construction
project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7),
1294-1304.
Wong, Kin Fai Ellick. (2005). The Role of Risk in Making Decisions under
Escalation Situations. Applied Psychology. 54. 584 - 607. 10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2005.00236.x.
Yang, Y., Du, S., He, H., Wang, C., Shan, X., Gu, H., Zhao, J. (2021, November
24). The Role of Leadership Level in College Students’ Decision-Making:
Evidence from Event-Related Potential Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: LETTER TO RESPONDENT
Dear Respondent,
We, the third-year psychology students under the College of Arts and
Sciences, are writing to request permission to conduct a research study entitled
"THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK PROPENSITY AND DECISION-
MAKING STYLES AMONG THE STUDENT LEADERS OF RIZAL
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY." We will ask for your informed consent before
collecting, using, or disclosing any personal information. This involves providing
you with full information about the research, the use of your personal information,
and any potential risks or benefits. Your participation in this study is completely
voluntary, and you are free to withdraw at any time without penalty or
consequence. There will be no pressure placed upon you to participate, and any
decision to participate or decline will not impact your relationship with the
researchers or any affiliated institutions.
We acknowledge that taking part in the study may involve some emotional
discomfort, stress, or a breach of privacy. We will provide you with comprehensive
information about the study and an opportunity to ask questions before consenting
to participate.
However, we assure you that all information gathered will be treated with
the utmost confidentiality and will be used solely for academic purposes. The data
gathered will only be accessible to authorized researchers taking part in the study.
To preserve your confidentiality, all identifiable information will be removed before
analysis. The collected personal data will not be used for any other reason than
what was originally intended.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us
at 2020-100508@rtu.edu.ph. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
MARIEL CAJUSAY
CAROLLYNE CRUZ
KIM JOHN PACAL
YAEL NOEMI SY
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FORM
I have been informed about the purpose of the research and I
__________________ hereby give my consent to participate in research entitled
“THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK PROPENSITY AND DECISION-
MAKING STYLES AMONG THE STUDENT LEADERS OF RIZAL
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY.” It is my understanding that participating in this
study is voluntary and I am aware that I have the right to withdraw any time without
any penalty or prejudice.
I understand that my responses will be kept confidential and my anonymity
will be maintained throughout the study. Furthermore, I acknowledge that there are
no known risks to my participation in this research and that I will not receive any
compensation for my participation.
By signing this consent form, I acknowledge that I have read and
understood the information provided, and I freely and voluntarily consent to
participate in the study. I understand that this consent will be kept on file and that
I may request a copy of this form at any time.
_________________________________ ________________
SIGNATURE OVER PRINTED NAME DATE

APPENDIX C: INTENT LETTER

APPENDIX D: STANDARDIZED SCALES
Table 6. General Decision-Making Scale
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Neither Agree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree nor Disagree
1. I plan my important decisions carefully. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I double-check my information sources to be sure I have 1 2 3 4 5

the right facts before making decisions.
3. I make decisions in a logical and systematic way. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My decision making requires careful thought. 1 2 3 4 5
5. When making a decision, I consider various options in 1 2 3 4 5

terms of a specific goal.
6. When making decisions, I rely upon my instincts. 1 2 3 4 5
7. When I make decisions, I tend to rely on my intuition. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I generally make decisions which feel right to me. 1 2 3 4 5
9. When I make a decision, it is more important for me to 1 2 3 4 5

feel the decision is right than to have a rational reason for
it.
10. When I make a decision. I trust my inner feelings and 1 2 3 4 5

reactions
11. I often need the assistance of other people when 1 2 3 4 5

making important decisions.
12. I rarely make important decisions without consulting 1 2 3 4 5

other people.
13. If I have the support of others, it is easier for me to 1 2 3 4 5

make important decisions.
14. I use the advice of other people in making my important 1 2 3 4 5

decisions.
15. I like to have someone to steer me in the right direction 1 2 3 4 5

when I am faced with important decisions.
16. I avoid making important decisions until the pressure 1 2 3 4 5

is on.
17. I postpone decision making whenever possible. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I often procrastinate when it comes to making 1 2 3 4 5

important decisions.
19. I generally make important decisions at the last minute. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I put off making many decisions because thinking 1 2 3 4 5

about them makes me uneasy.
21. I generally make snap decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

22. I often make decisions on the spur of the moment. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I make quick decisions. 1 2 3 4 5
24. I often make impulsive decisions. 1 2 3 4 5
25. When making decisions, I do what seems natural at 1 2 3 4 5

the moment.
Table 7. Risk Propensity Scale
Never Seldom Sometimes Very Often Always
1 2 3 4 5
1. I would take a risk even if it meant I might get hurt. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I often think about doing things that would arouse a 1 2 3 4 5

great deal of fear or anxiety in me.
3. I like the idea of joining a club or organization without 1 2 3 4 5

much consideration.
4. I have a tendency to do things that I know my friends 1 2 3 4 5

would not approve of.
5. I usually buy things on a whim. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I often think about something that is illegal. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I often do things that I know my parents will 1 2 3 4 5

disapprove of.
8. I like the feeling that comes with physical risk. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I have a tendency to adopt the risky habits of my 1 2 3 4 5

friends.
10. I keep a close personal watch on my financial 1 2 3 4 5

affairs.
11. I am attracted to different dangerous activities. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I am a procrastinator. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I tend to set long term financial goals. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I have a tendency to smoke/ drink if I am drained. 1 2 3 4 5
15. I usually sleep late without considering how it might 1 2 3 4 5

affect my health.
16. I am very concerned with the concept of eating a 1 2 3 4 5

healthy diet.
17. I tend to have fun without knowing the risk. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I organized my routine with time management. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I willingly take a risk if I can make some money. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I prioritize my food intake to keep myself healthy. 1 2 3 4 5
21. I like to go in adventure 1 2 3 4 5
22. I have a tendency to prioritize my leisure time 1 2 3 4 5

without considering that I have things to do.
23. I considered myself a risk-taker. 1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX E: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE THROUGH GOOGLE FORM

APPENDIX F: INQUIRY FOR BORROWED SCALE

CERTIFICATES
Certificate of Grammarian
APPENDIX H: STATISTICAL COMPUTATIONS
Sampling Size
The researchers used Raosoft Software, an automated Sample Size
Calculator through their website to determine the sample size of the study.
Table 8. Respondent’s Profile Descriptives
This table shows the respondents Descriptives according to their

Demographic Profile.
Table 9. Demographic Profile of the Respondents According to Colleges.
Table shows the computed frequency and percentage of the demographic
profile of the respondents in terms of college, the majority of respondents are from
the College of Business, Entrepreneurship, and Accountancy (CBEA), with a
frequency of 76 covering the 30% of total respondents and by College of Education
(CED), with a frequency of 71, covering 28%. Followed by, College of Engineering
and Architecture (CEA), with a frequency of 60 covering 24%. The College of Arts
and Sciences (CAS), with a frequency 42, covering 16%. And lastly, Institute of
Human Kinetics (IHK), with a frequency of 5, covering 2%, separately.

Table 10. Level of Risk Propensity per College.
This table shows the computed mean and corresponding interpretation of
the scores of respondents per Colleges in Risk Propensity Scale (RPS). College
of Arts and Sciences Student Leaders scores in the mentioned inventory obtained
a mean of 68.36 with verbal interpretation of Neutral Risk Tendency. College of
Business, Entrepreneurship, and Accountancy Student Leader’s scores in the
inventory obtained a mean of 3.16 with verbal interpretation of Neutral Risk
Tendency. College of Education Student Leader’s scores in the inventory obtained
a mean of 3.01 with verbal interpretation of Neutral Risk Tendency. College of
Engineering and Architecture Student Leader’s scores in the inventory obtained a
mean of 3.18 with verbal interpretation of Neutral Risk Tendency. and Institute of
Human Kinetics Student Leader’s scores in the inventory obtained a mean of 3.04
with verbal interpretation of Neutral Risk Tendency. Therefore, signifying that
respondents have a neutral level of willingness to take risks despite of their
college.
For Statement of the Problem 4
Table 11. Risk Propensity Scale and General Decision-Making Scale Sex
Descriptives
The data in this table was used to determine the Significant Differences of
respondent’s score in Risk Propensity Scale and General Decision-Making Scale
in terms of their sex. Data includes the Group (Sex), N (Sample Size), Mean,
Median, SD (Standard Deviation), and SE (Standard Error) for each scale. Risk
Propensity Scale divided into two groups. Male respondents with a sample size of
84, obtained a Mean score of 38.36, Median of 69, Standard Deviation of 10.68,
and Standard Error of 1.64. Female respondents with a sample size of 170,
obtained a Mean score of 65.92, Median of 66, Standard Deviation of 10.17, and
Standard Error of 0.7800.
In the General Decision-Making Scale, Male respondents with a sample
size of 84, obtained a Mean score of 3.68, Median of 3.02, Standard Deviation of
0.485, and Standard Error of 0.0530. Female respondents with a sample size of
170, obtained a Mean score of 3.54, Median of 3.52, Standard Deviation of 0.407,
and Standard Error of 0.0312. This data determined that there is a significant
difference between the scores in Risk Propensity Scale and General Decision-
Making scale in terms of sex.
Table 12. Risk Propensity Scale and General Decision-Making Scale College
Descriptives
The data in this table was used to determine the Significant Differences of
respondent’s score in Risk Propensity Scale and General Decision-Making Scale
in terms of their colleges. Data includes the Group (Sex), N (Sample Size), Mean,
Median, SD (Standard Deviation), and SE (Standard Error) for each scale. Risk
Propensity Scale divided into five groups. College of Arts and Sciences Student
Leaders with a sample size of 42, and obtained a Mean score of 35.52, Median
score of 64, Standard Deviation of 11.06, and Standard Error of 1.70. College of
Business, Entrepreneurship, and Accountancy Student Leaders with a sample size
of 76, and obtained a Mean score of 67.82, Median score of 68, Standard Deviation
of 11.34, and Standard Error of 1.70. College of Education Student Leaders with
a sample size of 71, and obtained a Mean score of 65.37, Median score of 66,
Standard Deviation of 9.36, and Standard Error of 1.11. College of Engineering

and Architecture Student Leaders with a sample size of 60, and obtained a Mean
score of 67.83, Median score of 69, Standard Deviation of 10.02, and Standard
Error of 1.29. And, Institute of Human Kinetics Student Leaders with a sample size
of 5, and obtained a Mean score of 66.40, Median score of 64, Standard Deviation
of 6.95, and Standard Error of 3.11.
In the General Decision-Making Scale, College of Arts and Sciences
Student Leaders with a sample size of 42, obtained a Mean score of 3.48, Median
score of 3.38, Standard Deviation of 0.4155, and Standard Error of 0.0641. College
of Business, Entrepreneurship, and Accountancy Student Leaders with a sample
size of 76, and obtained a Mean score of 3.65, Median score of 3.60, Standard
Deviation of 0.4902, and Standard Error of 0.0562. College of Education Student
Leaders with a sample size of 71, and obtained a Mean score of 3.53, Median
score of 3.48, Standard Deviation of 0.3964, and Standard Error of 0.0471. College
of Engineering and Architecture Student Leaders with a sample size of 60, and
obtained a Mean score of 3.67, Median score of 3.62, Standard Deviation of
0.4317, and Standard Error of 0.0557. And, Institute of Human Kinetics Student
Leaders with a sample size of 5, and obtained a Mean score of 3.54, Median score
of 3.52, Standard Deviation of 0.2507, and Standard Error of 0.1121. This data
concludes that there is no significant difference between the scores of respondents
in Risk Propensity Scale and General Decision-Making Scale in terms of their
colleges.
Table 13. Post Hoc Analysis between Scores in Risk Propensity Scale of the
Respondents according to their Colleges.
This table shows the Post Hoc Analysis using the Tukey HSD. This test is
used to determine which pairs of colleges have significant differences in level of
Risk Propensity when compared to other pairs. All pairs with a p value that is less
than the significance level, which is 0.05, have significant differences from each
other. Based on the result, CAS and CED, and CBEA and CEA has a result of less
than p value of 0.0001, which shows significant result. However, the remaining
pairs of colleges obtained an p value that is greater than the significance level of
0.05. Therefore, this means that all remaining pairs are not significantly different
after all.
Table 14. Post Hoc Analysis between Scores in General Decision-Making

Scale of the Respondents according to their Colleges.
This table shows the Post Hoc Analysis using the Tukey HSD. This test is
used to determine which pairs of colleges have significant differences in Decision-
Making Style when compared to other pairs. All pairs with a p value that is less
than the significance level, which is 0.05, have significant differences from each
other. Based on the p value of CED and IHK pair has a result of less than 0.0001,
which shows a significant result since IHK is parallel to CED in terms of
specialization, which is education. However, the remaining pairs of colleges
obtained an p value that is greater than the significance level of 0.05. This means
that these remaining pairs are not significantly different from each other.
Table 15. Significant Differences between Scores in Risk Propensity and

General Decision-Making Scale of the Respondents according to their
Colleges.
The table above shows the results of the analysis on the significance of the
difference between the scores in Risk Propensity Scale (RPS) and General
Decision-Making Scale (GDMS) of the respondents when grouped according to
their colleges.
In RPS, the respondents’ scores obtained a p-value of 0.1953 which
accepts the null hypothesis. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the
scores in RPS of the respondents when they are grouped according to their
colleges.
In GDMS, the respondents’ scores obtained a p-value of 0.1349 which
accepts the null hypothesis. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the
scores in GDMS of the respondents when they are grouped according to their
colleges.
APPENDIX I: CURRICULUM VITAE
CAJUSAY, MARIEL A.
2020-100481@rtu.edu.ph
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND & ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS
Tertiary BS Psychology
Rizal Technological University
2020 - 2024
Senior High Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) With Honors
AMA Pasig Campus
2018 – 2020
Secondary Pateros National High School With Honors
2014 – 2018
Primary Capt. Hipolito Francisco Elementary School
2008 - 2014
WORK EXPERIENCE
Work Immersion
Golden Arches Development Corp.
People Department Assistant (2019)
Golden Arches Development Corp.
Service Crew (2019-present)
Special Children Education Institution

SPED Teacher Assistant Intern
December (2023)
SEMINAR & WORKSHOP ATTENDED
“Buzzing to Success: A PsycHive Venture WeBEEnar”
May 11, 2023
“Mental Health on Trial: An Introduction to Forensic Psychology”
May 22, 2023
“Dear Younger Self, You are Valid: Exploring the Benefits of Mindfulness-Based
Art Therapy on Stress Reduction”
May 26, 2023
“#YouMatter: Cultivating RTUista’s Wellbeing through Mental Health Promotion
and Career Development Programs”
Rizal Technological University (May 27, 2023)

CRUZ, CAROLLYNE S.
2020-100454@rtu.edu.ph
Tertiary BS Psychology Academic Achiever
Rizal Technological University (2020 – 2024)
2020 – Present Dean’s Lister (2020 – 2024)
Senior High Humanities & Social Sciences (HUMSS) With Honors (2020)
Kapitolyo High School
2018 - 2020
Secondary Kapitolyo High School With Honors (2018)
2014 - 2018
Primary Pineda Elementary School
2008 – 2014
WORK EXPERIENCE
Oranbo Elementary School
Tara, Basa Tutoring Program Learning
Facilitator
August 2023 - December 2023
New Era Summer
Pre-Kindergarten Program Teacher
April 2019 - August 2023

May 22, 2023
“Break the Cycle: Fighting Against Stigma Attached to Health Psychology”
May 27, 2023
May 26, 2023

PACAL, KIM JOHN L.
2020-100508@rtu.edu.ph
Tertiary BS Psychology
2020 - 2024
Senior High Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) With Honors
Mandaluyong High School
2018 - 2020
Secondary Mandaluyong High School With Honors
2014 - 2018
Primary Mandaluyong Elementary School
2008 - 2014
WORK EXPERIENCE
Youth Development Worker
Tara Basa! Tutoring Program DSWD (July 2023 – November 2023)
Customer Service Representative
Concentrix - Ticketmaster (June 2022 – January 2023)
Encoder
Freelancing (2020)
Work Immersion
Mandaluyong City Police Station (2019)
Program Committee Member (Technical Team)
Kabataan Kontra Droga at Terorismo (2019)
“Buzzing to Success: A PsycHive Venture WeBEEnar”
May 11, 2023
May 27, 2023
May 22, 2023
May 26, 2023

SY, YAEL NOEMI A.
2020-100523@rtu.edu.pH
Tertiary BS Psychology Academic Achiever
2020 - 2024
Senior High STEM (2018-2020) With Honors (2020)
Mataas na Paaralang Neptali A. Gonzales SSG-Auditor
(2019-2020)
Secondary Juan G. Macaraeg National High School With Honors (2018)
2014 - 2018
Primary Bacood Elementary School With Special Award
2013 – 2014
Binalonan North Central School (2008 - 2013)
WORK EXPERIENCE
Special Children Education Institution
SPED Teacher Assistant Intern
September 2023 – October 2023

“Research Colloquium”
May 30, 2023
May 27, 2023
May 22, 2023
May 26, 2023

The Relationship of Risk Propensity and Decision Making Among Student Leaders in Rizal Technological University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relationship of Risk Propensity and Decision Making Among Student Leaders in Rizal Technological University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

College of Arts and Sciences

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK PROPENSITY AND DECISION-

MAKING STYLES AMONG THE STUDENT

LEADERS OF RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

An Undergraduate Thesis Proposal Presented to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

Rizal Technological University, Mandaluyong City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Psychology

Kim John L. Pacal

This thesis entitled “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK PROPENSITY

Approved by the Board of Examiners with a grade of ____________

JOAN B. MARASIGAN, MA, RPsy, RPm

Accepted on partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

____________________ DR. RODRIGO DP. TOMAS, RGC

This research explores the complex relationship between risk propensity

and decision-making among student leaders at Rizal Technological University

(RTU). Employing a quantitative approach, the research aimed to shed light on

organizations, and the field of psychology.

A population of seven hundred forty-two (742) student leaders from Rizal

selected using convenience sampling. The study utilized a standardized risk

collected ethically using standardized instruments such as the Risk Propensity

obtained and stringent privacy measures implemented.

The analysis of the collected data revealed a predominance of a neutral risk

propensity among participants, as well as rational decision-making styles within

propensity and decision-making styles, no significant differences were found

The results show a significant positive relationship between decision-

understanding of decision-making processes in leadership contexts, but it also has

practical implications for leadership development programs in educational

Keywords: Risk propensity, decision-making, student leaders

surpass the challenges given to them.

and persevering researchers.

Their family's unwavering support, both emotionally and financially,

helped them push through.

guidance, assistance, comments, suggestions, patience, and expertise for the

success of this study.

Specially, Aljhose A. Almario, their former leader, for her influence,

M. A.C., C.S.C., K.J.L.P., Y.N.A.S.

Description of the Respondents .................................................... 39

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................... 8

Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents ............................................. 47

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

parts: the introduction, research problems and research objectives, theoretical

framework, conceptual framework, scope and limitations of the study, significance

of the study, and definition of terms.

In a contemporary and complex societal setting, individuals are consistently

Gaining insight into the relationship between an individual's propensity towards

risk and their cognitive processes for decision-making is of utmost importance in

order to enhance the comprehension of how individuals effectively traverse

correlation between risk propensity and the process of decision-making. According

outweigh the probable drawbacks or repercussions. For instance, individuals who

possess an increased awareness of risk pertaining to a certain decision will exhibit

a reduced inclination to undertake this risk, irrespective of their general propensity.

An alternative viewpoint is that risk-taking propensity pertains to an individual's

inclination toward engaging in risky behavior within a decision-making context (Ulfa

& Romadhani, 2016).

Risk propensity is a psychological construct that pertains to an individual's

proclivity or desire to partake in behaviors that carry a degree of risk or to make

has the potential to materialize in diverse domains of life, encompassing financial,

occupational, and health-related hazards. The concept under consideration

pertains to an individual's inclination towards risks and their level of readiness to

of risk within the context of academia is of utmost importance as it serves as a

catalyst for fostering innovation, expanding the frontiers of knowledge, and